Uhm.. Question, how many pixel for height is a normal sized text in a sig? | Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format |
| Initial D World - Discussion Board / Forums > Feedback and Support > Signature Rules Updating |
| Posted by: Perry Dec 16 2005, 05:34 PM |
| As you can see, people have been ignoring the Forum Guidelines -> Signature rules lately. 600 pixels are the maximum width you can have and yet I see people putting several small long banners together in a row and they add up to 1000+ pixels !!! This is outrageous. The Moderating Team here think it's time to put some order in this. So please adjust your signature to make it fit within 600 pixels width-wise. This only applys to images currently, but if you have some really long quotes, you should try to shrink it down a little. Remember, the 250 height limit apply to both images AND text. I will address it again after New Year. For now, please comply with the current rules. Much appreciated. Thank you. |
| Posted by: aftermath Dec 16 2005, 05:39 PM |
| Thats more like it. Uhm.. Question, how many pixel for height is a normal sized text in a sig? |
| Posted by: Perry Dec 16 2005, 05:43 PM |
| What I have in mind right now is 1 line of text = 20pixels. But that's not final, I still have to discuss it with Takumi Trueno. For now, we'll let you slide even if you have text that exceed the 250 height limit. The Public Service Announcement will be there in everyone's signature until I clarify the new signature/avatar rules again shortly after New Year's Day. Thanks for bring it up too, aftermath. |
| Posted by: aftermath Dec 16 2005, 05:45 PM |
| No problem Perry. Ill just wait for next year then. |
| Posted by: Phoenix_Cypher_K1 Dec 16 2005, 06:55 PM |
| Shrunk the text down of my sig to match the limit of 600 pixels. I know it doesnt apply to text (yet), but better safe than sorry. Is my sig alright now? :3 (Including height?) |
| Posted by: Perry Dec 16 2005, 07:03 PM |
| Yes. Thank you for your cooperation. |
| Posted by: BOZZ Dec 16 2005, 07:56 PM |
| So to double check, 1 line of text/space (i.e. an empty line with no text) is 20 pixels in height, and in total your signature cannot exceed 240 pixels, correct? So mine (100 px for the graphics part, 19 px for the userbar and 60 px for the text, which adds up to 179 px) is fine, right? |
| Posted by: Perry Dec 16 2005, 08:33 PM |
| Correct, correct. ^__^ |
| Posted by: MidnightViper88 Dec 16 2005, 08:59 PM |
| The PSA has a width of 606px... Isn't that breaking it's own rules?  |
| Posted by: AE86 Levin Dec 16 2005, 09:16 PM |
| im not would with measureing pixels...am i good height wise? |
| Posted by: AE86 RULZ !!! Dec 16 2005, 09:44 PM | ||
Me too, I know nothing about pixels. Am I good? |
| Posted by: Phoenix_Cypher_K1 Dec 16 2005, 10:01 PM | ||
That means I'm using the max possible height o_o 100 (pic) + [ 7 lines x 20pixels ] = 240pixels :3 |
| Posted by: InitialDRulz Dec 16 2005, 10:58 PM |
| Hmm, if i look at people signatures, they all have Public Announcement, whats the point of this? |
| Posted by: dmhc69 Dec 16 2005, 11:05 PM | ||
so that people update their sigs so they dont complain when they're removed completely. now nobody has an excuse. AE86 Levin -- your signature is 300px in height, excluding the "QUOTE" line. too big. AE86 RULZ -- your signature is 236px in height. you're fine |
| Posted by: Nero Dec 16 2005, 11:26 PM | ||
Just to announce to everyone that there's maybe gonna be some changes in the signatures size limit  Just to clarify, the signature can be 600pix height?? but what about the weight of it? Is there a limit ? |
| Posted by: dmhc69 Dec 16 2005, 11:38 PM | ||
the signatures is 600px in WIDTH. (ie. from side to side) the HEIGHT (ie. top to bottom) is 250px. so its a maximum of 600x250px for your entire signature block. the size of the signatures (ie. how big they are in terms of Kilobytes) is not subject to change. it's still set at 150kb for the image(s). |
| Posted by: akishiro Dec 16 2005, 11:41 PM | ||
