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

[Kiwi_Rail]

While Dave's lower image may be oversize it is only 27kb, therefore it taxes your system no more than any of the images within the CoC regulations. The whole reason for the limits was for people with dialup who struggle to load larger images; therefore only a file size limit is needed - dimension has absolutely no affect on load time. And if you still complain, you Seriously need to get out more.


William

 

[big_b]

How many sigs can you have?
The CoC only states the size of an individual sig not how many individual sig's you can have under your name.

Besides who wants to spend the day on the forum measuring sig's anyway.

Dave

 

[S301]

Actually, when they were first enforced, we were told that it was the total for BOTH images. So, you were allowed a maximum of 800 pixels across the screen, and 100 pixels high on the screen, with a max of 30Kb. So, if you have 2 banners, both can add up to no more than 100 pixels high, or 800 pixels across (if you have then one above the other, you could have them both at 800 wide, but a max of 100 total for height; whereas for two side by side, they can both have a height of 100 pixels, but the total for the width can be no more than 800). Going by this, which was the original rule that we were given by the mods, Dave's sig is in fact too high. Same as, in total, the file size is too big. On their own, they both come in within the COC, but added together they are way over.

Mind you, this is just what we were told when these rules were implemented after the forum crash...
Zec

 

[Dermmy]

So you find sigs annoying or they slow your perusal of the forum. That's OK, no argument.

1. user CP
2. edit Options
3. Uncheck 'Show Signatures'

Total time (even on DialUp) 60 seconds.

Problem solved.

I'd like to move that pointless irritating threads like this be banned.

No, I'm not serious.

Mostly not anyway....

Andy

 

[Euphod]

Do you know how many times I had to put Elmer Joker through the JPEG optimiser? It was a bloodbath I tell you!

 

[big_b]

So whats the killer the physical dimensions of the pic or the kb size of it.

Some sig's are all text no physical size shown just the language used .

The sig input screen will let you put in about a 1/4 of a screen of text into it.

Whats the limit for a text only sig if no details are given

I've seen some sigs higher than a comparable 100px image but take up the whole screen width.

Dave

 

[Dermmy]

So whats the killer the physical dimensions of the pic or the kb size of it.
Dave

The kb is the download speed killer. It is worth making the point tho that if you are a regular user (or browser) of the forum that the image is more than likely loaded from cache on the local machine anyway, not downloaded every time it appears.

I have nothing against a sig size limit and I believe it should be observed. I just think calling for a sig pic ban because a few are oversized is the Nth degree of ridiculous. A polite PM to the 'offenders' or a PM or Report to Mods is all that is needed...

Andy

 

[S301]

I agree, banning outright is not the right path...

As for amount of text, 120 characters is the max. Now, how this is laid out, there are no actual regs for. But I would think that a sig that is made to deliberately disrupt the forums would be removed

Zec

 

[Euphod]

A polite PM to the 'offenders' or a PM or Report to Mods is all that is needed...Andy

Andy all sunshine and happiness, puppies and lollypops: WRONG! In a perfect world all that should be needed is a polite PM or a report to the mods, but in THIS REAL WORLD, I've been met with plenty of attitude to a polite PM, and the Mods seem to have their hands full, and that's why the Rattler posted in the first place. He isn't the first to draw attention to the situation, only the latest.

I like your optimistic outlook though...:hehe:

 

[GP_38-2]

illinoiscentral



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.
Narrowgauge

Quoted for truth. If you can't follow the rules you should face the consequences.

Dmdrake: The first image fine, the second one is 500x118 not over, but I wouldn't have checked if they weren't double stacked myself.

 

[dmdrake]

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.

My sig is 354 X 97 X 30KB so I don't understand what you are talking about.

Edit: New sig is 799pix X 99pix X 28KB

 

[zatovisualworks]

:hehe: Borrowing (or stealing) the signature from Ed (please, Ed, don't tick me as your most ignored one here for doing that), that's my opinion....

The borrowing side of Alberte :wave:

 

[Euphod]

Alberte, if I could ignore you anymore, I would!:hehe:

The insufficiently ignoring side of Euphod!

 

[paulzmay]

Dave - I can see what GP_38-2 is talking about - you appear to have a 345px × 97px (29.46kb) banner:

Arranged above another 500px × 118px (27.47kb) banner:

I guess total banner size (pixels & kb) is what the CoC is aiming at, so I guess you're over...

All the best...

Paul

 

[cascaderailroad]

Size

I tried to make my Baldwin Centipedes photo as small as possible...BUT they weren't small in the prototype, by any means ! And they were permanently coupled.

 

[Euphod]

a 345px × 97px (29.46kb) banner:

Not! Now I'm really confused!:hehe:

Gotta love the "Drake"!

 

[American_Connections]

Banning

I agree, banning outright is not the right path...
Zec

Yet they have done so!

 

[dmdrake]

Dave - I can see what GP_38-2 is talking about - you appear to have a 345px × 97px (29.46kb) banner:

Arranged above another 500px × 118px (27.47kb) banner:

I guess total banner size (pixels & kb) is what the CoC is aiming at, so I guess you're over...

All the best...

Paul

I only see one sig! What's going on here?

 

[Euphod]

I figured it was some kind of mistake somewhere, but Dave, you've been sporting those two sigs stacked up for some time now. That's why I mentioned it to you recently...

 

[leeferr]

Dave, I hate to get into this debate, but from your post it appears that you're only seeing one of the pics and rest of us are seeing two, one on top of the other. Not sure what's going on with that.
Mike