Title: Signatures
Post by: cougarcragar on June 16, 2007, 11:39:49 PM
Post by: cougarcragar on June 16, 2007, 11:39:49 PM
I think it's about time somebody created a thread about this increasing problem.
In the past several months, I've noticed that some users' signatures are getting way out of control. Some are so large that they take up nearly all of the browser's viewing window on my machine (1024x768).
And yet, the pictures are often low in resolution and "stacked" with lines of text. We have to make a rule on this; much like we did for the forums' marketplace section. That means we will have to enforce it.
I propose we limit a user's signature to the equivalent of 8 lines of default text - with or without an image. I think images are great, actually. I would hate to see those go, but we should still enforce a limit in size.
If you look at some signatures here, you will see that 8 lines of default text is more than enough room to use both an image and some lines of text. I think it's a comfortable barrier.
If you're looking for a way to conserve on space, do what I did: use the built-in code for changing the size of the text. Your user control panel should have details on this.
I prefer the smaller text, actually. It helps to differentiate the signature from the rest of the text within a post.
I would like to see us move forward on this. I've seen this rule enacted on other forums and while some may resist it at first, it's a step in the right direction to keep threads from becoming 20 pages long with 10 pages of signature material.
In the past several months, I've noticed that some users' signatures are getting way out of control. Some are so large that they take up nearly all of the browser's viewing window on my machine (1024x768).
And yet, the pictures are often low in resolution and "stacked" with lines of text. We have to make a rule on this; much like we did for the forums' marketplace section. That means we will have to enforce it.
I propose we limit a user's signature to the equivalent of 8 lines of default text - with or without an image. I think images are great, actually. I would hate to see those go, but we should still enforce a limit in size.
If you look at some signatures here, you will see that 8 lines of default text is more than enough room to use both an image and some lines of text. I think it's a comfortable barrier.
If you're looking for a way to conserve on space, do what I did: use the built-in code for changing the size of the text. Your user control panel should have details on this.
I prefer the smaller text, actually. It helps to differentiate the signature from the rest of the text within a post.
I would like to see us move forward on this. I've seen this rule enacted on other forums and while some may resist it at first, it's a step in the right direction to keep threads from becoming 20 pages long with 10 pages of signature material.
Title: Signatures
Post by: Thunder Chicken on June 16, 2007, 11:44:55 PM
Post by: Thunder Chicken on June 16, 2007, 11:44:55 PM
I'm on dilaup internet so it REALLY sucks for me. I've been wanting to set limits and actually made a thread about it a few months ago - unfortunately I haven't yet found the option in the vBulletin control panel to do so. I'm sure there's a way to do it, but I haven't figured it out. I've also been wanting to ditch the Krass & Bernie image in my sig but never think to - I must go and do it right now (after making this post)
Title: Signatures
Post by: daboss351 on June 16, 2007, 11:50:59 PM
Post by: daboss351 on June 16, 2007, 11:50:59 PM
i always have a small one for all you dial up guys, i used to have it and know how bad that sucked!
Title: Signatures
Post by: cougarcragar on June 16, 2007, 11:51:53 PM
Post by: cougarcragar on June 16, 2007, 11:51:53 PM
I think we will have to enforce the rule on a user-to-user basis. If somebody breaks the limit, we can shoot them a PM asking to reduce its size.
Then, of course, you can rely on people like me to bring it up within threads for the offending person(s) to see. :D
Then, of course, you can rely on people like me to bring it up within threads for the offending person(s) to see. :D
Title: Signatures
Post by: DakotaEpic on June 16, 2007, 11:57:15 PM
Post by: DakotaEpic on June 16, 2007, 11:57:15 PM
LS1tech.com has an image size restriction of like 150x400 pixels. That's a little larger than the pic of my T/A in my sig I believe.
Title: Signatures
Post by: 32VFoxBird on June 16, 2007, 11:59:28 PM
Post by: 32VFoxBird on June 16, 2007, 11:59:28 PM
on another board i frequent, the site reduces all images that were made with [img] tags, and its hard to see pics. sigs were getting out of hand there, too. when people post images with the [img] tags, id have to click the image and select "view image" to see the full size. attachments would show up properly when you clicked on them.
http://www.simplemachines.org/ is what they use
http://www.simplemachines.org/ is what they use
Title: Signatures
Post by: 84 Fila on June 17, 2007, 12:02:33 AM
Post by: 84 Fila on June 17, 2007, 12:02:33 AM
I don't think mine is too bad. If it is I'll change, just let me know
Title: Signatures
Post by: cougarcragar on June 17, 2007, 12:07:10 AM
Post by: cougarcragar on June 17, 2007, 12:07:10 AM
Fila: I think your signature is fine. I would consider that to be right at the limit.
DaBoss: Yours is a little large, but it makes it worse when I see it 5 times in one page in every other thread. No offense, of course.
DaBoss: Yours is a little large, but it makes it worse when I see it 5 times in one page in every other thread. No offense, of course.
Title: Signatures
Post by: yellow86coogr on June 17, 2007, 12:20:14 AM
Post by: yellow86coogr on June 17, 2007, 12:20:14 AM
Then maybe mine is too big too. If it is, sorry. I'll see what I can do, or use the mini version as suggested earlier. I have cable, so it's easy for me and others with cable to forget. Actualy I have the slow version of cable (road runner light, aka, cable at a cheaper price, but still cable), it's cheaper then the full fledged, and the difference is hardly noticable... most of the time anyway. Let me know if I need to make changes.
Title: Signatures
Post by: cougrrr302 on June 17, 2007, 12:23:41 AM
Post by: cougrrr302 on June 17, 2007, 12:23:41 AM
I changed mine, it was a tad wide. Like Yellow86Coogr said, with Cable you kinda forget what its like to wait on things to load. I need to learn how to PS so I can make my own, and size them the way I want them, within parameters of course.
Title: Signatures
Post by: SLEEPER T-BIRD 87 on June 17, 2007, 12:27:56 AM
Post by: SLEEPER T-BIRD 87 on June 17, 2007, 12:27:56 AM
high speed internet is a great investment. (Hell this seemed to come off smart and wasnt meant that way.)
explanation: it is easy to forget the daily fight with dial up to view anything thats barely larger then an avitar. I for one will never switch back as it is a night and day differance.
explanation: it is easy to forget the daily fight with dial up to view anything thats barely larger then an avitar. I for one will never switch back as it is a night and day differance.
Title: Signatures
Post by: cougarcragar on June 17, 2007, 12:43:13 AM
Post by: cougarcragar on June 17, 2007, 12:43:13 AM
That's just the thing. It's not just the connection speed, but the fact that 50%+ of a page is filled with these redundant signature images.
Sleeper, your signature is a good example. Can you modify the code to set those images next to each other rather that "stack" them?
Sleeper, your signature is a good example. Can you modify the code to set those images next to each other rather that "stack" them?