weight? hmm.. 300KG perhaps... LOL!! i think the size was like 150KB.. i'll check the rules again just to be sure |
| Posted by: EA99 Dec 17 2005, 12:16 AM |
omg omg! im over? do quotes count?  |
| Posted by: akishiro Dec 17 2005, 12:29 AM |
| waaaaaaaaaaaaaay over dude |
| Posted by: dmhc69 Dec 17 2005, 12:30 AM |
| EA99 -- 280px high excluding the "QUOTE" line, and the spaces. |
| Posted by: InitialDRulz Dec 17 2005, 12:31 AM |
| Yes it does, try pressing Enter, that should work |
| Posted by: lllAE86lll Dec 17 2005, 05:46 AM |
| >.< every1 have that bar damn l0lz |
| Posted by: EA99 Dec 17 2005, 05:53 AM |
im scared  how do u guys measure how big ur sig is?  and i think im over  |
| Posted by: Takumi 86 Dec 17 2005, 06:27 AM | ||
mmn, U mean the bar such as in my siggy? If u want it, go to http://www.userbars.com just CTRL + A, & paste it into your Siggy Btw, if it's ok if my siggy like this? If it's too wide, i'll remove it ... Thx .. |
| Posted by: Perry Dec 17 2005, 06:40 AM |
| Do you know how wide one userbar banner is ? I answer for you, 350pixels. How wide is two userbars in a row side by side like that in your signature ? Let see, 350 x 2 = 700. Need I say more ? |
| Posted by: Evolution Dec 17 2005, 07:00 AM |
If you want to know if your signature is too big just right click the images and add up the pixels.....  |
| Posted by: Takumi 86 Dec 17 2005, 07:18 AM |
| Okay2 i had update my siggy Actually, i'm kinda lazzy to see how wide is 1 of my image, so sorry then ... geez dont be so harsh u so scary Perry .. >.<;; |
| Posted by: J2.0 Dec 17 2005, 09:26 AM |
is my sig ok, or does it have too many cars in it?  |
| Posted by: speedway_pinoy Dec 17 2005, 09:34 AM |
| Just to clarify,the warning is implying to Width-wise right? I guess I'm ok... |
| Posted by: Rudy Dec 17 2005, 10:09 AM |
| I've never had an issue with this rule, nor do I believe I will. I like tidy sigs. ^-^ |
| Posted by: MidnightViper88 Dec 17 2005, 11:46 AM |
| I hate giant signatures...The bigger they get, the more tacky they seem to be... |
| Posted by: dmhc69 Dec 17 2005, 06:16 PM |
| EA99 -- 280px high, excluding "QUOTE" line and blank line. too big. speedway_pinoy -- im pretty sure it applys to both width and height. in which case, your signature is too high -- 296px high, excluding the blank lines. |
| Posted by: Keisuke_Takahashi Dec 18 2005, 05:00 AM |
| wow, strict perry =) o well, hows mine?(i think its ok) |
| Posted by: Takumi_Drift Dec 18 2005, 05:23 AM |
| geez i felt like i started this by making my own custom userbars then every one else starts to use them and they make two columns = 700 Px SORRY PERRY!!!!!!! |
| Posted by: APX Dec 18 2005, 11:14 AM | ||
What do mean you started this? You didn't you just followed along |
| Posted by: Möbius Dec 18 2005, 11:20 AM |
| Is my sig still ok? |
| Posted by: aftermath Dec 18 2005, 11:25 AM |
| Hehehe.. now Perry put up a height limit banner. In which case is good so MODS can easily know if he exceeded & give proper warning points as soon as they see one. |
| Posted by: Takumi_Drift Dec 18 2005, 11:25 AM | ||
very True  |
| Posted by: Arcy Dec 18 2005, 11:36 AM |
| jes as long as my sig is smaller than phoenix cypher than I'm good. ...hahaha. |
| Posted by: MidnightViper88 Dec 18 2005, 11:54 AM |
| These temp. signature limit boarders are really cramping my style... |
| Posted by: aftermath Dec 18 2005, 12:00 PM |
| If they dont do that, control would be harder. Atleast everytime they see their post they're gonna see that & tell them if they are within limit and much more easier for mods to know ryt? |
| Posted by: MidnightViper88 Dec 18 2005, 12:04 PM |
| I wasn't being serious... |
| Posted by: BOZZ Dec 18 2005, 03:51 PM |
| You know in all honesty these new temp borders are not half bad... perhaps it should be made permanent (minus the text though) but with that light silver colour over on the side denoting maximum height... |
| Posted by: CrypticApathy Dec 19 2005, 07:34 PM |
| so how do we stop seeing that white box thing? |
