Signature size

[Hawk]

Geh, some signatures are growing downright ridiculously huge here, so this is just a lil' friendly request for ya'll to keep them at a reasonable size.

If your signature takes up more space on the screen then most of your posts, then you might want to consider exchanging it for something less space-demanding.

Or consider writing more then one-sentence posts.

And if seeing your entire signature requires for the watcher to scroll down two full pages, then you're *really* stretching even my nearly infinitive patience.

 

[Fatuous One]

See, that's why I originally asked about this, waaay back when. :lol: Giving an indication of a reasonable size in the Rules allows for newcomers to know the limits. Not having anything in there encourages people to sig whatever they feel like (not that that's bad, but when it includes something that's 1000x1000, and 10mbs in size, well...).

Oh well.

 

[armedlord]

Man, I was considering to ask you to limit the size.

Actually, I forgot, or maybe it never came up, but what's your thoughts of being a reasonable size?

 

[Mereo Flere]

Well, you certainly know a forum's growing when you start to deal with these problems.

Reasonable is generally having your sig being smaller than your posts. It's supposed to be something that's just tacked on at the end, not at the forefront of attention.

 

[runestar]

In one of the boards I frequent, the setting is such that your signature shows up only in the 1st post you make for each thread(subsequent posts in said thread omit your signature).

I am not sure how popular this change would go down with the other members here, but it would allow for extremely huge signatures which will not end up cluttering the boards.

 

[yamaban]

How about:

• no more than 200 pixel in height and 400 pixel in width.
• if you use more than one image the sum may not exeed the measurements above

I also second runestar's idea of only one signature per user and topic.
Meaning as cited: Your signature shows only on your first or last post per topic

Thanks for bringing this forward. I had to disable [Show User Signature] in board prefs.

 

[nuclear death frog]

Heh. I get around this problem by just blocking out all signatures.

 

[PCHeintz72]

How about:

• no more than 200 pixel in height and 400 pixel in width.
• if you use more than one image the sum may not exeed the measurements above

I also second runestar's idea of only one signature per user and topic.
Meaning as cited: Your signature shows only on your first or last post per topic

Thanks for bringing this forward. I had to disable [Show User Signature] in board prefs.

Personally, I always wondered why there was not a size limit here.

That is not bad. I've been to forums that either have or had limits on SIG's and Avatars similar to the following:

a.SIG's, A maximum of 500x200 (Width x Height) pixels of image size and 50kb size.

b.Avatars, A maximum of 80x80 (Width x Height) pixels of image size and 6kb size.

c.Avatars, In the LiveJournal Forum a maximum of 100x100 (Width x Height) pixels of image size and 40kb size. Or at least, that is what it was when I signed up with them back in July 2005.

I think those, or similar, would be quite reasonable.

Of course, since I really don't bother with them, nearly anything chosen would be reasonable to me.

 

[ttestagr]

There is a size limit on avatars here already, 100x100 I believe. I wondered why there wasn't one for sigs as well.

 

[SimmyC]

Hawk never got around to implementing it... and for the most part, most of us have kept to the notion that a sig should be of a certain size (I think around 300 width x 200 height pixels). Basically, we're 'self' regulating ourselves.

But if it ever got out of hand, I'm sure Hawk would put his foot down. He didn't have to yet.

 

[Jakkun]

I think they can probably be a bit wider than 300. Someone just needs to figure out roughly how much space is there for a user that has 800x600 resolution, since that was the standard for design at one point. Not sure if anyone still uses that though.

 

[toraneko]

800x600 here.

More than 450 width screws with the width of posts, but best to stay on the safe side and limit it to 400 width.

As for height, I suggest 200.

 

[runestar]

Well, the idea was to come up with some sort of catch-all solution which would be able to cater not only to the normal members, but those who have a preference for large signatures somehow.

Though I admit the easiest way would be to just kick them out. :unsure!:

 

[Unknown-common-827]

While I will be probably the 19th person to say that ssaijin3's sig is made of WIN! I can agree that a limit must be implemented on signautres. Some of these are so out there that it's just annoying when you are trying to figure out a post, or the next thing. For example:

Random Person (no, not Random1337): "Hmm... what's the next portions of 'such and such' fic going to be li... JEEZ! That's a huge signature!... wait, what was I looking for again?"

 

[OniGanon]

I don't think we really need rigid pixel limits; just a bit of common sense should be enough to tell you that a banner shouldn't take up half the screen, nor stretch it horizontally, nor take 10 minutes to download on dial-up.

 

[runestar]

I think it is still better to delineate the boundaries clearly once and for all. This way, there will be no confusion and/or discrepancy on just what constitutes a reasonable signature size.

If Hawk ever feels the need to go that far, of course.

 

[SimmyC]

True. There are people that will 'always' break the common sense boundaries since... they don't have any in the first place.

But given how it is just now that this issue is starting to be brought up, we haven't been that 'bad' either. But as the forum gets more and more popular, I can see this becoming more of an issue too.

 

[Jakkun]

Semi-rigid limits should work. Like if an image is 5-10 pixels over, it should be able to slide since some stuff either can't be adjusted easily, or they don't have the ability to do so.

 

[ThreadWeaver]

I think a file size limit is an adequate idea. I always try to keep the sig file size small for those that may have slow connections. A max of 50kB is entirely reasonable. Mine's currently less than 25kB and is almost physically too large for what those here have been suggesting. I could have compressed it further but didn't want to pixelate the image.

300x400 (either wxh or hxw in this case) is not unreasonable either.

I really do like the idea that the writer's sig is only visible on the first post of the thread on a page. If it's only on the first post of a thread, I will never see them if I click on (jump to first unread). I don't know what rules it goes by in determining what posts have been read, but it's seldom very accurate. My understanding of the web though is that multiple instances of the same image on the same page only require the file to be downloaded a single time and duplicated by the browser, so this may be a moot point to save bandwidth.

 

[Mereo Flere]

Well, I'm sure that there's one thing we can all hopefully agree on.

Any sig that's two pages long is too long.

 

[Sanji Himura]

Another board that I go to has limits of 600x200 or 35kb(whatever is smaller.)

 

[Ringmaster]

While I agree with the concept behind limiting the size, I think that the greatest rule should be common sense. Ask yourself, "If someone else had a signature this long/size, would it bother me to have to scroll through the damn thing?"
If the answer is yes, then it's time to shorten up.
If it's two pages long, and the answer is 'no' then you're a spammer. Go away.

 

[Cornuthaum]

I hate stirring up relic threads, but some signatures here are so ridiculously huge that I had to go AdBlock on them - pictures with a height of 5xx-8xx have nothing to do in a forum signature >_<

 

[BlackSun]

I just block them all using the "board settings" under "My Controls".

 

[Cornuthaum]

I like signatures, oftentimes because of interesting links or funny quotes that make my day - its just that some threads devolve to 2/3 signatures and 1/3 spam (spam is ok )