Title: Signatures
Post by: kingcars on June 17, 2007, 12:44:25 AM
Post by: kingcars on June 17, 2007, 12:44:25 AM
I like not having limits on the sigs, but I think there should be a "gentlemen's agreement" just so that everyone keeps them reasonable. There are some on here that are too big and need to be toned down, but I wouldn't like to make everyone have tiny sig pics either. The quote in my sig does make it seem kinda stacked up, though, but it's only text. I also save all of my images as .jpg since they're very small file sizes.
Title: Signatures
Post by: SLEEPER T-BIRD 87 on June 17, 2007, 12:46:49 AM
Post by: SLEEPER T-BIRD 87 on June 17, 2007, 12:46:49 AM
Quote from: cougarcragar;154866
That's just the thing. It's not just the connection speed, but the fact that 50%+ of a page is filled with these redundant signature images.
Sleeper, your signature is a good example. Can you modify the code to set those images next to each other rather that "stack" them?
See I figured this whole thread was directed at me since it was made not long after i modified mine.Am i correct?
Title: Signatures
Post by: kingcars on June 17, 2007, 12:51:33 AM
Post by: kingcars on June 17, 2007, 12:51:33 AM
Dang SLEEPER, nobody asked you to delete it; just tweak it some. 2 fairly large pictures stacked on one another is a bit much. If you want, I can put them side by side and resize everything for you.
Title: Signatures
Post by: cougarcragar on June 17, 2007, 12:52:25 AM
Post by: cougarcragar on June 17, 2007, 12:52:25 AM
Absolutely not. This has been something that's been on my mind for a few months now. I decided to make a thread on it tonight out of chance.
I didn't do this to make people angry.
I didn't do this to make people angry.
Title: Signatures
Post by: SLEEPER T-BIRD 87 on June 17, 2007, 12:55:01 AM
Post by: SLEEPER T-BIRD 87 on June 17, 2007, 12:55:01 AM
Quote from: kingcars;154876
Dang SLEEPER, nobody asked you to delete it; just tweak it some. 2 fairly large pictures stacked on one another is a bit much. If you want, I can put them side by side and resize everything for you.
To keep the drama down ill just delete it. I felt singled out so its gone ill remove all the pics i posted to help the 56k members out
Title: Signatures
Post by: kingcars on June 17, 2007, 01:07:42 AM
Post by: kingcars on June 17, 2007, 01:07:42 AM
You're not singled out, and nobody wants you to delete your sig or your posted pictures. Just tone the sig down some. Nobody is mad.
Title: Signatures
Post by: ipsd on June 17, 2007, 01:13:33 AM
Post by: ipsd on June 17, 2007, 01:13:33 AM
If you can find a copy of Photo shop you can resize by download speed to see the wait for those with the dial up. I was there and the 28.8K sucked ass all day.
Title: Signatures
Post by: SLEEPER T-BIRD 87 on June 17, 2007, 01:17:31 AM
Post by: SLEEPER T-BIRD 87 on June 17, 2007, 01:17:31 AM
fixed should meet all current requirments
Title: Signatures
Post by: Ifixyawata on June 17, 2007, 01:21:27 AM
Post by: Ifixyawata on June 17, 2007, 01:21:27 AM
Sheesh, looks like a thread that stays civil and mature is hard to come by these days on the old Fox board....
Title: Signatures
Post by: 84 Fila on June 17, 2007, 01:27:22 AM
Post by: 84 Fila on June 17, 2007, 01:27:22 AM
Jesus EVERYTHING gets out of hand now
Title: Signatures
Post by: kingcars on June 17, 2007, 01:57:05 AM
Post by: kingcars on June 17, 2007, 01:57:05 AM
I think you two are making it out to be that way. I havent seen any yelling, or any sort of anger in this thread...
Title: Signatures
Post by: Ifixyawata on June 17, 2007, 02:11:53 AM
Post by: Ifixyawata on June 17, 2007, 02:11:53 AM
Ah well... nevermind it. Sleeper's deleted his posts, so there's no issue here as far as I'm concerned. I don't even have a sig so I'm not quite sure why I'm even posting in this thread.
Color me gone.
Color me gone.
Title: Signatures
Post by: yellow86coogr on June 17, 2007, 03:35:59 AM
Post by: yellow86coogr on June 17, 2007, 03:35:59 AM
I guess I missed something. I was actualy offended about mine sometime ago (diifrent post), but decided there was a possible chance I was being a bit paranoid. so I just let it go. Sometimes people have no idea when they are comming off a little tesy, I'm sure I have, and not seeing someone during the post it kinda makes it easy to take things the wrong way sometimes. Plus, I had no idea how big, or
H O W L O N G I T T O O K F O R S O M E O N E T O
V I E W T H I S O N D I A L U P. Kinda hard for me to have any idea on how it is on the other end without cable. I can't feel the pain on the time it takes, so you just become insensitive to someone with dial up, until you stop, remember what it was like and then......Oh, that does suck. I remember. It's been at least 4 to 5 years for me, and you just forget. Some people have NEVER had dial up, and have no clue to how bad it can be. You loose your patients since you are just sitting there waiting and waiting and waiting...well you get the idea. Actualy now that i have written this, I just realized how frustrating that can be, and how easily you can get an attitude because your patience has just runout. So, from your perspective, your comming off as nice as possible, and holding back anger, because you just might have had to reload, or re-dial. Come to think of it, if I went back to dial up.........that just bugs my nerves thinking about it. Ain't gonna happen, if I can help it anyway. WHEW!
H O W L O N G I T T O O K F O R S O M E O N E T O
V I E W T H I S O N D I A L U P. Kinda hard for me to have any idea on how it is on the other end without cable. I can't feel the pain on the time it takes, so you just become insensitive to someone with dial up, until you stop, remember what it was like and then......Oh, that does suck. I remember. It's been at least 4 to 5 years for me, and you just forget. Some people have NEVER had dial up, and have no clue to how bad it can be. You loose your patients since you are just sitting there waiting and waiting and waiting...well you get the idea. Actualy now that i have written this, I just realized how frustrating that can be, and how easily you can get an attitude because your patience has just runout. So, from your perspective, your comming off as nice as possible, and holding back anger, because you just might have had to reload, or re-dial. Come to think of it, if I went back to dial up.........that just bugs my nerves thinking about it. Ain't gonna happen, if I can help it anyway. WHEW!
Title: Signatures
Post by: 1BadBird on June 17, 2007, 09:15:59 AM
Post by: 1BadBird on June 17, 2007, 09:15:59 AM
While I was in my signature to erase the Ranger I have sold, I edited my sig a little. Just to help what I could. I didn't see any malice or anger in the previous threads. Just my .02 though
I do feel for those with dial-up, used to have it, start to download something and just walk away while it took it's time working, then sometimes come back only to find out you've been booted of.
