Where Did Your Sig Go? Options

[Coomer]

It's gone, for the time being...signatures are being reformed so that we no longer have to suffer through waiting for everyone's large signature images to load. In the near future(hopefully later today), images will no longer be allowed in signatures.

Avatar settings have changed to allow for images up to 90x70 pixels, rather than the smaller 64 x64, but animations are still not allowed.

Feel free to discuss here in this thread. I'll go into my reasons for this if you guys want.

[Mynzeyes]

...why not just put a restriction on the size?

no image sigs is pretty lame...i mean, people with slow connections can complain all day about having to wait, but then again, people with fast connections that it doesn't bother can complain about not being able to have them.

iono, just my opinion, but it really doesn't matter. i just think the size should be restricted, instead of just taking them completely away altogether.

i mean, i understand it's your site and everything, but you didn't even take other people's opinions, such as even discussing it in the mod forum. unless you're doing this because of a couple posts in the sig thread here in the web discussion forum, this is basically out of the blue.

please post your reasons, i'm sure others will want to see them, besides myself. because i think it's unnecessary. it's not our fault some people have sub-par internet connections, i dont' tink you should have to cater to their out-dated services.

-John-

[dstrbcelica]

i agree with john. i want my image sig. back. why not PM some of the ppl with the large sigs and tell them to resize them instead of punishing us all? i don't it's fair at all.

-dstrb

This post has been edited by dstrbcelica: Mar 8, 2005 - 6:10 PM

[CelicaBuddy]

Yea.... me too

I liked my signiture thing... I dont wanna loose it.

[Jen]

I definitely (also) agree with John.

Why do people have such a huge problem with this..

[Coomer]

1. Signature images are distracting, and they take away from the discussion in some cases. I often read questions about peoples' signatures in the on-topic forums, where it takes away from the topic that the thread is actually about.

2. Loading large signature images is slow. Not everyone can afford broadband, some people can't get broadband at their location(me), etc.

3. Hosted signatures take away from this site's bandwidth. When a large image(or several...lots of people's signature images are images uploaded onto their profile) from the 6GC server is loaded on every topic that a person posts on for every visitor, that adds up to a ton of bandwidth. True, caching helps immensely with this, but the site's server still takes a large bandwidth hit from signatures hosted on the site.

4. Large signature images often disrupt the flow of the page, forcing some people to scrolll sideways just to read a post(that is stretched by a large signature.) Unless I host signature all images on the site(and require an upload form for them), I can't control the size of people's signatures effectively. I experimented with using javascript to resize the display dimensions of the images, but it didn't work so well. Additionally, many people wouldn't read a rule outlining signature image size requirements. Others may be confused("What's a pixel?"), or not know how to resize an image.

5. People often host their signature images in their profile. This isn't so bad, if it's just a picture of their car, but when it's their name in a fancy font or whatever and nothing else, it should not be their. For the new stuff that I'm working on, this is very undesired, because it makes my random image generator display non-Celica images. Though management can and often does remove images in profiles, we can't see all of them and remove all non-Celica photos.

6. A discussion forum is made to be just that - a discussion forum. Photos at the bottom of every single person's post just takes away from this idea. If people want to look at photos, there are threads asking for photos, and member profiles.

That's why there currently are no images allowed in signatures. Though I can see why you guys like them.

The bottom line is that if people would listen to a rule and have small signatures(probably under 300x100 pixels), I'd probably put them back. But I can't require this due to the nature of linked images, and management doesn't have time to enforce stuff like this constantly.

[Consynx]

hmmm :\
my antidrug is gone...i'm now living a halflife

This post has been edited by Consynx: Mar 8, 2005 - 7:02 PM

[Andason]

i think a banner type thing should be allowed... but we all know my say in this crowd

[Coomer]

i think a banner type thing should be allowed... but we all know my say in this crowd
[right][snapback]254732[/snapback][/right]

I think a 300x100 banner would be alright. It's a matter of getting people to follow the rules. Anyone have any ideas on how to go about doing that?

[Mynzeyes]

1. Signature images are distracting, and they take away from the discussion in some cases. I often read questions about peoples' signatures in the on-topic forums, where it takes away from the topic that the thread is actually about.
maybe if you have ADD...and i've heard more complaints about the google adds distracting people, rather than signatures.

2. Loading large signature images is slow. Not everyone can afford broadband, some people can't get broadband at their location(me), etc.
who's fault is it that they can't keep up with technology? if you spend your entire life downsizing because some people can't keep up, you'll never get anywhere.

3. Hosted signatures take away from this site's bandwidth. When a large image(or several...lots of people's signature images are images uploaded onto their profile) from the 6GC server is loaded on every topic that a person posts on for every visitor, that adds up to a ton of bandwidth. True, caching helps immensely with this, but the site's server still takes a large bandwidth hit from signatures hosted on the site.
restrict the size, and restrict hosting sigs through the site. it can be done.

4. Large signature images often disrupt the flow of the page, forcing some people to scrolll sideways just to read a post(that is stretched by a large signature.) Unless I host signature all images on the site(and require an upload form for them), I can't control the size of people's signatures effectively. I experimented with using javascript to resize the display dimensions of the images, but it didn't work so well. Additionally, many people wouldn't read a rule outlining signature image size requirements. Others may be confused("What's a pixel?"), or not know how to resize an image.
restrict sizes. if someone doesn't know how to resize them, they can request one that someone do it for them. you can set up a rule to automatically resize images, much like is done with avitars and profile pictures...


