Hello all that are interested.
There are 2 things going on with watermarks: a signature of recognition (the good) and a watermark to prevent theft (the bad or ugly). LOL!
First of all, I personally like when an artist signs their work, just the signature, which includes photographers. It's expected for painters, sculptors, etc. so why not photographers? I like knowing who did the work, who the talent belongs to and how to find more of their work. I do have to mention that I prefer it to be minimal, un-distracting, in good taste and no logo involved. Just a hint of a signature/watermark because the signature is not on show, the photo is.
Secondly, I don't think I'm too concerned with someone stealing my photos and it's hard to completely prevent it. Why bother trashing a great photo with a huge, ugly watermark of your signature, logo or etc.? This just turns people off. Basically, if someone wants to download my (low res image) and use it on their desktop or screensaver then I'm fine with it, I'd be flattered. Even if they want to share it online somewhere I would be fine with it as long as they gave me credit as the photographer and a link to where they got the photo. I would greatly mind if they tried to take credit for my work and tried to make money from it in any way shape or form. That is theft, that is wrong and that takes money away from the photographer/artist.
If for display only, you should post low resolution images online which prevents theft since you can't make large prints with them. And if you sign your name to your work then a legitimate person that is interested in using/buying your work will be able to find you. Which also involves including the proper metadata in all your images (copyright, contact info., etc.).
Of course this is only my opinion and everybody has their own.