I do feel for those with dial-up, used to have it, start to download something and just walk away while it took it's time working, then sometimes come back only to find out you've been booted of.
Title: Signatures
Post by: HAVI on June 17, 2007, 10:24:50 AM
Post by: HAVI on June 17, 2007, 10:24:50 AM
On another forum I frequent, they have user galleries. Any pics wanted to be shown off are simply stated as "check out my gallery" or is a link. Also, they don't allow pics in sigs. I assume it would mean a complete reformat from vbulletin, though.
Title: Signatures
Post by: cougarcragar on June 17, 2007, 10:43:01 AM
Post by: cougarcragar on June 17, 2007, 10:43:01 AM
Remember, I'm not suggesting we banish images or eliminate signatures altogether. In fact, I don't want to make any changes to the forums. The idea here is to create a beneficial change while requiring minimal effort.
That's why I think 8 stacked lines of default text can be used as a gauge.
KISS, right? (Keep it simple, stupid. :) )
That's why I think 8 stacked lines of default text can be used as a gauge.
KISS, right? (Keep it simple, stupid. :) )
Title: Signatures
Post by: TurboCoupe50 on June 17, 2007, 10:55:30 AM
Post by: TurboCoupe50 on June 17, 2007, 10:55:30 AM
Quote from: HAVI;154938
On another forum I frequent, they have user galleries. Any pics wanted to be shown off are simply stated as "check out my gallery" or is a link. Also, they don't allow pics in sigs. I assume it would mean a complete reformat from vbulletin, though.
Kinda like my sig(links)??? That's easy enough to do(HELL I figured it out), IF you have a place to host your pix...
Easy enough to just limit a sig to a avatar and link to larger pictures...
Tom
Title: Signatures
Post by: 20th anny 5.o on June 17, 2007, 11:03:18 AM
Post by: 20th anny 5.o on June 17, 2007, 11:03:18 AM
If you think that mine is too big i can get rid of the text, but i would like to keep my sig pic.
[Edit]
ok yes i will shrink both i did not think that mine took up that much space.
[Edit]
ok yes i will shrink both i did not think that mine took up that much space.
Title: Signatures
Post by: V8Demon on June 17, 2007, 11:03:31 AM
Post by: V8Demon on June 17, 2007, 11:03:31 AM
How about that user gallery though? Is that feasible here?
Oh, the sig too big? or no? or.....
Oh, the sig too big? or no? or.....
Title: Signatures
Post by: HAVI on June 17, 2007, 11:04:42 AM
Post by: HAVI on June 17, 2007, 11:04:42 AM
Quote
Kinda like my sig(links)??? That's easy enough to do(HELL I figured it out), IF you have a place to host your pix...
I'm sure the user gallery would chew up a lot of storage on the server, though.
Title: Signatures
Post by: daboss351 on June 17, 2007, 11:05:46 AM
Post by: daboss351 on June 17, 2007, 11:05:46 AM
theres a way to turn off sigs on the LoL site, so you dont have to load them up
Title: Signatures
Post by: 32VFoxBird on June 17, 2007, 11:06:07 AM
Post by: 32VFoxBird on June 17, 2007, 11:06:07 AM
anybody who has problems with sigs, can just simply turn them off in their user control panel.
Title: Signatures
Post by: 32VFoxBird on June 17, 2007, 11:07:00 AM
Post by: 32VFoxBird on June 17, 2007, 11:07:00 AM
Quote from: daboss351;154949
theres a way to turn off sigs on the LoL site, so you dont have to load them up
beat me to it. you and your ninja posting skills! :flip:
Title: Signatures
Post by: 88sportcoupe on June 17, 2007, 11:55:58 AM
Post by: 88sportcoupe on June 17, 2007, 11:55:58 AM
Quote from: 32VFoxBird;154951
anybody who has problems with sigs, can just simply turn them off in their user control panel.
+1
Thats how i feel about it there are already limitations when you make your sig so i say if you dont like seeing them turn them off.
Thats what i would do.
Title: Signatures
Post by: 84 Fila on June 17, 2007, 12:01:12 PM
Post by: 84 Fila on June 17, 2007, 12:01:12 PM
I'll post again, since apparently my sig is the "right" size
Title: Signatures
Post by: gumby on June 17, 2007, 01:47:08 PM
Post by: gumby on June 17, 2007, 01:47:08 PM
there was an intersting feature on a board i used to frequent. it was set up to automatically attach the users sig in thier initial post in every thread, but not in subsequent posts in the same thread. cuts down on the redundance at least.
i do agree though, when i was on dial-up, i jus turned sigs off on boards that allowed pics.
i do agree though, when i was on dial-up, i jus turned sigs off on boards that allowed pics.
Title: Signatures
Post by: CougarSE on June 17, 2007, 02:32:06 PM
Post by: CougarSE on June 17, 2007, 02:32:06 PM
Quote from: gumby;155007
there was an intersting feature on a board i used to frequent. it was set up to automatically attach the users sig in thier initial post in every thread, but not in subsequent posts in the same thread. cuts down on the redundance at least.
i do agree though, when i was on dial-up, i jus turned sigs off on boards that allowed pics.
This is how I like it... well actually I just hate signatures... I have one because I'm too lazy to go into the control panel and turn it off.
Title: Signatures
Post by: softtouch on June 17, 2007, 03:54:29 PM
Post by: softtouch on June 17, 2007, 03:54:29 PM
DakotaEpic your sig is so wide that I have to move the display from side to side to read your posts. I only have a 17" screen.
Title: Signatures
Post by: 88sportcoupe on June 17, 2007, 04:28:54 PM
Post by: 88sportcoupe on June 17, 2007, 04:28:54 PM
Quote from: softtouch;155044
DakotaEpic your sig is so wide that I have to move the display from side to side to read your posts. I only have a 17" screen.
What resolution is your screen set to? I have a 17 inch monitor set to 1024x768 and i dont have to scroll side to side.
Title: Signatures
Post by: 20th anny 5.o on June 17, 2007, 04:32:04 PM
Post by: 20th anny 5.o on June 17, 2007, 04:32:04 PM
I have a 17 inch as well but my res is set to 1280 x 960 so most peoples sigs dont bother me, just the ones that are freaking huge.
Title: Signatures
Post by: yellow86coogr on June 17, 2007, 04:36:04 PM
Post by: yellow86coogr on June 17, 2007, 04:36:04 PM
I have a 19" Flat panel w/cable modem. No problems here. :D
Title: Signatures
Post by: oldraven on June 17, 2007, 07:32:47 PM
Post by: oldraven on June 17, 2007, 07:32:47 PM
Quote from: 32VFoxBird;154951
anybody who has problems with sigs, can just simply turn them off in their user control panel.
Well, I guess it has been said. I like having the sig pictures on there, as it makes it easier to keep the posters straight when you have a long read.
I know I tried my best to keep all my text in one line when I figured mine out. Any info on the car itself is in the image, to keep it compact.
