a small change to the max sig size ?

bum · Post by **bum** » Sat Sep 11, 2004 1:37 pm

i was just wondering if a small change to the max size for signatures can be made. it can be irritating having to split up an 80 pixel high sig into 2x40 pixel high sigs. not only that but the sigs dont allways turn out right. now, i know that this rule is the way it is to make sig sizes smaller and pages load faster. but most people here have broadband, sigs are cached and stored on users pc's so even 56kers like me rarely have to wait more than a few seconds (im talking a max of 5 seconds here) for a page to load, so occasionaly having to wait a few more seconds for a new image to load aint gona make much difference. and while spliting an image in two will make for a smaller file size than the original image, i doubt anyone will notice the difference when a a sig on a message board is loading.

Org Profile · Post by **Otohiko** » Sat Sep 11, 2004 1:40 pm

Hmm, well, seeing how quite a few people keep trying to fuse two banners into one all the time, I suppose that's a reasonable suggestion.

Why not?

mckeed · Post by **mckeed** » Sat Sep 11, 2004 7:24 pm

I personaly think that there should be no images in sigs. They really serve no real purpose except waste bandwidth. Bum's is especially useless.

greenjinjo · Post by **greenjinjo** » Sat Sep 11, 2004 7:53 pm

I dunno I thought Bum's was pretty funny

There are two forums I basically live at, this one being one of them. The other forum is extremely strict on sigs, no pictures at all and a max of 7 lines of text. There really haven't been any problems there with no pics, but it's always been that way.

bum · Post by **bum** » Sat Sep 11, 2004 10:58 pm

mckeed wrote:I personaly think that there should be no images in sigs. They really serve no real purpose except waste bandwidth. Bum's is especially useless.

oh shut the hell up. your just saying that because you've got something or another against me. and that oppinion about sigs is realy reserved. sigs are a form of self expresion and most people like them. oh and, not to mention that their a good way to advertise one's amv's, site or whatever els.

so AD, how's about the change ?

AMVfreak · Post by **AMVfreak** » Sat Sep 11, 2004 10:59 pm

I dont think its a bad idea changing 2x40 into a 1x80 image.

I believe any image arrangement is perfectly fine as long as it doesnt exceed the pixel limits.

Zarxrax · Post by **Zarxrax** » Sat Sep 11, 2004 11:08 pm

I'm all for 1 80 pixel tall image. It even takes up less screen space than 2 images, if the images arent joined together correctly.

greenjinjo · Post by **greenjinjo** » Sat Sep 11, 2004 11:35 pm

Yeah I agree, there shouldn't be any problem with a max sig height of 80 as opposed to a max image size of 40.

Arigatomina · Post by **Arigatomina** » Sat Sep 11, 2004 11:42 pm

Otohiko wrote:Hmm, well, seeing how quite a few people keep trying to fuse two banners into one all the time, I suppose that's a reasonable suggestion.

Yep. ^_^;

They already do it - use a large one instead of splitting them, and I've yet to see more than one person get it removed (back when the new rule first went into effect).

It's too much to try and enforce the 'split them' rule, so why not just accept a single picture? If we're talking about download time, many of the solid pics are smaller than the combined file size of the split images (speaking as a dial-up user). And those who use 2 'banners' wouldn't be affected at all.

As long as we keep to the '4 lines of text' as the maximum size, it shouldn't matter if it's one picture or two.

AbsoluteDestiny · Post by **AbsoluteDestiny** » Sun Sep 12, 2004 1:03 am

The thing is... this is another case of "not my rule" as it was something established by Phade and something he was, in his time, very strict about.

I'm going to discuss it with other staff members and we'll come to a unified decision on it.