| Posted by: Möbius Dec 19 2005, 08:24 PM |
| The sig limiters look really funny if someone has a centered sig... Edit  r maybe it's just my resolution... >_< |
| Posted by: EA99 Dec 19 2005, 08:46 PM |
| lol well they screw up my sigs quote quite a bit! its lost its touch |
| Posted by: darkpaladinzz Dec 21 2005, 07:37 AM |
| how high is the text anyways?? just checking so that i would be able to know how many bars i can fit in my sig.. |
| Posted by: BOZZ Dec 21 2005, 07:48 AM |
| Height of text was 19 pixels I believe... |
| Posted by: mujjuman Dec 26 2005, 04:47 PM |
| yeah i was over the limit, good thing i saw it as soon as this came up. i changed it right away. but i thought it was still too big so i deleted some |
| Posted by: Insidious Dec 27 2005, 02:53 AM |
| Perry, couple questions. What were the original signature limitations for? Why 600x250 pixels? What happened to removing signatures without notice? And you realize that standard text is 15 pixels in height, right? Yes, I know the answers to these, but I just want to clarify some things. |
| Posted by: Perry Dec 27 2005, 03:03 AM |
| Well, you haven't been on the board for awhile. So I don't blame you for not knowing what had been going on around here. Around the beginning of this month, a lot of people start putting userbars in their signature. A normal userbar is 350x19 in dimension. Everyone was putting two userbars in a row and thus exceeding the width limit by 100pixels. I removed some and left notes in their signature stressing that the width limit is 600pixels. I guess people just don't listen or read in this case. It didn't work out the way I wanted it to. I really had no choice but to enforce this temporary border limit thing. It's a lot easier for both the members and the Moderating Team to see if the signature is exceeding the limit. While standard text could be 15pixel in height, it still varies from browser to browser. I still haven't set the definite limit for text yet. I am thinking around 18 ~ 20 pixels per line, though. |
| Posted by: Indecisive Dec 27 2005, 03:10 AM |
| what happened to the image limit? I saw soembody's sig just now with a shit load of those gif cars.... |
| Posted by: Perry Dec 27 2005, 03:29 AM |
| There was never a limit on the amount of images you can have in your signature, as long as it doesn't exceed the width and height limit. |
| Posted by: Insidious Dec 27 2005, 03:57 AM |
| Well okay, me not being here has nothing to do with this. I got all of that from reading through this thread. And you didn't really answer all my questions, so I'll ask again. What was the original purpose of the signature requirement? Not the new one. Why is it set to 600 x 250 pixels? What's wrong with 700 pixels in width? I don't know what it looks like on your browsers, but they show the same text size on mine (both mozilla and ie) and its 10 pixels of text plus the 5 pixels of space underneath it (a total of 15). A space between lines would add another 15 pixels. |
| Posted by: Perry Dec 27 2005, 04:07 AM |
| It has always been 600pixels for the width limit. It was determined like this.. I used a 1024x768 monitor as the standard. If you open the forums in that resolution, the body of the forums content is only 90% of the width of the monitor. (90% of 1024 is about 900) Then the username and all those group/posts/join date takes up about 160pixels in width. (900 - 160 = 740) I figure I should give at least 100pixels buffer. So that's down to 640pixels. To make it even, I made 600pixels as the width limit for signature. |
| Posted by: Möbius Dec 27 2005, 08:24 AM |
And some people are still on 800x600  Edit : I think the sig rules are rather generous, maybe we need to go w/o limits for a couple weeks to show people the nonsense that sgis can grow into?  I remember looking at this message board that had a really high av limit and like no sig limit. There were people with AVs greater than the sigs here, and sigs that stretched like 2 pages long... |
