Cpnhelp.org

Bump.

I'm wondering why folks would vote more for the "old way" of sig lines when we have such a great new updated way now?  I guess it's true folks just don't like change even if it's positive.  Let me explain my thoughts here so before any of you vote or those of you that have voted for the old way might reconsider?  Old Way: The only way a person knows if someone's sig line is current is if they are looking at a brand spanking new post from that person.  Any previous searches or reading an old thread or posts in that thread of someone that has changed their sig lines to reflect their current treatment plan would be incorrect now.  New Way: Any post you read at the moment reflects what one is doing NOW.  Oh, and of course with this new way of updated sig lines we have our sig line in an initial posting or blog entry to boot!  OK, that's my nickel's worth!  I think you can all guess how I voted!  LOL

Reenie, The new module changes the signatures on posts all the way back to the first postings of the original setup.   Makes the signatures inappropriate to the content of the post.  I can attest to my benefit at reading signatures over this past year in my own situation.The therapeutic interventions listed in the signature with the new module are out of synch with the therapeutic interventions that the user had in place and can be relevant for interpertation of the older material.   A source of lost information to change with each and every update of a signature.  IMHO.   Might as well erase the old posts for clarity! 

Donna, Maybe this has more to do with what one is used to.  The previous protocol I was on had the same sig line setup and I never felt it was an issue reading old posts with the new info.  Everyone was aware that the sig lines were always current even while reading old posts. 

Yes I understand that with the Marshall Protocol it was dictated by the site sponsor?  Here it is an evolving process and there are pearls of wisdom in them old posts!  

Donna, The type of software used for the site "dictates" alot of what is and isn't doable on any site. That function of automatic updated sig lines was built into the software not mandated or dictated by a person although they do have other site owner controls over there for sure! 

Reenie, the person that you need is the person that adds the free access Drupal software which supports this particular site.  As freeware, it is free softwareand therefore the new module is what it is, take it that way or not take the change at all at this point, until another free change comes along to improve upon the free software available.  If you want to call on JimK to discusss this and tell him how to do it feel free. 

Uh, no, I don't feel JimK needs me to tell him how to do things, I'm just putting my nickel's worth of comments in for those that are not comfy with the change and why I feel it's good to have the sig lines updated which is what we're voting on in this thread. I think that partly what makes for a very great community here where we have a vote and can voice our opinions and so I am! BTW, by adding comments, it also keeps this thread on top w/o bumping!   

Reenie, I am compfy with the change except that it obliterates history that can be useful in the future.  Seems to me that you are not understanding the concerns around the unwanted aspects of the change that went along with the desirable aspects.   The nice thing is that we can continue to banter this on and on and on if done nicely.Good day to you Reenie.

Hi Donna, Banter done nicely... OK. I prefer to use the term debate as we see by opposing candidates. FWIW, I'm not missing anything nor missing your point, really. You'll have to take my word on that. In fact, it can be totally rectified (seeing what folks have had in their sig lines in the past vs currently) by using the really nice "strike out" feature many do, you know, that little "put a line thru it" that you see in some sig lines!I think this actually gives a more accurate picture rather than having various sig lines posted all over the place for the same individual.  It's hard to disseminate which is the current sig line, IMO.  In fact, I used to store a word document on my pc so I would have a log of all past sig lines I posted on the MP site along with my personal journal as I do now for CPn. BTW, the reason I'm continuing this debate is that many folks will only read and won't post but it helps them make up their own minds when voting if they hear both sides of the debate!

Strikeout won't work.  The signature is limited in length.

What happened to the sig lines now?  I don't see ANY! 

Reenie, I am in the habit of checking the date of a post when I read it as a good reference of when it was written.   Posts written in 2006 that give signature references to 2008 are to say the least out of synch. And the debate goes on.  As you say just to share observations, with those less observant?

It's true, most of the way signature lines operate in forum based websites is built-in to the software that runs it. A lot of them update all past posts any time a new sig is put in. It's assumed that this keeps the way the person wants to represent themselves, motto's, pictures and the like, current. We have a slightly different situation since our signatures are meant to convey information about what protocol one is engaged in at the time of post so that others can respond appropriately. As it is, there doesn't seem to be drupal module that does both: keeps signatures "as of posting" and puts them in blogs as well. It might be that the person who made the signature module would do some custom coding for us and make it so. We have the money to do this, and I can check it out when I get the time.

Seriously though... where are the sig lines in this thread?  I thought they were here when we began.  Am I mistaken? 

Ah, I feel vindicated.    I only add a signature when I think it's pertinent to my post, which is rare, and I type it in manually each time, as part of the post, so mine will remain germaine to the post no matter what is ultimately done to the 'official' signature lines.  For my two cents, worth, though, I feel the signatures should revert to the old way, if the only alternative is to have old posts improperly and erroneously 'updated'.    I embrace change, but not for the sake of change.  If it is beneficial, then it's great.  I just don't see how it can be beneficial to try to relate someone's current treatment protocol to their two year old post asking for input, assistance, advice, research, and referencing their signature (how many times have we seen, 'see below for my list of meds') when their signature now shows something totally alien to the topic.    

Bumping...

well, I voted for the new one & changed my signature.  Either way, doesn't matter much at the end of the day.I just like thing to work, that's all!  

Aren't the old sigs lost now anyway?

No, they still are available should Jim disengage this module and we could return to the previous module which is still on hold as he stated earlier.   He also stated that he is contemplating the possibility of asking for some individualization of the module by the creator but that is just a thought and may or maynot be possible.    Try looking at some of the initial postings back in 2005 and 2006 and see what a signature from 2008 cando to confuse things.I recently found a really good post from 2006 regarding DHEA with a write up by DW and it would have been nice to see the signatures in the correct time frame to that worthwhile post. 

I agree with Louise.... this isn't an issue of what "I" am comfortable with viewing.  It is an issue of history and tracking what a person has done (how they have treated) and comparing it to where they currently are.   It is of historical value to maintain the old signature lines and well as following an individual's treatment and progress ( But then, the signature lines  are also only as good as the individual who keeps them current and correct.)I personally feel it should be a responsibility (requirement?) of anyone on this site who is voicing their opinion or stating their experience  to others regarding the protocol or their treatment experiences, to HAVE to have a signature line indicating their DX as well as what they are taking.Taking advice from someone who without knowing their dx and protocol would make me a bit cautious about listening to them since I would have no idea how that person was treating or what they have (had).For what it's worth....Jeanneroz

The signature line is a great resource.An upfront tool for seeing who's taking what, and, with the cross out feature, who's tried what. Then I can PM and ask why they stopped, etc. As a newbie goes through the site they can identify the path many folks take. I found it really interesting and helpful. So, if the old signatures are not reinstated it would be quite helpful then for folks to post everything they've done and use the cross-out feature to indicate what is not in play. Having a signature line longer than 3 lines would likely be a good thing in that scenario. 

The current version is fine with me except that when a second post is generated, the system returns an error message suggesting CAPTACHA reuse, but allows the post anyway.  Whatever the result of the survey, this error must be corrected.

Bit too foggy to understand the difference to day - ahhh bless.  But wish there was a line between post and sig.  I keep carrying on and read the sig time after time,