A number of signatures are still oversized/ Request to disable images in signatures

[Red_Rattler]

I like images in signatures (and have used images in signatures in the past) as much as the next person, however their are a number of people that are not following the size limits that Auran have set. Their are still a number of other signatures that are also over the limits. For example this signature is more than 2½ times the limit that they [Auran] have set. It seems as though people don't get that large images (especially in signatures) can considerably affect how a page loads.

Images in signatures are not suppose to overpower the main part of the post.

Therefore, I ask that a motion (between the administrators, moderators and/or Auran team) to disable images in signatures be seriously considered.
Members might say that you can disable signatures in the User Control Panel, however that is a disadvantage when a link is provided in the signature area.

Motion to administrators and/or moderators to disable images in signatures
I, hereby ask that the administrators and/or moderators seriously consider a motion that either:
a) Due to a number of members not limiting their signature images within what Auran's has set, that images be disabled in signatures, and that only text and different text formats be allowed in signatures OR

b) that a system be introduced that automatically resizes images in signatures to within the set limits, or like the text in signatures that is over the character limit, that the image in the signature is rejected.

To those that which to have oversized images in signatures, please consider those that are on slower connections. People might say that it doesn't affect broadband, but if does, especially if they are at a public computer, such as a library, or when a person's broadband speed is reduced, such as when their monthly quota has been reached, and slowed down to dial up speeds.

 

[BLACKWATCH]

I, hereby ask that the administrators and/or moderators seriously consider a motion that either:
a) Due to a number of members not limiting their signature images within what Auran's has set, that images be disabled in signatures, and that only text and different text formats be allowed in signatures

A bit 1984 imho, why should the majority be punished for a crime of the minority. :n:

 

[Euphod]

While I understand the righteous indignation and the yearning for justice and equality, I also would like to point out that each user can disable the display of signatures, avatars and pictures in their user CP.

 

[slave-driver]

Report them to the moderators so they can take car it it. It's worked before. All they need is for someone to bring it to their attention. Even if they don't put something in to automatically resize them like you suggested reporting them usually gets semi speedy results. Also you can do like Ed said.

Bill

 

[Red_Rattler]

While I understand the righteous indignation and the yearning for justice and equality, I also would like to point out that each user can disable the display of signatures, avatars and pictures in their user CP.

See first post for answer

Report them to the moderators so they can take care it it. It's worked before.

I have, but the same signatures are still oversized.

 

[norfolksouthern37]

Perhaps crying about it?

 

[OverlordNZ]

If using Firefox get the add-on AdBlock (i believe there are also others for, the other major web browsers), allows you to make it so you don't see any graphics (or flash) that you don't want to.

(Below sig is 800x100px 28.6 KB (29283 bytes))
Forum rules: 800x100 30KB

 

[illinoiscentral]

Why is it such a Big Deal?!

I don't understand why you guys are so concerned. Who cares? I think it is kinda silly to worry about that, maybe if there was porn or cussing in the signature that would be worth the concern, but size? Don't be children.

Just my Two Cents,
Woody

 

[Iced8383]

Some people's computers can slow down at Signature banners larger than 30 KB.

 

[illinoiscentral]

Well, that is understandable but there is no need to put up a thread about it.

 

[PerRock]

Report them to the moderators so they can take car it it. It's worked before. All they need is for someone to bring it to their attention. Even if they don't put something in to automatically resize them like you suggested reporting them usually gets semi speedy results. Also you can do like Ed said.

Bill

The reason the thread was started is that the most moderators do is give you a profile warning and/or a PM. I think most people just ignore that. or have some sort of immunity.

I too would like to see something done about this.

peter

 

[0099]

I don't think having photos are that effective anyway, I mean how many of you have looked at my signiture and gone ( Because there is a photo ) ohhhh wicked that is so totally awsome and then followed it

 

[narrowgauge]

illinoiscentral

Well, that is understandable but there is no need to put up a thread about it.

With your record of pointless threads, you are in no position to make this type of comment.

What seems to be forgotten is:-

Auran own this forum.

They make the rules amongst which is a limitation on signature sizes. If you want to change the rules approach Auran.

Moderators are tasked with ensuring that posts on this forum follow the rules as they are at the moment.

If Auran considered that any size of sig is acceptable, the sig size rule would not exist.

Red Rattler is quite right in requesting a moderator to take firm action to apply the rules, not change them, just apply what is there. I agree with him, while large sigs are not a problem to me, a size limit is specified and should be adhered to.

Blackwatch, you said this but you got it backwards

A bit 1984 imho, why should the majority be punished for a crime of the minority.

It should be:-

Why should a minority be punished for the crimes or carelessness of of the majority.

Narrowgauge

 

[sethmcs]

Do I get a prize for undersized banner?

Hey Red_Rattler,

Do I get a prize for undersized banner?:hehe:

96 x 93

6912 bytes

 

[SuperFudd]

Afraid not.:wave:

 

[dmdrake]

All better now!

How's this Red_Rattler? Since I have reduced my sig to a size in compliance with the CoC I suggest you change you link to point out some other miscreant.

Not sure why I was accused of being 2 1/2 times the CoC limit of 800 X 100 X 30KB as my sig was 500 X 141 X 55KB.

I'll try to be more careful in the future and check the CoC regularly for changes and additions.

Dave

 

[Euphod]

There's the solution: a "Vigilante" thread! Red can keep changing the link, and we can watch the accused bow to peer pressure!

 

[ckthomson]

There's the solution: a "Vigilante" thread! Red can keep changing the link, and we can watch the accused bow to peer pressure!

Maybe Auran should just turn on the automatic sig-size limiter. It happens to be a feature of vBulletin, and one which many of the other boards I frequent choose to employ, as it eliminates the need for threads like this.


Of course, it only works properly if the mods disable externally-hosted banners AND block the use of the

 

[axe1970]

I don't agree.

Sure I don't want to see oversized banners taking up half my screensize, but Auran have the CoC and they have the right to enforce the rules or not.

Just letting you know of my opinion.

thanks

 

[Red_Rattler]

To Dmdrake, your signature is still way over the limit. You top banner is with in the limit, but your bottom banner is over the limit. It is suppose to be 100 high in total. You signature is still more than twice over what it should be.

Thankyou Narrowgauge.