| Posted by: aftermath Dec 27 2005, 02:23 PM |
| Hahaha.. thats insane Apex! I wonder how long it would take for 56kbit connection users to load a single page. |
| Posted by: (____(='.'=) Dec 31 2005, 01:38 PM |
Oops, at first I didnt see the pixel limit thing. But then I saw my warning level went up to 33% and I was like "WTF" but then I saw my sig had exceeded the pixel limit. Sorry about that  |
| Posted by: Evolution Dec 31 2005, 01:40 PM | ||
Your sig is still too big. |
| Posted by: InitialDRulz Dec 31 2005, 04:28 PM |
| Where is the dash line for the height?? i don't see it |
| Posted by: Perry Dec 31 2005, 04:49 PM |
| If you don't see it, then your signature is within the height limit. |
| Posted by: Inmate77 Jan 3 2006, 08:10 PM | ||
I propose something, I recommend that height limits vary per group. The highest group gets a higher limit than a lower group. Do you agree? Also, if members decide to use userbars, you should state the maximum amount of userbars that can be used for a signature (assuming they don't use any other images or text). |
| Posted by: Evolution Jan 3 2006, 08:24 PM |
| Too much work. We are a lazy bunch |
| Posted by: aftermath Jan 4 2006, 12:24 PM | ||
Avatars/Signatures aren't that important so it can be made to apply to everyone here in this forum. |
| Posted by: Möbius Jan 4 2006, 11:21 PM | ||
100% agree... |
| Posted by: Macher TX Ranger Jan 10 2006, 06:12 PM |
| I have a question. In this thread, it says the height limit is 250 pixels, but in my signature the bar thing ends at 200. Which is the height limit? |
| Posted by: Perry Jan 10 2006, 06:46 PM |
| I'll make an announcement soon with all the details. 250 will no longer be the height limit. |
| Posted by: InitialDRulz Jan 10 2006, 10:39 PM |
| [17:37] InitialDRulz: Perry, you know the signatures, whats the height limit? [17:37] PerryAE86: 200 its going to be smaller guys |
| Posted by: EA99 Jan 11 2006, 01:05 AM |
| *cries well what ever floats your boat |
| Posted by: Perry Jan 11 2006, 11:33 PM |
| https://idforums.net/index.php?showtopic=20032 - here are the details, please read. |
| Posted by: lynk26 Jan 12 2006, 11:10 AM | ||||
OK, I need some clarification after reading the details. It says here:
BUT, then it reads:
So basically, how I read it, the first quote says that everything in your signature has to be in that 600x200 pixel area, NOT including text, in which you say you can have up to 13 lines of text in the signature. But then the second quote contradicts what you said in the first quote, now saying that EVERYTHING (including the text) has to be in that pixel area. So, my question is, which one is it? |
| Posted by: Perry Jan 12 2006, 11:23 AM |
| The 13 lines of text comment was made in comparison to the previous rules for text. We used to be able to have only 12 lines of text in the signature without the presence of any images whatsoever. Many people were confused with the text rule, thinking they can have 12 lines of text in addition of having the 600x250 image space. When in fact, that was not the case. But we kind of let most people slide since the rules didn't stated clearly. Now with the new rules, we get 13 lines of text because each line of text count as 15pixels in terms of height. So 13 lines * 15 pixels/line = 195pixels < 200pixels. That's where the 13 lines of text comment came from. I stated that purely for comparison purpose only. To put it short, you can only have 13 lines of text in your signature when there are no images presented (unless somehow you put in a 5-pixel-tall banner or whatever.) Edit: I've changed the wording a little bit in the announcement, hopefully it's more clear now. |
| Posted by: lynk26 Jan 12 2006, 11:38 AM |
| OK, that makes more sense. Thank you for clearing that up . |
| Posted by: CrypticApathy Jan 14 2006, 08:24 PM |
| So how do we get rid of those annoying white bars? can you turn them on and off so if your sig is larger it will come on if its not then they stay gone? |
| Posted by: Perry Jan 14 2006, 09:22 PM | ||
