Hi:

Sometime ago the issue of sig pic sizes came up. Many thought that they were getting too big. The issue was resolved by setting a maximum for one's sig---1k bytes. Also, HTLM was disallowed in sigs. Anyway, its looks to me like sigs are starting to grow again. Mods, if interested, then please check it out. I don't want to provide any examples. I know that my sig, as below, was adjusted to satisfy the maximum at the time the new dimension became required. And, thus, unless I need my glasses changed, then something has gone wrong. Note that I wouldn't mind increasing the size of my sig. I'll start working on my new one right away. One has to remain comptetive, right?

 

Unfortunately there really is no fix for this signature problem with the current software. We could limit the length of characters allowed but can't restrict images. I could disable the BB Code which would disable the img code but that would also disable the URL code and any other codes people might have used. I wish there was a way to just disable that img code. I personally feel that images don't belong in signatures -- that's what the avatar is for and/or profile picture is for.

 

Thanks Mark. I agree with all you say except that I like to think of one's sig as providing the opportunity to add a little flash and some creativitiy. Regardless, what if you posted a sticky in the main forum giving "the rules" and asking for voluntary compliance? You also could request that those noting "size problems" refer the "violators" to the sticky. Without taking some action, I think that a run-away train is approaching.

 

Here come the rules again...

What about a rule: NO pics in sigs!


I find ALL pics in sigs annoying, since I think they don't belong in signatures!!! It's a signature, not a creativity field!

Some people have problems with you sigs too, Don. You don't only have pics in your sig, they are animated. That's just as annoying as a pic itself...

I even reduced my TEXT ONLY signature since it was waaaay too long, and it was only the specs of the car.

 

I think your proposed rule would be a good one if that is what Mark and Dave want. Yes, people will not agree on what sig boxes are for, etc. That is why rules, as we already have, are needed. Regardless, my sig box follows the rules. What we need now is enforcement of the rules. If Mark and Dave don't like the existing rules, then they need to let us know what they want and provide enforcement means. I don't think that your reply to me addresses the issues I raise. As I have mentoned to you before, I think in terms of principles and not in terms of whether I don't like Charlie's sig and you don't like mine. I am sorry to have to need to again.

 

I don't think voluntary compliance would work and it's surely not something we want to enforce on a case by case basis. I searched around on google and found other forums with such rules. Apparently there's some kind of add-on code which would allow us to limit the number and the pixel size of signature images. Perhaps that's something we should consider.

I'm starting to change my mind about banning signature images entirely. The forum would be pretty plain without them and we certaintly don't have a problem with space restrictions nor bandwidth use. I'll keep searching around for that code. What I found was for an older forum version which wouldn't work.

 

Your plan is the one that I advocate. Thank you for your thoughtfulness. Here is a link to another forum that I post on somewhat regularly: Deleted. I don't know what mechanism they use, but it is completely effective. Surf the site a little; you may like some of the sigs. You may bump into Znod's. And, of course, some are not so good. Overall, I think that the art work improves the site, but, you know, one man's trash is another's treasure. Anyway, the main man on the site is .Willaim. I like him and think that he might provide some easy insights. Good luck with your plan--assuming you decide to put it into play. I want to redo my sig, but I may wait to see how the plan goes. Thanks again for your thoughtfulness and also for your responsiveness. and

 

I have found a good mod to do what we need. The functionality of it includes:

. Allow/Disallow links in signatures
. Limit the number of lines
. Limit number of characters per line
. Limit the number of images
. Limit the size of each image (size & dimension)
. Limit the total size of images (kb)
. Show once per topic page?
. Only show signatures in specified forums
. Not show signatures for specified groups


The issue now becomes, what kind of limits do we want to impose? I hate to be a dictator here. It seems to me like the most important setting is limiting the dimensions of images and the number of them. The goal here is not to punish anyone but prevent these super-long signatures from occuring.

So, initially I'm thinking about these kind of limits:

1 image max
500 x 125 max pixel size
50 kb max image size
10 lines max
250 characters per line max

I browsed through many posts and think these settings shouldn't affect anyone too badly. The idea of limiting the images is to control the overall length of signatures so I had thought a height of 125 px is fair. I believe current signatures would remain unmodified by this mod however new signatures and edits would have the limits imposed.

What do you guys think?

PS. This all depends on your monitor and resolution. So, what monitor resolution are most of you using? I imagine most are using 1280x1024 by now? If not, atleast 1024x768?

 

I think your plan is good and very fair. I use 1280 X 800--the max for my laptop. My overall comment is:

 

I use 1366 x 768 (widescreen). I personally think that 125 is too low for the vertical pixels. My current DFB logo in my sig. has 150 vertical pixels and my car's pic. has about 250. Somewhere in between the two would be nice, but I will change my sig to whatever you guys decide, even if the mod doesn't affect existing sigs.