*edit*
HAHAHAH! Sleeper, I think the thumbnails are a bit extreme. Noone's being a Sig puppies. You could easilly keep those a decent size and have a respectfully squat signature.
Title: Signatures
Post by: SLEEPER T-BIRD 87 on June 17, 2007, 08:10:25 PM
Post by: SLEEPER T-BIRD 87 on June 17, 2007, 08:10:25 PM
I love you guys.
Title: Signatures
Post by: DakotaEpic on June 17, 2007, 09:03:01 PM
Post by: DakotaEpic on June 17, 2007, 09:03:01 PM
Quote from: softtouch;155044
DakotaEpic your sig is so wide that I have to move the display from side to side to read your posts. I only have a 17" screen.
Hahaha, that bad huh?
Ok, a couple facts.
1024x768 is quickly becoming an outdated resolution. If many of you are running a modern LCD screen, the native resolution for that screen would probably be 1280x1024 or higher, running below your native resolution will actually decrease image quality.
20th Anny......1280x960 is a true 4:3 resolution, 1280x1024 is the more common resolution and it is a 5:4. Not that it matters I guess, since you say your fine with it.
Anyhow, I don't know where I'm going with this. Different strokes for different folks I guess.
Title: Signatures
Post by: 88sportcoupe on June 17, 2007, 09:46:29 PM
Post by: 88sportcoupe on June 17, 2007, 09:46:29 PM
Some of us are still using old monitors. :flame:
Atleast until i hook up my 37" LCD TV to my Media Center PC.
Atleast until i hook up my 37" LCD TV to my Media Center PC.
Title: Signatures
Post by: EricCoolCats on June 18, 2007, 12:16:47 AM
Post by: EricCoolCats on June 18, 2007, 12:16:47 AM
Quote
1024x768 is quickly becoming an outdated resolution.
What about people that have older 12" laptops, with video cards soldered onto the motherboard that can't be changed?
What about the people that cannot afford a new video card for their computer?
What about people that have bad eyesight, or need a lower resolution (or larger type size) to view this board?
Just because you have better resolution, don't assume that everyone else does. I program for the web for a living. It's still 800x600 as the standard. This site obviously fails miserably by that standard.
With the number of people here willing to do Photoshop work, resizing a signature shouldn't be an issue. It seems that the only issue, then, is simply the willingness to do so for the sake of others.
Title: Signatures
Post by: CougarSE on June 18, 2007, 12:42:18 AM
Post by: CougarSE on June 18, 2007, 12:42:18 AM
Well I just turned off the signatures all together.... Thinking about doing the Avatars too.
Title: Signatures
Post by: stuntmannick on June 18, 2007, 01:01:47 AM
Post by: stuntmannick on June 18, 2007, 01:01:47 AM
:shakehead
Title: Signatures
Post by: kingcars on June 18, 2007, 01:16:12 AM
Post by: kingcars on June 18, 2007, 01:16:12 AM
Heh, you dont even need Photoshop to resize pics. You could even use paint for that, or the free program I have mentioned on this board many times called Irfan View. You can crop, resize, convert file types, etc etc.
Title: Signatures
Post by: DakotaEpic on June 18, 2007, 02:26:43 AM
Post by: DakotaEpic on June 18, 2007, 02:26:43 AM
Lol I think I struck a nerve with Eric. Haha they're all very valid reasons, I'm just stating that if you go out and buy a newer LCD screen, it's most likely going to have a native res of 1280x1024. I know a ton of people who run 1024x768 for it's better legibility or it is the limitations of their hardware. I work in professional A/V and 1024x768(XGA) is still the standard for projection, but more and more projectors are coming out that support higher resolutions.
And I don't assume that everyone else does have a higher resolution because I do. I literally only jumped up to a higher res just recently. All in all I'm just like most other people who have the luxury of high speed internet, and a big monitor, so I sometimes I forget that there aren't people who have that and I don't pay much attention to it.
And I don't assume that everyone else does have a higher resolution because I do. I literally only jumped up to a higher res just recently. All in all I'm just like most other people who have the luxury of high speed internet, and a big monitor, so I sometimes I forget that there aren't people who have that and I don't pay much attention to it.
Title: Signatures
Post by: EricCoolCats on June 18, 2007, 09:40:13 AM
Post by: EricCoolCats on June 18, 2007, 09:40:13 AM
No nerve hit here...I just said what needed to be said.
That's the problem with a community board: no matter what is tried, there's usually someone that is left behind, whether it be the size of a photo or their connection speed to the Internet. It is so easy to say, "Meh, screw the dial-up people" when you've got a fast connection. In a perfect world we could afford to do that. However, when at least half of the board administrators are still on dial-up (and I'm one of them) because there is no high-speed Internet choice at our homes, then reality sets in really quickly. We can barely administer from dialup, let alone sit through photos that are way too large to begin with. At least I have the luxury of a very fast DSL connection at work (no idea if Carm can escape dial-up hell at all).
To be fair, most people that are picture-whoring in their threads have labeled the threads with a warning. And that's greatly appreciated from a dial-up point of view. Even the occasional large attached (or linked) photo is okay if it's needed to show detail, like a wiring harness for troubleshooting, for instance. Those, I don't think anyone has any major issues with.
I guess all the admins can do is ask that people have some common courtesy and reduce their sig sizes as much as possible, or consider a text-only sig with links. We really don't want to put limits on you guys because the signatures have become an outlet for personal expression, and that's what makes this board so unique. But we just ask that you do so with regard to others, that's all. Nobody's yelling, nobody's becoming the Signature puppies...we're just asking.
That's the problem with a community board: no matter what is tried, there's usually someone that is left behind, whether it be the size of a photo or their connection speed to the Internet. It is so easy to say, "Meh, screw the dial-up people" when you've got a fast connection. In a perfect world we could afford to do that. However, when at least half of the board administrators are still on dial-up (and I'm one of them) because there is no high-speed Internet choice at our homes, then reality sets in really quickly. We can barely administer from dialup, let alone sit through photos that are way too large to begin with. At least I have the luxury of a very fast DSL connection at work (no idea if Carm can escape dial-up hell at all).
To be fair, most people that are picture-whoring in their threads have labeled the threads with a warning. And that's greatly appreciated from a dial-up point of view. Even the occasional large attached (or linked) photo is okay if it's needed to show detail, like a wiring harness for troubleshooting, for instance. Those, I don't think anyone has any major issues with.
I guess all the admins can do is ask that people have some common courtesy and reduce their sig sizes as much as possible, or consider a text-only sig with links. We really don't want to put limits on you guys because the signatures have become an outlet for personal expression, and that's what makes this board so unique. But we just ask that you do so with regard to others, that's all. Nobody's yelling, nobody's becoming the Signature puppies...we're just asking.
