Uhm... Am I the only one who would like some kind of restriction on siglines and how large (lines and/or pictures) they can be? I've seen some signatures here that were larger than an average post - and that's the signature-pic alone. Not only does it add to loading time, it's IMO confusng to look at. What's next? Merchants putting their banners in their sigs? (afaik that's not prohibited... hmm.. perhaps I should try?) On the site (raunchyminds) where I'm an admin we've kindly asked people not to use banners in their sigs. Smallish pics (about smilie-size) are allowed but nothing bigger) And when people are told please not to use a banner in their sig.. they ... actually comply. Another thing is people who has a whole, 10-line poem in their sig... As a rule, a signature shouldn't be more that 3-4 lines at most. (depending on a lot of things like screen size and -resolution) Everything else is just annoying. At least in my opinion. (oh and before anyone start a discussion about flashing avatars... I know I have an animated avatar. I have, however, tried to make it as far from "flashing" as possible. I don't want to induce an epileptic fit at anyone from flashing light into their eyes. But I still want tohe possibility of an animated avatar. They're fun, mostly. Like Casette's that, although I know it very well, is a hoot. Or Dr. Geep where, if you look closely, you can actually SEE what the good doctor looks like :o) )

My ava is animated too..but only his eyes move so thats not too bad..and I agree about the images in sigs...great big images get annoying after awhile..

It is one of the things being looked into

Angel1... (hey, there's a Star Trek episode called Angel One.. coincidense?! ) Does that mean that IF I want to have one of my banners as my sig, I'd better hurry? :lol:

:lol: Purely coincidence

Ah, but ernyoka1 - would you swap limited signatures for animated avatars? ;-) I agree with limited signatures. 5 lines No pictures No animations (bah, humbug) And my ZoneAlarm makes your animated avatars still, forever!!! ;-) (bah, humbug again)

gadzooks? no animated avatars with zonealarm? quel dommage :crying:

Quote - " 5 lines No pictures No animations "

I agree completely with this, pictures in sigs (especially animated ones) get on my nerves after a while. Although I saw someone had managed to block the stars in firefox, so it might be possible to block images in sigs as well?

Ditto....it's an annoyance....... I NEVER click on banners in sig lines & dont care to read a novel either. I get enough Spam in my inbox & via phone. Don't need it here...this all getting to "cutsey" for my taste.

Yes we are going to discuss this tomorrow in our weekly admin meeting. Thanks for the suggestions on some limits. I tend to agree with them as well. We'll let you all know.

Thanks :) Greatly appreciated :)

No problemo:)

Thanks Stac! :biggrin:

So what is the problem with people having images in their sigs? Just cause some people don't like them is no reason to eliminate them. There is stuff I don't like about the new format too but I am not crying about them. Renderosity is a pretty cool place to hang out .... but with all the whining and complaining it is not all that fun now. Mellow out people and accept this PHP layout for what it is.... don't try to revert it to the old bondware format. Give it an honest chance.... you will surprisingly find you like this new format.

Just to clarify......

Quote - "Uhm... Am I the only one who would like some kind of restriction on siglines and how large (lines and/or pictures) they can be? I've seen some signatures here that were larger than an average post - and that's the signature-pic alone. Not only does it add to loading time, it's IMO confusng to look at. "

What is confusing about it????? It is just an image. Do you get confused looking through the gallery too? Quote - "On the site (raunchyminds) where I'm an admin we've kindly asked people not to use banners in their sigs. Smallish pics (about smilie-size) are allowed but nothing bigger) And when people are told please not to use a banner in their sig.. they ... actually comply. "

This isn't the Raunchyminds site. Quote - "As a rule, a signature shouldn't be more that 3-4 lines at most. (depending on a lot of things like screen size and -resolution) Everything else is just annoying. At least in my opinion. "

Like you said.... that is YOUR opinion. Quote - "(oh and before anyone start a discussion about flashing avatars... I know I have an animated avatar. I have, however, tried to make it as far from "flashing" as possible. I don't want to induce an epileptic fit at anyone from flashing light into their eyes. But I still want tohe possibility of an animated avatar. They're fun, mostly. Like Casette's that, although I know it very well, is a hoot. Or Dr. Geep where, if you look closely, you can actually SEE what the good doctor looks like :o) ) "

So in essence if you don't like it... then Rendo should eliminate it and if you do like it they should keep it? I guess I don't get all the whining from so many people that are supposed to be grown up. :b_confused:

I'm going to suggest limiting images in sigs to no more than 120 wide by 60 high, and to restrict the text to 5 lines at the most. I could go into long and somewhat convoluted rationale's for it, but, basically, its a workable methodology that allows for people to have a pleasant image and or a complex signature without interfering with the informatin presented in a negative manner. OTher than that, the only restrictions I'm going to suggest are that the same ones that apply to adult site linking apply to siglines (no links to adult websites). well, all except maybe Raunchyminds...