They'll be gone by the end of this month. Some people still don't know about the new rules. |
| Posted by: dmhc69 Jan 23 2006, 08:46 PM |
| doh. i got warned. i guess it worked out well because i totally forgot about having to change my signature. so err... thanks? lol. |
| Posted by: InitialDRulz Feb 1 2006, 05:33 PM |
| hmmmm. the red bar is missing. thats bad, because now i don't know if i'm over the line |
| Posted by: [Project.D]-Demon Mar 13 2006, 10:34 PM |
| hey i didnt get warned and i got my sig removed whats up with that? |
| Posted by: Evolution Mar 14 2006, 06:52 AM | ||
Right click the image for properties. |
| Posted by: Möbius Mar 14 2006, 07:19 AM | ||
But you did get warned, about an hour before you made that post... |
| Posted by: EA11R Mar 21 2006, 04:08 PM |
| Since this is the signature thread, i hope you dont mind me using this to help me make my signature. allow me to explain. I made the attatched image on my computer with a very unique name. i'll post it here, just like this. i will then go on a search engine and look for its exact name, find it, open it up in a new window, and put the link to that window in the "signature" window in "my controls." Phew! Edit:Hmmm... it did not work. I shall think about this |
| Posted by: Perry Mar 21 2006, 04:17 PM |
| Attachment is solely for download only, you should not be using it as a upload place in the first place. There are tons of uploader sites out there. Try http://imageshack.us/ Oh, and I removed your attachment. |
| Posted by: Jer Sieu Mar 28 2006, 12:53 AM |
| perry.. need help.. is there anyway i can put my signature right in the middle? as in the center... I like my sig to be in the center than be at the left side.. >< |
| Posted by: Perry Mar 28 2006, 02:20 AM | ||
Use the center tag.
Hope that helps. |
| Posted by: Jer Sieu Mar 28 2006, 04:21 AM |
| thanks soooooo much!!! I really appreciate it... (dang it now so busy... cya) |
| Posted by: Kurei Apr 3 2006, 05:35 AM |
| Hey Perry, i see that some sigs have a red line going across them saying that they are too high, but i can't see mine, is the pic covering it ? If so please dont give me a warning without letting me try to fix it first lol j/k, how much smaller do i need to make mine ?, i'd like to keep my pic in the sig if possible Any help or advice will be appreciated Edit* nvm Apex helped me |
| Posted by: FinToy-83 Apr 3 2006, 06:03 AM |
| *wonders if his new sig is within the boundaries* |
| Posted by: Perry Apr 3 2006, 12:02 PM |
| If you don't see the red line across your sig, you are fine, within the height limit. However, if you do see a red line across your sig, please reduce the number of line of text in your sig or shrink down the dimension/size of the image(s) you have in the signature. Hope that clears up. |
| Posted by: FinToy-83 Apr 4 2006, 12:32 AM |
| well, there's no red lines there thanks! |
| Posted by: DeeezNuuuts83 Mar 3 2008, 11:27 PM |
| So my signature got removed... why? While I suppose the file size itself was somewhat large, it wasn't uploaded through the forum but through another site but just linked to it, so I don't see what the problem is. |
| Posted by: dmhc69 Mar 3 2008, 11:33 PM |
| the max. size limit for signature is 150KB. yours is 2826KB. nobody wants to load an extra 2MB of data just for a single person's signature. |
| Posted by: DeeezNuuuts83 Mar 3 2008, 11:40 PM |
| ^ Perhaps... but at the same time, I'd like to think that the main purpose of it was so that the forum's database doesn't get overloaded with massive signatures from each and every member. Like I said, it was uploaded through another site and isn't using up the site's resources. Maybe nobody wants to load an extra 2MB, but that amount of space is literally just a few grains of sand if you own a computer that is less than ten years old. Plus it seemed like other posters were digging the image anyway |
| Posted by: Nomake Wan Mar 3 2008, 11:47 PM |
