New Signature Size Restrictions

[Sl!m]

Doesnt work like that

Even here on 24000/1000 it can take a good few seconds to flash up a page sometimes when people linking silly .GIF's form imageshack or something slow as a snail.

hint hint steve!!!

[Marsss]

i just tried making a new sig but all it's doing is take me to the link that i've added there...so i can't change it... could someone just delete the whole thing for me please?

thnx

[Bec]

- I need to redesign my event tags, coz they are too long with the new size restrictions.

[funkymonkey]

lol Bec, I noticed your sig being a lil cropped off... was waiting for an abusive message from you

[342Four]

i reckon its a bit sucky that my movember support logo has been cut in half, but oh well, you cant win em all

[syx]

you have the width set to 550, why not set the width bigger ie. 700 to fit on the "standard minimum res" of 800x600 (i would argue that this would be 1024x768 these days and that 900 width would be fine) this gives people more room, Hi Bec, to have wide sigs that will not take up any more space on the screen

I think you want to encourage people to have wide sigs as opposed to high ones imo

[Abo Bob]

I dissagree with promoting wide sigs as it can make you have to scroll across to get to a button like Add Reply.

Can you please just make the limit a bit longer funky?

[funkymonkey]

well I calculated 550 using an 800x600 display, which allowed for the sidebars n errthang to fit nicely. I know 1024 is probably a more realistic width in the household, but we still have to cater for the lowest common denominator. and if you're using anything lower than 800x600 you need to move out of the cave.

550's actually more than what most forums allows as width for signatures... I mean... we are talkin about signatures here... which are supposed to be short n catchy.

[Bec]

Can you please just make the limit a bit longer funky?

+1

I mean... we are talkin about signatures here... which are supposed to be short n catchy.

says he with an animated gif as his sig

Its like giveing candy to a child and then taking it back

If we never had large sigs to begin with, then it wouldnt be an issue. But we are used to a certain 'way of life' now, you cant take them away. Why - coz i said!!!

LOL - j/k - im just being a pain, im happy with whatever you guys decide is best.

(But a smidge wider would be tops)

[funkymonkey]

i'm guessing another 20 pixels more shouldn't hurt... any more than 570 and you introduce horizontal scrollbars on 800x600 displays.

[Sl!m]

people who use 800 x 600 should be inconvenienced anyway

btw.. the restrictions dont seem to work on my machine at work using IE6. thought it was just cache, but i can see changes and updates to signatures so yeh..

[impact_blue]

Yeh okay I get why mine was all chopped off. I'm a little manky that I can't have a mass of crap in my sig anymore. But if that's what you're doing then you shall rue this day... well go on, start rueing!

[dano4127]

not much point to all this though if we dont have a kb limit!

i constantly am seeing huge images cramed into avatars and the like which im sure if you were using dial up or on a busy network would be ghey

[R31Nismoid]

If you see a large sig (GIF) drop a PM to an Admin.

You'd be surprised how many people do

I get about 5 or so a month on average and i have no problem in helping out as sometimes ive found 2.5mg GIF's that (when im capped), make me a very sad panda.

[Victory]

I cannot believe that anyone still uses a resolution of 800 x 600. I thought that I was doing it tough trying to cope with 1440 x 900 in this day and age.

I have cut my signature down yet again and it is still being cut off - I do think that you have gone just a little bit too far with the restriction.

[R31Nismoid]

To everyone saying its harsh...

See the board rules:

http://www.skylinesaustralia.com/forums/boardrules.html

# Keep signature images to within 600x150 pixels

# Combined Text and Image signatures to be kept within 600x200 pixels

All that's occurring here is enforcement as people just abused it more and more to the point where Admin couldn't police it any longer.

On a weekly basis i would see sigs around the 600x400 mark, i kid you not.

It was becoming more and more common place for users not to care about board rules designed to keep the board performance up.

So basically its like anything in life. The few that abused it totally ruined it for the majority.

A sig that was say 700x220 i would let slide... but 600x400 occurring once a week for me was just unreasonable and as Admin i dont feel my time should be spent sending nice PM's to people about their clear disregard for a basic rule, and one of very few rules we actually have on this board compared to many others

We have the rules to keep the forum fast

And since the requirement to move to a US server, this has only added to the need to keep things in trim terrific order.

The board/site in the last week has had lots of time spent on it, and each little thing adds up to one big one - a super fast SAU for 400-500 users at any given time

[funkymonkey]

the restriction that I put in was more to do with visual clutter than it is about speed. just trying to cut down on the mass of crap that follows each post that detracts from the content.

as I said this isn't permanent and i'm open to feedback.

lol i'm running on 1680x1050 and even thinking of going back to a 800x600 gives me convulsions...

by the same arguement of space restriction vs size restriction, if you're not on broadband then you should upgrade... unfortunately this isn't a viable option for everyone, so we need to try n keep the kb sizes down too... unfortunately controlling the size of sigs hotlinked to the forum is near impossible. avatars on the other hand isn't too hard... just have to force everyone to upload their avatars instead of hotlinking it. inconvenient but possible.

sammeh... the restriction is done using an external stylesheet, so the style sheet might still be cached.

try loading this page and the doin a ctrl+shift+refresh:

http://www.skylinesaustralia.com/forums/st...ages/css_17.css

for those of you guys running firefox with greasemonkey, its easy to intercept and hack this file to remove the sig restriction (dunno why you'd wanna) but it'll only be for that PC.

In any case, I've upped the sig size limit from 550x150 to 600x200 as per the rules (lol I didn't actually read em, thanks Ash)

[Sl!m]

Still no change, but the cache might not be on my machine might be the work proxy.

The one thing I dont like about the sig restrictions is that it doesnt allow you to allign your signature left centre right etc.. its all left

[funkymonkey]

yeh i know... shits me as well

[342Four]

the only reason why im running a 800*600 screen is because im on a 12" screen on my laptop......