Title: Signatures
Post by: Red_LX on June 18, 2007, 10:01:08 AM
Post by: Red_LX on June 18, 2007, 10:01:08 AM
I dunno if my sig image is considered too big...(from what's been said, probably)
But, I thought I might mention that for the longest time over on Stangnet, they did NOT allow images in signatures, period.
Recently, they relented on this stance, but set it up so that a person's signature only shows up once per thread, so you DON'T end up with the redundant signatures and sig images.
:dunno:
But, I thought I might mention that for the longest time over on Stangnet, they did NOT allow images in signatures, period.
Recently, they relented on this stance, but set it up so that a person's signature only shows up once per thread, so you DON'T end up with the redundant signatures and sig images.
:dunno:
Title: Signatures
Post by: cougarcragar on June 18, 2007, 11:43:22 AM
Post by: cougarcragar on June 18, 2007, 11:43:22 AM
Would you guys say this is a realistic "rule of thumb?"
Too big? Too small?
I'm thinking that this should represent the upper limit of a signature's size. Anything that falls below it would be great, of course.
Let's say we decide to use something like this as a measuring device. That's all well and good, but how do we enforce it? Well, I've been thinking about that, too.
Is there any way to direct new members to a page with rules on posting? Perhaps integrated into the registration process? If so, then maybe we could integrate a size limit into the forum rules.
If that isn't possible, I suppose we could create a "sticky" thread with said information.
Too big? Too small?
I'm thinking that this should represent the upper limit of a signature's size. Anything that falls below it would be great, of course.
Let's say we decide to use something like this as a measuring device. That's all well and good, but how do we enforce it? Well, I've been thinking about that, too.
Is there any way to direct new members to a page with rules on posting? Perhaps integrated into the registration process? If so, then maybe we could integrate a size limit into the forum rules.
If that isn't possible, I suppose we could create a "sticky" thread with said information.
Title: Signatures
Post by: Red_LX on June 18, 2007, 11:51:23 AM
Post by: Red_LX on June 18, 2007, 11:51:23 AM
I guess the thing I don't like about some of those size limits is that if you have an image that ISN'T a banner, or banner-ish, it ends up looking squished and awful.
The image in my signature, for example, I tried to make smaller before using it, and if I make it any smaller than it is now it looks like and you can't make out any of the details.
The image in my signature, for example, I tried to make smaller before using it, and if I make it any smaller than it is now it looks like and you can't make out any of the details.
Title: Signatures
Post by: oldraven on June 18, 2007, 12:08:00 PM
Post by: oldraven on June 18, 2007, 12:08:00 PM
This is going a bit far. As it has been stated before, if you have dial-up, block sigs. Keeping the sigs reasonably small out of respect is one thing, giving us parameters of image size and font size is over the top. Enforcing?
Title: Signatures
Post by: cougarcragar on June 18, 2007, 12:29:48 PM
Post by: cougarcragar on June 18, 2007, 12:29:48 PM
Well, I'm out of ideas. :D
I know none of us are big on having a bunch of rules here, but we have to have some kind of limit on signatures.
Garrett, as much as I love that image, there is a lot of stuff in there. It takes up 50% of my browser's viewing screen. Is there a way you can lessen the font size of your mods?
Again, I'm not trying to pick on people. I just think we can all have creative signatures using a reasonable amount of space.
I know none of us are big on having a bunch of rules here, but we have to have some kind of limit on signatures.
Garrett, as much as I love that image, there is a lot of stuff in there. It takes up 50% of my browser's viewing screen. Is there a way you can lessen the font size of your mods?
Again, I'm not trying to pick on people. I just think we can all have creative signatures using a reasonable amount of space.
Title: Signatures
Post by: yellow86coogr on June 18, 2007, 12:46:29 PM
Post by: yellow86coogr on June 18, 2007, 12:46:29 PM
Understandable.
I would hate to see the sigs go away. i check out the links to forum peeps from time 2 time.
Red_LX. I like that gauge set up u got. Nice pics on the site too. i need to check out others more often. allot u guys make my yello rod look like trash.:hick:
I would hate to see the sigs go away. i check out the links to forum peeps from time 2 time.
Red_LX. I like that gauge set up u got. Nice pics on the site too. i need to check out others more often. allot u guys make my yello rod look like trash.:hick:
Title: Signatures
Post by: Red_LX on June 18, 2007, 01:28:20 PM
Post by: Red_LX on June 18, 2007, 01:28:20 PM
50%?
I sense a slight exaggeration :p
Oh yeah, my car looks like trash up close, trust me. Peeling clearcoat does nothing to enhance a car's image.
I sense a slight exaggeration :p
Oh yeah, my car looks like trash up close, trust me. Peeling clearcoat does nothing to enhance a car's image.
Title: Signatures
Post by: Chuck W on June 18, 2007, 01:39:07 PM
Post by: Chuck W on June 18, 2007, 01:39:07 PM
Quote from: Red_LX;155229
The image in my signature, for example, I tried to make smaller before using it, and if I make it any smaller than it is now it looks like and you can't make out any of the details.
Then change it....it's too big...
Title: Signatures
Post by: cougarcragar on June 18, 2007, 01:49:01 PM
Post by: cougarcragar on June 18, 2007, 01:49:01 PM
No exaggeration here, man.
My resolution is 1024 x 768 and your signature takes about 50%-60% of the viewing window from the top-to-bottom scrolling viewpoint. Keep in mind that I'm talking about the signature, not just the image. I was going to attach a screen shot, but I decided against it. Talk about making a thread cluttered! :D
It's not really that big of a deal - I'm just proving my own point. There must be some way to lessen its size.
I don't want you to lose that image, though. I laugh every time I look at it.
My resolution is 1024 x 768 and your signature takes about 50%-60% of the viewing window from the top-to-bottom scrolling viewpoint. Keep in mind that I'm talking about the signature, not just the image. I was going to attach a screen shot, but I decided against it. Talk about making a thread cluttered! :D
It's not really that big of a deal - I'm just proving my own point. There must be some way to lessen its size.
I don't want you to lose that image, though. I laugh every time I look at it.
Title: Signatures
Post by: Red_LX on June 18, 2007, 01:53:14 PM
Post by: Red_LX on June 18, 2007, 01:53:14 PM
I'm on 1024x768 and I don't think it's bad :dunno:
I can't, everyone loves it...see?
Quote from: Chuck W;155240
Then change it....it's too big...
I can't, everyone loves it...see?
Title: Signatures
Post by: Jim_Miller on June 18, 2007, 02:14:05 PM
Post by: Jim_Miller on June 18, 2007, 02:14:05 PM
1280x1024 and duel 18" flat panels and yes it's that bad.