| It was funny. But it's not so funny when you're loading a page and you have to wait a bunch of extra time just because of one person's sig. The real point of having a filesize limit on sigs isn't because of loading on IDW's server, it's because this is a message board which should load quickly for its users. When someone's sig is 2MB, that gets shot out the window. |
| Posted by: Perry Mar 3 2008, 11:48 PM |
| Usually, we are not too strict on filesize limit when it comes to the signature rules. 200KB, 250KB, .. etc, we can let you slide if you really want that. However, nearly 3MB gif animation is just a no no. Some people are still using dial-up (believe it or not) and some people just don't know how to take care of their new computers, a large gif file like that will lag their computers like no tomorrow. |
| Posted by: dmhc69 Mar 4 2008, 01:08 AM | ||
yeah, i saw it and i thought it was pretty cool. with a bit more compression, you could probably take it down to a nicer size but probably still not enough to be "acceptable" as a forum signature. speaking of which, just say i was to post DeeezNuuuts' removed signature in a post somewhere as an image. are there any rules regarding the filesize/resolution of an image added to a post? |
| Posted by: Nomake Wan Mar 4 2008, 01:11 AM | ||
Depends on where you are. The only place where you could post that image and it wouldn't be spam would be in the Art section, which has a guideline for filesizes and resolutions right on the top of the forum. |
| Posted by: Möbius Mar 4 2008, 04:56 PM |
| What people tend to forget is that the extra 2MB to load, is not only 2 MB. People need to stop thinking only for themselves, and need to start looking at the whole picture. Because someone's extra 2MB in his sig could be everyone's extra 2MB in their sig. 50 posts per page * 2MB = 100MB only for sigs alone. |
| Posted by: BlackSubaru Mar 4 2008, 06:52 PM |
| O.O At 5kb a sec, I'm not likely to do my browsing. |
| Posted by: DeeezNuuuts83 Mar 4 2008, 11:08 PM | ||
Relax, I'm not whining about it or arguing against the rules, I just wanted clarification regarding what happened and why. |
| Posted by: Tessou Mar 5 2008, 08:05 AM |
| Then a thread need not have been ressurected, since all the info you needed conveniently replaced your signature in the first place. |
| Posted by: DeeezNuuuts83 Mar 5 2008, 10:30 AM |
| ^ I read the link, it just wasn't completely clear to me regarding my particular situation. Yes, it does say that there is a filesize limit, but I figured perhaps it pertained only to images uploaded through this website as opposed to just linking another picture that doesn't use up idforums' resources. But then the mods had said that even linking through another website might use up other resources (i.e., people's own computer memory) that I didn't think about, so I got my answer. |
| Posted by: phn419 Oct 7 2009, 10:46 AM | ||
is this safe as my sig?
|
| Posted by: Möbius Oct 7 2009, 01:54 PM | ||||
Way too large at 1.2MB. >_< |
| Posted by: phn419 Oct 7 2009, 07:34 PM | ||
*cries* its allowed in wme forum! |
| Posted by: Tessou Oct 7 2009, 08:45 PM |
| ...and WME =/= IDW. Anything else? |
| Posted by: Nomake Wan Oct 7 2009, 08:50 PM | ||
It is? Holy crap I need to get back in there and start killing massive sigs. Freaking bandwidth hogs.  |
| Posted by: BOZZ Oct 7 2009, 11:39 PM | ||
This isn't WME... Just in case you hadn't noticed... different place, different rules... even though it's the same owner... |
| Posted by: Saint Oct 8 2009, 12:37 AM |
| It's rather strange to me that such size is even allowed in WME, because from what I read in WME, the rules for avatar and signature sizes are the same for both IDW and WME. But heck, I notice some use avatars way over 100kb in IDW anyway. |
| Posted by: Nomake Wan Oct 8 2009, 01:13 AM | ||
THIS. Seriously, it's time to go pwn some n00bs like the one in this thread. |
| Posted by: Pendulum Oct 9 2009, 12:35 PM | ||
Seriously, Air, over on WME had, like, 10 or 20 userbars in his sig. f**kING ANNOYED THE CRAP OUT OF ME! So I notified a mod and it got fixed.
