If we were allowed to use HTML one could go:
<IMG src="Image URL" width="##" height="##" />
but we aren't
peter
New Signature Size Poll
- Thread starter Alan_Yeomans
- Start date
- Status
If we were allowed to use HTML one could go:
<IMG src="Image URL" width="##" height="##" />
but we aren't
peter
I mean as part of the Forum software.If we were allowed to use HTML one could go:
<IMG src="Image URL" width="##" height="##" />
but we aren't
peter
That way it would be taken out of the hands of the users, and even if they have over-sized banners, they wouldn't be displayed any bigger than 480x100, or whatever the maximum size turns out to be.
On the other hand, the mods and Alan could just operate a zero-tolerance policy on offenders so that it was 1 rule for all, but it would need to be enforced, and that's where it's failed in the past.
Smiley.
Hi all
Just keep them with rates that us people that are on dial up can put with, some must also be done to inforce the rule about not quoting picture posts, when done too many times in one thread it makes reading thatcthread really slow fior me and others speciall;y if there hi-res.
Tom
Just keep them with rates that us people that are on dial up can put with, some must also be done to inforce the rule about not quoting picture posts, when done too many times in one thread it makes reading thatcthread really slow fior me and others speciall;y if there hi-res.
Tom
slave-driver
Sacramento Nothern Lives
Thats were the 25kb for the image comes in Tom.
Bill
Bill
A signature is supposed to be similar to your non-virtual sig, something short and simple that seperates you from everyone else. Do you take a whole page of paper just to sign your name? Yeah, I don't agree with unlimited size sigs, I don't care if there is an option to turn them off or not. And I use broadband, not dial up. Also, I've seen forums that allow unlimited sigs, on a Starfleet Command forum, because of the unlimited sigs, I couldn't find anything I looked for because the sigs were bigger than the posts. Big sigs draw too much attention away from what is posted, a sig should compliment a post, not BE the post. Besides, if you want big sigs, there's already a topic for it. Screenshots.
I would ask that a couple of items be considered exceptions to sig rules.
1 - the way to include the old DLS green ticket shouldn't count in the sig.
2 - Any small image or even simple text link allowing someone to link to their homepage or team website, still within boundaries but in addition to the poster's individual sig.
As for fixing existing sigs, it is just like working with textures, there is plenty on information on how to resize textures, same general principles apply.
I would ask that a couple of items be considered exceptions to sig rules.
1 - the way to include the old DLS green ticket shouldn't count in the sig.
2 - Any small image or even simple text link allowing someone to link to their homepage or team website, still within boundaries but in addition to the poster's individual sig.
As for fixing existing sigs, it is just like working with textures, there is plenty on information on how to resize textures, same general principles apply.
The problem isn't that most people don't know how to fix their sigs to comply (those that don't can find plenty of help on here),
it's more a case of some flouting the rules for the sake of it.
I've seen some long-standing members go a couple of pixels over the limit just so they rebel, and it makes Auran look petty if they chase them up over it (which they generally don't).
It's the Internet equivalent of the Napoleon Complex.
Anyway, I notice that the Poll is now closed Alan.
Can we have a decision on this?
And how about getting your web guys to add resizing code to the banner area so that anything oversized is resized to the maximum the forum rules allow?
Smiley.
PVincent342
New member
How 'bout no size restriction
trainzmainiac2006
T.C.S. Chairman
I voted for it, but i would change my vote now to the new size with a hight of 100 pixiles.
John
John
StorkNest said:
Apart from the problem with people still on dial up from the above (and I have voted for a set size not unlimited), the size of the signature seems (to me) to be set in such a way that it reflects a particular site you are interested in or an area that you maybe interested in. So instead of calling it a signature it should be called a "Banner", however having said that I still agree with a reasonable size. I personally think PVincent342 size is "around" the maixmum size I would go for, mainly becuse of my Monkey which I have used for a number of years
. The coments from storknest are still very valid though and quite correct.For those who do not know my Monkey here he is only an example though.
Craig
P.S. For many years I have also signed off with Craig and three smilies as above and I have not seen any other person do this
For those who do not know my Monkey here he is only an example though.
See this is where the system falls down.
It would be a crime to lose Craig's monkey.
I think it's been here longer than me!!!
I propose that the system is based on the amount of pixels used rather than constant height and widths.
For example, the 480x100 example, which is reasonable size, uses 48,000 pixels, as would a 100x480 pixel picture.
Craig's monkey uses just over half that, yet it still breaks the limits of size.
So a system where you have 48,000 pixels to use, with say a height restriction of 200 to stop people from creating a banner 10x4800, and the community could enjoy Craig's monkey a little while longer.
Let common sense prevail.
Smiley.
slave-driver
Sacramento Nothern Lives
Now that make a lot of sence. The only thing I would like to add is restrict the width so someone doesn't have a banner 4800x10. Then your right back to the size restrictions like 480x100. Here is an idea. No taller than 200 pixel, no wider than 600 pixel, file size no larger than 25k or not to exceed 48,000 pixels total. Maybe make the width a little smaller but you get the general idea but not to exceed any of those maximums. It's a thought.See this is where the system falls down.
It would be a crime to lose Craig's monkey.
I think it's been here longer than me!!!
I propose that the system is based on the amount of pixels used rather than constant height and widths.
For example, the 480x100 example, which is reasonable size, uses 48,000 pixels, as would a 100x480 pixel picture.
Craig's monkey uses just over half that, yet it still breaks the limits of size.
So a system where you have 48,000 pixels to use, with say a height restriction of 200 to stop people from creating a banner 10x4800, and the community could enjoy Craig's monkey a little while longer.
Let common sense prevail.
Smiley.
Bill
borntobeatrainzer
New member
I'd say unlimited probably. But not as big as the sig banner I tried (for those that remember) It was HUGE!!!!!!
btbat
btbat
I have to agree with you.
We still don't have the equivalent of the old forums' "flatcar" that shows which products have been registered by the poster (which is why I only help people that I either know from the old forums, or people who have been able to download from the DS, hence obviously registered).
Also, it would only take a few seconds to add the equivalent of the old DS ticket to the drop-down menu that you get when you click the posters name.
I know it's easy enough to add the same thing to our banner/signature area, but that's not really the point is it?
I think since the forums were hastily taken down last year, Auran have done very little to regain the confidence of the Trainz community.
Let's not forget, I've been a staunch supporter of Auran and the Trainz brand for a long time, giving up many, many hours of my free time to help Beta Test it, helping people whenever I can, and spreading the word about this great sim, as I know many others have, but even I find it hard not to be concerned at Auran's apparent lack of interest in the Trainz community right now.
I guess it's the little things that make the difference, and I just don't see them around here anymore.
Negative sounding post?
Well, maybe.
But if the truth sounds negative, you shouldn't be looking to shoot the messenger.
trackplate
New member
480 x 100 (25 kbs) is my preferred option though surely for the likes of Craig's Monkey exceptions could be made if only through prior approval by the powers that be via the help desk
Regards, Bob V
Regards, Bob V
Agreed.
I have the feeling that Auran (or other) is doing a crackdown on critisism. Perhaps they feel that it causes "negative vibes". However, I also feel that the "red tape" they've been laying down for all of us has caused more "negative vibes" than the critisism.
Just my 2 Cents worth.
Cheers,
John
- Status