Seen it once it can go away now, seeing it every message you post over and over and over get's real old it's not even your car, or a T-bird, or a Cougar. It's like seeing a comercial for the 1000 time
so no, not "everyone" loves it
Seen it once it can go away now, seeing it every message you post over and over and over get's real old it's not even your car, or a T-bird, or a Cougar. It's like seeing a comercial for the 1000 time
so no, not "everyone" loves it
Title: Signatures
Post by: Red_LX on June 18, 2007, 02:52:45 PM
Post by: Red_LX on June 18, 2007, 02:52:45 PM
Well, your sig has glaringly incorrect spelling that I get tired of seeing, but I don't harp on you for it do I?
I'll stop posting in this thread since my sig image is causing so many people trauma.
I'll stop posting in this thread since my sig image is causing so many people trauma.
Title: Signatures
Post by: DakotaEpic on June 18, 2007, 02:53:27 PM
Post by: DakotaEpic on June 18, 2007, 02:53:27 PM
Lol I had never noticed befor that it was a link to your car domain.
As stupid as this may sound, I often use sigs to wuickly find posts in threads too. I can scroll through them real fast, and look for the sigs, then when I see whoever's I know posted last, I've found were I left off reading. It's kinda convienient. Although it'd still work with a regular sized sig too.
As stupid as this may sound, I often use sigs to wuickly find posts in threads too. I can scroll through them real fast, and look for the sigs, then when I see whoever's I know posted last, I've found were I left off reading. It's kinda convienient. Although it'd still work with a regular sized sig too.
Title: Signatures
Post by: oldraven on June 18, 2007, 03:07:42 PM
Post by: oldraven on June 18, 2007, 03:07:42 PM
Well, it looks plenty visible to me.
Title: Signatures
Post by: V8Demon on June 18, 2007, 03:27:59 PM
Post by: V8Demon on June 18, 2007, 03:27:59 PM
*sigh*
What the heck is going on here lately? I can understand if people want a sig limitation, but what's with the whining?
Again......Anybody want me to shrink mine?
What the heck is going on here lately? I can understand if people want a sig limitation, but what's with the whining?
Again......Anybody want me to shrink mine?
Title: Signatures
Post by: 5.0willgo on June 19, 2007, 09:01:31 AM
Post by: 5.0willgo on June 19, 2007, 09:01:31 AM
I'm kind-of with Zach on this one. Some sigs are a bit on the large side. I'm not mentioning names so I ask not to get attacked or :beatyoass:
The example that he posted I think is fair. My sig picture is 480 x 136 and it's plenty large :dunno:
The example that he posted I think is fair. My sig picture is 480 x 136 and it's plenty large :dunno:
Title: Signatures
Post by: 20th anny 5.o on June 19, 2007, 11:20:08 AM
Post by: 20th anny 5.o on June 19, 2007, 11:20:08 AM
if we went by the 500x** my new shrunk sig would be too big because i believe its around 557x***, (i would give the specs but my mouse has taken a dive and im doing all this by KB). And no im not whining if people still think my sig is too big then i will delete it.
Title: Signatures
Post by: xr7cat on June 19, 2007, 11:35:03 AM
Post by: xr7cat on June 19, 2007, 11:35:03 AM
Personally, sigs are nice, but if you can turn them of then I would. I have no problems with sigs, with or without broadband.
Though I do understand were everyone is coming from.
Though I do understand were everyone is coming from.
Title: Signatures
Post by: jcassity on June 19, 2007, 11:53:56 AM
Post by: jcassity on June 19, 2007, 11:53:56 AM
Quote from: Red_LX;155229
I guess the thing I don't like about some of those size limits is that if you have an image that ISN'T a banner, or banner-ish, it ends up looking squished and awful.
The image in my signature, for example, I tried to make smaller before using it, and if I make it any smaller than it is now it looks like and you can't make out any of the details.
i still dont get it after all these years of ing with computers. To resize, all you have to do is disipline yourself to "save as .jpg"
1-Next, right click jpg and open with "microsoft office picture manager"
2-change the percentage only to whatever is suitable.
3-Click "save"
red lx
here is your sig i resized to 70%,, as a result, its less than 1/2 ist original size. Dont ask me how cause the math isnt there but still.
BTW,, all the stuff i do here as well as posting pics, schematics ect ,, Im doing it all on 19,2k dialup.
I even do my work / job on that speed.
I dont care either away, i just deal with my situation and find ways around speed issues.
you dont need any "special software" ect ,, thats just plain silly. Microsoft provides enough stuff standard to do all the size changes you need.
The only thing that gripes my ass is when pics are posted and the darn page loads up like the rest of the photo is outside my monitor.
red lx, on a side note,, i didnt think your original size was an issue,, its only like 45k. your sig never bothered me before.
Title: Signatures
Post by: thundergrowl on June 19, 2007, 12:09:18 PM
Post by: thundergrowl on June 19, 2007, 12:09:18 PM
Quote from: jcassity;155471
here is your sig i resized to 70%,, as a result, its less than 1/2 ist original size. Dont ask me how cause the math isnt there but still.
70% = 0.7
you are taking 70% height and 70% width
0.7x0.7 = 0.49
or 49% the original file size
Title: Signatures
Post by: jcassity on June 19, 2007, 12:21:31 PM
Post by: jcassity on June 19, 2007, 12:21:31 PM
so doing some inventory here on 19.2 dialup,,,:D
here are the stats,,,,,,, if your not on the list then its because its just so small it isnt worth noting.
I dont know what is good or bad,, just what defaults are built into the board. id say 20k is decent for a guide.
thunderchicken 27.6k
daboss 55.5k
32vfpxbord 14.4k
84fila 14.3k
yellow86cougar 26.8k
cougrrr302 21.3k
kingcars 78k
turbocoupe50 12.5k
20th anny 5.0 40k
v8demon -sig profiles as unknown but ms office thinks its a .bmp. Open with paint and its 291k,,, save as .jpg and its 24.8k
cougarse 28.8k
old raven 79k
red lx 49k
5.0willgo 59k
jcassity 19.2 (purposefully to match my internet speed : )
thundergrowl 36.4k
here are the stats,,,,,,, if your not on the list then its because its just so small it isnt worth noting.
I dont know what is good or bad,, just what defaults are built into the board. id say 20k is decent for a guide.
thunderchicken 27.6k
daboss 55.5k
32vfpxbord 14.4k
84fila 14.3k
yellow86cougar 26.8k
cougrrr302 21.3k
kingcars 78k
turbocoupe50 12.5k
20th anny 5.0 40k
v8demon -sig profiles as unknown but ms office thinks its a .bmp. Open with paint and its 291k,,, save as .jpg and its 24.8k
cougarse 28.8k
old raven 79k
red lx 49k
5.0willgo 59k
jcassity 19.2 (purposefully to match my internet speed : )
thundergrowl 36.4k
Title: Signatures
Post by: JeremyB on June 19, 2007, 12:27:04 PM
Post by: JeremyB on June 19, 2007, 12:27:04 PM
Quote from: V8Demon;155265
Again......Anybody want me to shrink mine?
ZOMG, urz is so big!
I fix...
