Sigs....

[JAG]

So... Tosa any chance of more charactors for sigs?

[therother]

I don't think we want threads being taken up with long text signatures either. There are tight restrictions on the dimensions (not just the file size) of signature pictures; if you have a 20-line poem as your signature, it will take up much more room than a picture 150 pixels in height. I suppose there could be a line restriction on signatures, but that would work against the use of longer poems, no?

I currently have signatures on, as I have a fast connection, and I like to see them. But if they start to take up more vertical room than the posts themselves, then more people like myself will feel compelled to turn them off, which would be a shame.

[TosaInu]

Hello,

VB doesn't offer a line restriction as far as I know.

I think that the regulations about signature pictures are both clear and fair. Yet, we already see pictures not matching those rules, not by a small margin but 10's or even 100's k bigger.

Allowing 500+ chars in signatures will offer the ability to create sigs with both huge pictures and huge text. More people will be forced to turn off this extra dimension.

I'ld be willing to look into this if people gave some thoughts about other users.

[therother]

VB doesn't offer a line restriction as far as I know.

Well, in v2 it was possible via various hacks, IIRC. Perhaps they didn't add the feature for the new version - can't check as the official site seems to be down at the moment. Not a great advertisement for their products!

[Mouzafphaerre]

-
Can my query about table tags help? IMHO if we had tables pics and text could coexist in adjacent coloumns saving vertical space.


_

[The_Emperor]

Wow another Sig topic to follow mine...

Personally I agree that signatures are currently rather lax. For my part I have tried to keep the file size down and the text as short as possible.

It would be great if we could have some file size restrictions though.

[TosaInu]

Mouzafphaerre .. the coin hits the lever Worth looking at this. Table tags are a dangerous thing for forum layout though.

Checking filesize would be nice.

[Mouzafphaerre]

-

Mouzafphaerre .. the coin hits the lever Worth looking at this. Table tags are a dangerous thing for forum layout though.

Could limiting the table width to a certain size or a certain percentage of the allocated message be possible, they would be harmless, obedient tags.


_

[therother]

It would be great if we could have some file size restrictions though.

It appears that Jelsoft haven't integrated that many tools for controlling signatures (both text and images) as yet.

The hacker community is still as active as ever though, and there are a number of mods for this area, ranging from fairly crude to quite elegant (and complex) solutions. This one (home site) seems to be widely acknowledged as the most promising solution for restricting both signature dimension and file size -- as well as a few secondary benefits -- but it seems to have one or two known issues.

Of course, all this is dependent on a number of factors, not least the amount of time our esteemed administrator can spend on the inevitable road testing any mod before putting it live.

[TosaInu]

I think that the regulations about signature pictures are both clear and fair. Yet, we already see pictures not matching those rules, not by a small margin but 10's or even 100's k bigger.

Allowing 500+ chars in signatures will offer the ability to create sigs with both huge pictures and huge text. More people will be forced to turn off this extra dimension.

I'ld be willing to look into this if people gave some thoughts about other users.

[TosaInu]

I think that the regulations about signature pictures are both clear and fair. Yet, we see pictures not matching those rules, not by a small margin but 10's or even 100's kb bigger.

More people will be forced to turn off this extra dimension.

[KukriKhan]

For our politeness-impaired members, allow me to translate:

The forum Admin has repeated himself (politely) twice over the past 9 days. I've known him since 2000, and never seen him double-post, much less triple-post.

Everyone should check their sig now for compliance with the stated Org standard - and spread the word that sig size and bandwidth will be scrutinized closely by staff. Voluntary compliance is preferred, of course.

Anyone with trouble bringing their sig into compliance can feel free to contact me or any other moderator - many of us have image-resizing software we can use to assist.

[Duke John]

So when can we start warning people for not thinking about others in a community?

Just give the call.
*finger twitches*

[therother]

Everyone should check their sig now for compliance with the stated Org standard...

Hint - there are a few in this very thread who aren't currently complying with the Org's standards.

Tip for the narrowbanders: you can turn off avatars, signatures and images by going into your User Control Panel (UserCP), select Edit Options, and scroll down to Thread Display Options. You can also alter the number of posts shown per page.

Depending on the cache settings of your browser, these options could improve page loading times significantly.

[Mouzafphaerre]

-

I think that the regulations about signature pictures are both clear and fair. Yet, we already see pictures not matching those rules, not by a small margin but 10's or even 100's k bigger.

It seems I'm the only fool to give up his signature images, work on designing new ones for precious hours to cope with the rules. Private or public hintings, even open discussions in certain boards do not trigger people to decrease their signatures' image sizes. Hitting the bad post button for each and every instance and having to explain to the moderator that the sig image is too big in size isn't convenient either, and makes me feel like a police informer.

Apparently, showcasing their artwork is more important to most peple than conforming to the rules of this community, which I thought were applicable to everyone, not just me.


-

[Gregoshi]

Mouzafphaerre, I don't think that being considerate of other patrons and following forum rules is the mark of a fool. Those with large sig images either aren't aware of the rules or think they are above them (and other patrons). The former is excusable, the latter is just plain rude. Unfortunately, to my knowledge, there is no easy way to police sig images and spot those in violation. I have to admit, right-clicking on every sig image I see is not the first thing I think to do when I'm reading threads. However, you should not feel the need to be the sig police. Having said that, should you see an illegal sig picture, your best course of action is to PM a staff member you feel comfortable with and let them handle it. Beyond that, don't worry about it and feel good that you at least are doing the right thing.

[Hosakawa Tito]

What Greg said. Being considerate of others by following the rules is not the sign of a fool, quite the contrary. Your hours of work reconfiguring your sig pics might have been tedious and frustrating, but the reward is that you also gained knowledge you didn't have before.