Sig height, perfect, but...

[chAosDaJuggalo]

width could be a lil more tho. I mean, I've got enough room in my sig's blank area, to put another, if that was permitted . I'm not trying to sound like an ass, but could some one tell me why the limit is 400, when there's so much free space? the height is fine, any bigger that way, and i could see it being a problem.
thanx guys.

[Dilligaf]

Width limit is 450, not 400.

So there ya go, you get an extra 50 pixels to play with

[chAosDaJuggalo]

Originally Posted by Dilligaf

Width limit is 450, not 400.

So there ya go, you get an extra 50 pixels to play with

lol, fair nuff, but that's still not a whole lot.

[Oyabun]

Originally Posted by chAosDaJuggalo

width could be a lil more tho. I mean, I've got enough room in my sig's blank area, to put another, if that was permitted . I'm not trying to sound like an ass, but could some one tell me why the limit is 400, when there's so much free space? the height is fine, any bigger that way, and i could see it being a problem.
thanx guys.

"Signatures - Only one image is permitted. Signature images will be tolerated within the following restrictions; 150px height limit, 450px width limit."

The limits are set to make the forums as easy to browse as possible.

Having multiple or a single massive image, whether horizontal or vertical in a user's post is distracting, unnecessary, and effects low bandwith users.

[chAosDaJuggalo]

Originally Posted by Oyabun

"Signatures - Only one image is permitted. Signature images will be tolerated within the following restrictions; 150px height limit, 450px width limit."

The limits are set to make the forums as easy to browse as possible.

Having multiple or a single massive image, whether horizontal or vertical in a user's post is distracting, unnecessary, and effects low bandwith users.

oh? ok. just wondering, what tha reason was, but
are they not all unnecessary tho. in general. i mean, a picture in a sig is rarely helpful in any way. As for the distracting part, do you know how long i stop and stare at your avatar? It's quite distracting, that may just be me tho.... lol
thanx.

[Oyabun]

Originally Posted by chAosDaJuggalo

oh? ok. just wondering, what tha reason was, but are they not all unnecessary tho. in general. i mean, a picture in a sig is rarely helpful in any way.

True signatures are really unnecessary.

They are more of a necessary evil.

Allowing a user to show off some graphic artwork or a quote in their sig to express themselves adds some personality to the forums.

Completely disabling them would more than likely make the forums less popular, and steer people away from them.

Originally Posted by chAosDaJuggalo

As for the distracting part, do you know how long i stop and stare at your avatar? It's quite distracting, that may just be me tho.... lol

It's a bit distracting. I get many PM's about it, but it's just an ice cream cone.

[but2002]

Originally Posted by Oyabun

....user's post is distracting, unnecessary, and effects low bandwith users.

Says the person with the smoothest animated, 1.3MB large animated GIF in their signature.

[chAosDaJuggalo]

ya know, its not as erotic in full.

back on the subject now.
Under UserCP, edit options, Thread Display Options, there are three boxes that can be un-checked, which will dissable the loading of users avatars (box 1), Signatures (box 2) and, Images (including attached images and images in [IMG] code) (box 3).

couldn't we just inform low bandwith users about this? I mean, i don't want a taller sig, in fact i think i'm gonna take it back down to 100px instead. just a longer one.

honestly, i really have given up on this for now, i just figured id finish my argument. thanx for playing.

[.:BioHazard:.]

Originally Posted by chAosDaJuggalo

ya know, its not as erotic in full.

back on the subject now.
Under UserCP, edit options, Thread Display Options, there are three boxes that can be un-checked, which will dissable the loading of users avatars (box 1), Signatures (box 2) and, Images (including attached images and images in [IMG] code) (box 3).

couldn't we just inform low bandwith users about this? I mean, i don't want a taller sig, in fact i think i'm gonna take it back down to 100px instead. just a longer one.

honestly, i really have given up on this for now, i just figured id finish my argument. thanx for playing.

Not that I really care but if I'm going to be 100% honest I kinda agree with you, I mean 600 or maybe even 800 would hardly stretch the page for anyone. Okay 640x480 and 800x600 resolution exist but is hardly common and pretty much half the web if not more is made for screens with at least 1024px width. But yeah that's just my honest opinion. Reolution of the picture is often not the biggest factor when it comes to large files slowing it down for dial up users since a 300x100 sig with a lot of colours and or a gif can be many times larger then a 600x100 picture that uses less colours and aren't animated, if that's the problem a size limit in bytes would be a lot more useful then in pixels, it's hardly impossible to check, there's even a built in filesize() function. And for distractions the content of the signature is often a much bigger factor here, a 32x32 pixel signature can be so much more distracting with the right content.

Even after saying that I still don't have anything against the current rule and I totally respect it but I can't deny that chaos got some valid points.

[Oyabun]

Originally Posted by chAosDaJuggalo

Under UserCP, edit options, Thread Display Options, there are three boxes that can be un-checked, which will dissable the loading of users avatars (box 1), Signatures (box 2) and, Images (including attached images and images in [IMG] code) (box 3).

couldn't we just inform low bandwith users about this? I mean, i don't want a taller sig, in fact i think i'm gonna take it back down to 100px instead. just a longer one.

Low bandwith users are informed about hiding images in the cp, and have been for quite some time:

http://www.psp-hacks.com/forums/f116...-read-t123262/

Having this limit set still allows low bandwith users to have an image or quote displayed in their posts.

They shouldn't have to disable it.


Large images for signatures look ridiculous and are absolutely unnecessary.

Signatures are intended to be a short end piece to a user's post, and should be low profile.


There's no reason for someone to have to look at massive images plastered in a user's post, especially if that user posts several times in a thread.

If members want to show off their artwork, we have a graphics forum for that.


Low bandwith users aside, as everyone has the ability to hide images, i'll set a new signature guideline (One image allowed):




If anyone's signature violates the signature guideline, it will be removed and they will receive a warning.

If someone doesn't have the artistic ability to make a nice looking sig within these guidelines, they can request one in the graphics forum.

Originally Posted by |Hultnér.

if that's the problem a size limit in bytes would be a lot more useful then in pixels, it's hardly impossible to check, there's even a built in filesize() function.

There is already a file limit size in bytes and pixels set. This however only effects usergroups who are able to upload signatures to the server.