Paul
87 5.0 TFS hds Cam Int. and other goodies...3.1kLbs...~12's
05 'Stang GT-Whipplecharged >400 HP
;)
Title: Signatures
Post by: jcassity on June 19, 2007, 12:33:56 PM
Post by: jcassity on June 19, 2007, 12:33:56 PM
or this
right click prop's 24k in jpg , i think his is just faux on how big it is. Just because it looks big doesnt mean it is. I think that hidden url within tricks us.
right click prop's 24k in jpg , i think his is just faux on how big it is. Just because it looks big doesnt mean it is. I think that hidden url within tricks us.
Title: Signatures
Post by: cougarcragar on June 19, 2007, 12:47:33 PM
Post by: cougarcragar on June 19, 2007, 12:47:33 PM
Keep in mind, folks. The main point I was trying to make with this thread was the overall size of signatures.
The file size of the images is one thing, and I'm glad we've covered that topic. Again, some of us are still on dial-up.
However, I was getting fed up with scrolling down a topic to read posts and having one person's signature take up 50%-70% of the screen. And if that person posted more than once, well... I began to lose my temper.
That left each page in a thread with less and less content and more redundant signature material.
That was my main gripe. Looking back, it goes hand-in-hand with the file size of images.
The file size of the images is one thing, and I'm glad we've covered that topic. Again, some of us are still on dial-up.
However, I was getting fed up with scrolling down a topic to read posts and having one person's signature take up 50%-70% of the screen. And if that person posted more than once, well... I began to lose my temper.
That left each page in a thread with less and less content and more redundant signature material.
That was my main gripe. Looking back, it goes hand-in-hand with the file size of images.
Title: Signatures
Post by: 1badcougar on June 19, 2007, 01:33:46 PM
Post by: 1badcougar on June 19, 2007, 01:33:46 PM
I had done mine on dial-up. If its too big, please let me know. I also think we needed to cover this (not a big issue for me because I get to recognize people by their signatures & screen names). A lot of forums do have a size regulation for signatures. I did mine to fall in the size regulations of other forums.
Title: Signatures
Post by: oldraven on June 19, 2007, 01:45:59 PM
Post by: oldraven on June 19, 2007, 01:45:59 PM
Woah. Why is my little image so big? (maybe it's because I love the 'High Quality' save feature in PS.)
Title: Signatures
Post by: Chuck W on June 19, 2007, 02:16:23 PM
Post by: Chuck W on June 19, 2007, 02:16:23 PM
It isn't the "density" (for the lack of a better term) of the images, it is the physical height that is the issue.
Title: Signatures
Post by: Thunder Chicken on June 19, 2007, 04:25:17 PM
Post by: Thunder Chicken on June 19, 2007, 04:25:17 PM
I don't even mind the file size that much - the Fasterfox extension to Firefox does a really nice job of caching, so I only have to download 'em once. The physical height is the problem I see - I'm running 1280X800 on a 15" widescreen laptop and some of the sigs do take up half a screen or more.
For example, since Red_LX's sig was brought up, here's a screenshot (I reduced the image to 75%). Zach was not exaggerating, in fact he was being conservative - it's more than 50% of the screen. An entire screen for one two line post - the rest is signature. Also note the time in the lower right corner - it took 343 seconds to load that page through dialup, even with fasterfox enabled:
For example, since Red_LX's sig was brought up, here's a screenshot (I reduced the image to 75%). Zach was not exaggerating, in fact he was being conservative - it's more than 50% of the screen. An entire screen for one two line post - the rest is signature. Also note the time in the lower right corner - it took 343 seconds to load that page through dialup, even with fasterfox enabled:
Title: Signatures
Post by: Thunder Chicken on June 19, 2007, 05:08:41 PM
Post by: Thunder Chicken on June 19, 2007, 05:08:41 PM
You will now notice that larger sigs are cut off and have a scroll bar. Sigs are now limited to 175 pixels high - this includes images and text. If your sig is higher it will be "clipped" and there will be a scroll bar. There is no "official" linit for horizontal size, but consider 800 pixels to be an unofficial rule (nobody wants to scroll side to side to see posts because of a sig). If you want a pic of your car and text describing it, either make the pic about 150 pixels high (to allow room for text under or over it, like in my sig) or put the text beside it. This should keep everyone happy: Those that like their big images can still have them, but those that don't want to scroll through big sigs won't have to. Problem solved :D
Title: Signatures
Post by: chri85tc on June 19, 2007, 07:07:13 PM
Post by: chri85tc on June 19, 2007, 07:07:13 PM
I like what was done, the size is perfect now. I will make mine so there is no scroll bars.
Title: Signatures
Post by: cougarcragar on June 19, 2007, 07:27:20 PM
Post by: cougarcragar on June 19, 2007, 07:27:20 PM
I think this is an excellent solution for the problem.
Title: Signatures
Post by: daboss351 on June 19, 2007, 07:28:22 PM
Post by: daboss351 on June 19, 2007, 07:28:22 PM
awesome idea!!
Title: Signatures
Post by: CougarSE on June 19, 2007, 08:02:14 PM
Post by: CougarSE on June 19, 2007, 08:02:14 PM
Hey thats not bad at all.
Title: Signatures
Post by: DakotaEpic on June 20, 2007, 05:08:58 AM
Post by: DakotaEpic on June 20, 2007, 05:08:58 AM
Lol turning sigs off now. Haha, I'm a wheel mouse user like hardcore, and it gets really strange scrolling through pages when it takes a second to scroll through someone's sig.
Title: Signatures
Post by: MasterBlaster on June 20, 2007, 07:13:36 AM
Post by: MasterBlaster on June 20, 2007, 07:13:36 AM
Quote from: jcassity;155479
I dont know what is good or bad,, just what defaults are built into the board. id say 20k is decent for a guide.
127.0.0.1 img15.echo.cx # Bird351's sig picture (588k)
Title: Signatures
Post by: V8Demon on June 20, 2007, 09:36:31 AM
Post by: V8Demon on June 20, 2007, 09:36:31 AM
That works
Title: Signatures
Post by: V8Demon on June 20, 2007, 09:38:21 AM
Post by: V8Demon on June 20, 2007, 09:38:21 AM
that works
Title: Signatures
Post by: Billyf17 on June 21, 2007, 06:03:25 PM
Post by: Billyf17 on June 21, 2007, 06:03:25 PM
I'm with DakotaEpic. I be a hardcore wheel scroller and find it weird to have main scrolling stop to sub-scroll a sig.
Title: Signatures
Post by: CougarSE on June 21, 2007, 06:05:53 PM
Post by: CougarSE on June 21, 2007, 06:05:53 PM
Quote from: Billyf17;156093
I'm with DakotaEpic. I be a hardcore wheel scroller and find it weird to have main scrolling stop to sub-scroll a sig.
YES! I was so going to say something about this...