Swade, when sig-pictures reach the humongous size of your horse-in-the-mist (otherwise a nice pic, don't get me wrong) I look at lit and think it's an attached picture. Something that belongs in THAT post. Sig-pictures shouldn't take up more space than the post itself and pictures this size often DO (unless you're usually making posts at 100 lines.. I don't know you, so ...) And excuse me but I fail to see why/how this is "whining"?! I was asking a question, proposing something. Is that whining? I guess I should get me a new dictionary then. And y'know: I'm fully aware that this isn't Raunchyminds, thankyouverymuch. I was using that as an example of how a polite request often works better than a draconian order. But I guess you don't do "polite" very well...

"humongous size of your horse-in-the-mist (otherwise a nice pic, don't get me wrong)" It's 62k, which is big (it could be compressed much more without definition-loss), and anyone on dial-up is going to find the pages loading very slowly if sig pics that size get to be a general habit. It is a nice pic though :)

Not only is it 62k..its 410x160. I really dont care for images as sigs..for the very reason alot of them can get quite large, and detract from the post..and if we have the option of avatars, why do we need images in our signatures? I would think most would reserve the sig line for something more useful like a personal website link, or even a witty phrase..a couple lines maybe...anything larger than that would also detract.

I agree with limiting the size of signatures, ideally to 0x0 pixels.

I wonder what Freud would have said about a person's need to have a large image as their sig?????

I really love my AdBlock Plus Firefox extension ... one right click on the sig image, added to the filter list, refresh and away with it. I just hope someone comes up with a UserBlock extension ... wouldn't that be nice?

Quote - I really love my AdBlock Plus Firefox extension ... one right click on the sig image, added to the filter list, refresh and away with it. I just hope someone comes up with a UserBlock extension ... wouldn't that be nice?

If there were such a thing as a UserBlock......  You definitely know I would be blocking ALL the WHINERS and COMPLAINERS!

LOL

:b_grin:

Quote - Not only is it 62k..its 410x160.

Considering Banner Ads here at Renderosity are confined to 468 × 60 and 21kb or is it 25kb? - that sig size is over the top.

Why are banner ads restricted to that size? In consideration of other people and page load times...

I suggest Rendo look at enforcing a maximum size on sigs....

400x156 now......Im going to go get that adblock extension...

Quote - 400x156 now......Im going to go get that adblock extension...

If you are using Firefox - just right click on the offending image - you will find it is hosted on the members's own server - choose block images from...

Only problem with that option is that if it is hosted by Geocities, etc you will be blocking all images from that domain.

However if like me, you have a limited bandwidth (20 gb or whatever) per month internet plan or you pay for the amount of MB's downloaded, then you will soon realize that all those 65kb "sigs" all add up over the month and if everyone had one at say 30 replies per thread, 200 threads per day........ Hmmmmm

Well you guys can do the math.

Ooooooo.....I LIKE this extension :thumbupboth:

However if like me, you have a limited bandwidth (20 gb or whatever) per month internet plan or you pay for the amount of MB's downloaded, then you will soon realize that all those 65kb "sigs" all add up over the month and if everyone had one at say 30 replies per thread, 200 threads per day........ Hmmmmm

No doubt...altho I dont have a limit..I could see where one image spread over several posts could become a problem who have limits....

** I just hope someone comes up with a UserBlock extension ... wouldn't that be nice?**

Not only nice...but heaven in some instances LOL

I love - and use - AdBlock, but as for the bandwidth... aren't such pictures cached? At least you can set them to be, and thus only download them once. Seriously for the limited bandwidth-users, the stars are a bigger problem, since they can NOTbe cached, they're loaded anew every time you encounter one.

But I'm glad that AdBlock gives me an easy way of getting rid of huge sig-pics. It's just a shame it's necessary...

I've seen sigs that would make your head explode they're so big but adblock does wonders for those huge bandwidth suckers.

:b_grin:

Should prove interesting to see what they decide...