WME is starting to get too lenient for me. |
| Posted by: Spaz Oct 11 2009, 03:47 PM | ||
I'd math it out and post it in the random thoughts thread every once in a while to get him to drop the size down. Never did. And yeah, I'm sick of the shit that gets to fly over there. I only check a few threads and leave these days. |
| Posted by: Lebon14 Oct 11 2009, 04:49 PM |
| About those rules, I think that the dimensions are alright. I've seen MUCH MUCH MUCH worse signatures where you had to scroll down a lot before seeing the next posts. For the size (i.e. KB,MB,GB...), I think with the high speed Internet available pretty much everywhere, I think that 1MB signature size would be a good limit. For the avatar, that's enough. I think nobody ever complained about it. So, it's perfect. |
| Posted by: Nomake Wan Oct 11 2009, 05:09 PM |
| A mere signature should NEVER be 1MB. NEVER. Half that at most. Same goes for avatars. It sounds like a neat plan to "limit" things to 1MB, but if there's say 25 posts per page and everyone has a 1MB avatar and a 1MB signature that's 50MB of useless crap. Halving that helps, but it'd be nice if everyone was under that. |
| Posted by: BOZZ Oct 11 2009, 05:49 PM | ||
I concur with N1, 1 MB is overboard... Especially since not everyone has unlimited bandwidth for their high speed internet connections. |
| Posted by: Nomake Wan Oct 11 2009, 08:28 PM |
| Yeah. For instance, my avatar is 100kb (though it was 300 in its original larger size, resized to 100px it's just a hair under 100kb), and my sig is 11 kb. Even my larger PNG sigs are 100 kb or less. There's just no real reason to have massive filesizes on stuff like that. Five userbars is about average and that's what, 60 kb? Maybe 100 if it's a rotating GIF, maybe? There's just no reason for such high numbers. It's irresponsible. |
| Posted by: Saint Oct 12 2009, 12:13 AM | ||
No way. 100 and 150kb is fair enough for me. 1MB will definitely choke my line up. You have probably not experienced the agony of having to wait for minutes for a simple page like Wikipedia to load. That's why I'm particularly pissed at people who exceed the limit allowed. Not everyone has the priviledge of high speed Internet line, you know. |
| Posted by: Tessou Oct 12 2009, 01:25 AM | ||
Are these signatures IMAGES or TEXT? Anybody can make a massive signature of varying rainbow colors out of text and it won't take up hardly any space. Images, especially animated gifs and flash files, take up huge amounts of space in comparison. Also, availability of a service and actually HAVING a service are two different things. Some people either don't care enough, don't want or just can't afford high speed internet. Lord knows, my parents just switched over from a 56k last year, and that's only because my brother pestered them for months until they cracked. Remember the little guys. There's lots of big guys out there with their T1s, DSLs and fiber optic lines, but they're blocking your view of the little guys that are also still in existence and want the same experience you're all having. Don't make them wait 10 minutes to load a forum page. Keep it simple. |
| Posted by: Möbius Oct 12 2009, 06:53 AM |
| Thanks guys, I wanted to post something along these lines in response, but figured it wouldn't look proper since I don't have an avvy or much of a sig anyways. But yes, chalk up one more for the "current limits" are fine the way they are camp. |
| Posted by: Alex Oct 12 2009, 12:16 PM |
| Anyone else think the guidelines are in need of an overhaul? Things have been changed and they still reflect some old news. We can't be yellin' in every new guy's ear "READ THE GUIDELINES!" if they aren't up to date. |
| Posted by: kyonpalm Oct 12 2009, 03:27 PM | ||||
...yeah, we could use an update. |
| Posted by: BOZZ Oct 12 2009, 04:09 PM |
| I don't think the rules are in any need of updating with regards to the signature and avatar limits. They're fine the way they are. The only thing I could see as being useful is maybe warnings for those who go over the limits. |
| Posted by: Alex Oct 12 2009, 08:03 PM | ||
The explanation of the Moderating Team is super old. We've changed that whole organization. Rules don't need to be re-written every day, but they need to be changed when changes are made. |
| Posted by: Lebon14 Oct 12 2009, 11:40 PM | ||
I agree with you Alex. You got it right.  |
| Posted by: Möbius Oct 13 2009, 10:24 AM | ||
I updated that part, thanks for the reminder. |
| Posted by: Dem Oct 17 2009, 09:32 PM | ||
I would personally love to be able to have a bigger avatar. 100x100 really isn't that large to begin with, and most of my avatars that I use for other forums are of a larger size (usually 120x120 or sometimes 150x150) but I can understand how it would all add up, especially if everyone has animated .gif for an avatar. Sigs...eh. I've noticed that most people don't really put too much time and worry into making their sigs look nice, so I could do without that part. |
| Posted by: Möbius Aug 10 2010, 09:23 AM | ||
Observation on that part : The location, etc. fields under the username are normally longer than the 150 width anyway, so this would not have a major impact as long as the KB limit is maintained as before. I'll support this idea.  |