Title: Signatures
Post by: Ether947 on June 21, 2007, 10:00:47 PM
Post by: Ether947 on June 21, 2007, 10:00:47 PM
I was wondering where those things came from. I just sitting here scrolling then all of a sudden the page does this stop-start thing. :)
Title: Signatures
Post by: oldraven on June 22, 2007, 07:11:50 AM
Post by: oldraven on June 22, 2007, 07:11:50 AM
It's a good solution. Anyone who's sig needs scrolling is now going to piss everyone off with their signatures.
I got mine to fit, (at less than half the file size), but it's going to need a revamp, since I can hardly see the text anymore.
I got mine to fit, (at less than half the file size), but it's going to need a revamp, since I can hardly see the text anymore.
Title: Signatures
Post by: CougarSE on June 22, 2007, 10:05:14 AM
Post by: CougarSE on June 22, 2007, 10:05:14 AM
Yours doesn't fit.
Title: Signatures
Post by: EricCoolCats on June 22, 2007, 10:16:34 AM
Post by: EricCoolCats on June 22, 2007, 10:16:34 AM
Hmmm...fits on my computers just fine. I'm showing a 337x165 dimension, well within the allowed specs.
For scrolling, I have noticed that it can become an issue. I'm trying to get used to scrolling out on the edges, instead of in the middle of the page. That works fine, just needs some practice I guess.
For scrolling, I have noticed that it can become an issue. I'm trying to get used to scrolling out on the edges, instead of in the middle of the page. That works fine, just needs some practice I guess.
Title: Signatures
Post by: oldraven on June 22, 2007, 10:47:41 AM
Post by: oldraven on June 22, 2007, 10:47:41 AM
Quote from: CougarSE;156226
Yours doesn't fit.
F5. It fits fine on mine.
Title: Signatures
Post by: CougarSE on June 22, 2007, 11:03:10 AM
Post by: CougarSE on June 22, 2007, 11:03:10 AM
Nope it doesn't fit. Just cuts off half a line of text.... ah wait... now if my resolution allowed more room for text to go sideways... then cherokee 4.0l wouldn't be under your tbird picture. 1024x768!
Title: Signatures
Post by: EricCoolCats on June 22, 2007, 12:02:46 PM
Post by: EricCoolCats on June 22, 2007, 12:02:46 PM
Oldraven, text next to a photo in Internet layout terms will, by default, line up the text on the bottom of the pic. We *should* be able to put a line of HTML code in there to make the text align in the middle of the photo. That way if the text meets a box limit, it puts the line right under it. I think that's what's happening on screens that can't go very wide, and thus Claude's problem.
Something like that...if you can't do it on your end, I can sneak into the admin CP and do that for ya.
Something like that...if you can't do it on your end, I can sneak into the admin CP and do that for ya.
Title: Signatures
Post by: oldraven on June 22, 2007, 12:33:33 PM
Post by: oldraven on June 22, 2007, 12:33:33 PM
Thanks Eric. If I'm too thick to figure it out, I'll let you know.
*edit*
Will that work with img tags?
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v613/oldraven/Tbird/june07-1_smaller.jpg
)CAW! oldraven (http://www.cardomain.com/ride/248454) 87 TC 2.3Ti Supertruck (http://www.cardomain.com/ride/336205) 86 C10 383 stroker jeepishltd (http://www.cardomain.com/ride/609647) 93 Grand Cherokee 4.0L
*edit*
Will that work with img tags?
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v613/oldraven/Tbird/june07-1_smaller.jpg
)CAW! oldraven (http://www.cardomain.com/ride/248454) 87 TC 2.3Ti Supertruck (http://www.cardomain.com/ride/336205) 86 C10 383 stroker jeepishltd (http://www.cardomain.com/ride/609647) 93 Grand Cherokee 4.0L
Title: Signatures
Post by: Ether947 on June 22, 2007, 01:26:44 PM
Post by: Ether947 on June 22, 2007, 01:26:44 PM
Quote from: EricCoolCats;156229
Hmmm...fits on my computers just fine. I'm showing a 337x165 dimension, well within the allowed specs.
Are you using a Mac? Raven's fits on a the MacBook but not one my PC with 20" LCD monitor set at 1600x1200 res.
Title: Signatures
Post by: Thunder Chicken on June 22, 2007, 07:25:18 PM
Post by: Thunder Chicken on June 22, 2007, 07:25:18 PM
It fits on my PC @1280X800...
As for the scroll mouse users: Running this board is like trying to run government. All about compromise. Any choice we made would have pissed somebody off. Looks like you guys got the short end :D Joking apart, aside from killing sigs altogether I see no better solution.
As for the scroll mouse users: Running this board is like trying to run government. All about compromise. Any choice we made would have pissed somebody off. Looks like you guys got the short end :D Joking apart, aside from killing sigs altogether I see no better solution.
Title: Signatures
Post by: EricCoolCats on June 22, 2007, 09:23:21 PM
Post by: EricCoolCats on June 22, 2007, 09:23:21 PM
Quote
Are you using a Mac? Raven's fits on a the MacBook but not one my PC with 20" LCD monitor set at 1600x1200 res.
The Powerbook, G5 (Safari) and the PC at work (IE6, Firefox) all show Raven's sig perfectly. So...I don't know what to say. Haven't experienced any issues with his sig at all.
Title: Signatures
Post by: CougarSE on June 22, 2007, 09:37:15 PM
Post by: CougarSE on June 22, 2007, 09:37:15 PM
If your text size has been increased then the signatures size will be different..
Title: Signatures
Post by: Cougars 2 go on June 23, 2007, 01:06:48 AM
Post by: Cougars 2 go on June 23, 2007, 01:06:48 AM
Quote from: CougarSE;155024
This is how I like it... well actually I just hate signatures... I have one because I'm too lazy to go into the control panel and turn it off.
Quote from: oldraven;155080
Well, I guess it has been said. I like having the sig pictures on there, as it makes it easier to keep the posters straight when you have a long read.
Quote from: DakotaEpic;155258
As stupid as this may sound, I often use sigs to wuickly find posts in threads too. I can scroll through them real fast, and look for the sigs, then when I see whoever's I know posted last, I've found were I left off reading. It's kinda convienient. Although it'd still work with a regular sized sig too.
Not having a lot of time to spend on the forums, I didn't get a chance to post any input but the solution turned out to be a good one.
I would like to say though, that I find the signature images very useful for the reasons quoted above and a few other reasons. I've been to boards with only sig text, without the sig images, and I can't keep the conversation straight in my mind. My eyes pass over all the sig text unless it is brief, witty or hyperlinked.
These images are like our individual faces in real life. They help me quickly identify and remember the speaker. (Sort of like a finger print or wait, paw print. :D
I wish they wouldn't change so much though because I recognize people on here by their signature images. It's like Russ and Audrey in the National Lampoons Vacation series.
I agree with Zach though that there were some signature images crazy big.