5. People often host their signature images in their profile. This isn't so bad, if it's just a picture of their car, but when it's their name in a fancy font or whatever and nothing else, it should not be their. For the new stuff that I'm working on, this is very undesired, because it makes my random image generator display non-Celica images. Though management can and often does remove images in profiles, we can't see all of them and remove all non-Celica photos.
this is the arguement as number 3, cept w/ the non-celica thing thrown in. see that response, then you said in your own arguement, we take most out that we find, so this isn't a major issue...

6. A discussion forum is made to be just that - a discussion forum. Photos at the bottom of every single person's post just takes away from this idea. If people want to look at photos, there are threads asking for photos, and member profiles.
it's a form of identification, rather than just a name. it's more visually recognizable than text, and it adds a little to the forums, so that it's not just boring text all the time. a little minor disruption is quite nice most of the time.

That's why there currently are no images allowed in signatures. Though I can see why you guys like them.

The bottom line is that if people would listen to a rule and have small signatures(probably under 300x100 pixels), I'd probably put them back. But I can't require this due to the nature of linked images, and management doesn't have time to enforce stuff like this constantly.

basically, this comes down to no real NECESSARY reason, other than people whining about it. all you have to do is restrict the size coomer. if you see one bigger, go edit the signature, and PM the person letting them know. it's just really unneccessary. it's just gonna make this site even MORE boring, and hell, we already have enough people leaving. now you're taking stuff away like this, which maybe you don't think it's a big deal, but i've had numerous people ALREADY IMing and saying, "that's fxcking shxtty." and "this is turning into celica.net" and "heil coomer!". so...yeah. it's bull.

sorry, but that's just how it is. just because people whine and complain, doesn't mean you have to take things away. you just have to change it around. there is a grey area. and i, along with many other people, think this is where this situation needs to get into.

-John-

[Andason]

i think a banner type thing should be allowed... but we all know my say in this crowd
[right][snapback]254732[/snapback][/right]

maybe limit it the same way the avatar is limited??? i dunno anything about this but an idea

[madmods]

I'd be down for just a small pic. I'm not sure if its this site or not, but Iv'e been on some that automatically resizes your pics to the proper size.

[Supersprynt]

How are signatures distracting? We arent fish in a bowl with shiny objects. I for one completely find that absurd. No offense but eliminating images in sigs truely is the lamest thing ever. I've kept my signatures small, and uploaded to my own account on Photobucket. I agree some peoples sigs are ridiculously large and unnecessary; a complete photo, but if there was a problem perhaps a notice could have been posted saying hey, heres the limit on the size of ur sigs. Theres no animations in sigs or avatars and now no photo sigs?

Some people didnt think of having small sigs, were they even told? We have mods to regulate this kinda thing but instead eliminating them so theres no need to.

I think that this is a huge step in eliminating character of the website.

[Coomer]

I wouldn't consider some of your points valid John, but I'm willing to put the sig images back, given that people will keep them under a certain size. In fact, that's been the plan since when I first did this a few hours ago, if I can get something worked out. See, if I just add a rule, no-one pays attention. If I add features to the site, no-one pays attention. Something like this gets people's attention.

I can think of a way to prevent linking to images from the site, but I can't restrict image sizes currently. I researched and researched but couldn't find a good way to go about it.

John, would you be willing to spend lots of time enforcing a rule on size-restrictions on signature images?

[Consynx]

one more thing, clicking on names doesn't have option to their profile(or didn't after first update)

umm
John, i agree but your post is a bit harsh at some points.

they can be distracting, a size limitation is DEFINATELY in order, because a wallpaper for an avatar kills train of though while trying to scroll past it to the next reply(no i dont have ADD....yet)

the thing that was annoying was the banner under the first post of a topic...random, i know

[Mynzeyes]

John, would you be willing to spend lots of time enforcing a rule on size-restrictions on signature images?
[right][snapback]254746[/snapback][/right]

how hard is it to edit someone's sig when you see they have a huge image? i think we all have time to click a button, delete something. click another button, type a few words to PM the person, and then click another button to send it. if one of the mods or you are the boards, we obviously have time to enforce things like that that we come across...and i look at a lot of the threads, so it's not that big of a deal...

also, how is the avitar and profile pic resized? automatically through Invision?

-John-

[shid]

Coomer, people's sigs are how I quickly visually identity who wrote the post..

[Consynx]

i'll be a mod to help enforce new avatars

[Supersprynt]

How do you view a profile? I get this middle screen and no way to get to the real profile.

[Coomer]

John, would you be willing to spend lots of time enforcing a rule on size-restrictions on signature images?
[right][snapback]254746[/snapback][/right]

how hard is it to edit someone's sig when you see they have a huge image? i think we all have time to click a button, delete something. click another button, type a few words to PM the person, and then click another button to send it. if one of the mods or you are the boards, we obviously have time to enforce things like that that we come across...and i look at a lot of the threads, so it's not that big of a deal...

also, how is the avitar and profile pic resized? automatically through Invision?

-John-
[right][snapback]254749[/snapback][/right]

So you're willing to actively remove signatures above a certain size then?

The profile pic is resized via some custom coding I've written. The avatar is resized by Invision Board if it's stored locally(uploaded), or the HTML size attribute is added if the image is stored remotely(Which is actually really bad design on Invision's part and will require re-coding by me.) The reason why images can be resized is that they're stored locally. My server-side software can access and modify the images by itself, so that's how I can resize images.