PLEASE READ - Permissable Signature Size in the Auran Trainz Forum

Not open for further replies.
.....But there is one user who has a banner over half a meg, and I've reported it 3 times in the last few months and it's still there.

One more post, just to point out that I posted that a week ago (post #30 in this thread) in response to Fox saying that all offenders will be dealt with in time.
One week on and no change.

I'm not looking for the Mods to be heavy handed, as this wouldn't be tolerated by the public, including me, but I think the people here would just like to see some consistency.

If the banner limits are no longer a priority then get rid of them and let chaos begin.

If banner limits are still a priority then enforce them, especially when the community specifically point you to the offenders.
If a few polite reminders don't work then issue a few days ban, delete the banner from their sig, whatever you like, but don't pretend you're doing something about it when it's clear you're not.

Now, as I said previously, I'd like to apply for one of these "get out of jail" cards.
Are they expensive, or is it more to do with "who you know"?

The webmaster responsible for this forum can easily add a few lines of code to politely reject oversize banners and replace the with a simple message like: "Signature not being displayed due to size restrictions". The person responsible for the sig will then quickly get the message. The whole thing would then be automatic, and fingers can't be pointed at anyone except the sig owner.
Um Smileyman, you do know that your signature is 518 bytes over the limit?

Smileyman said:
One week on and no change
And I've reported the signature of 450 wide by 200 high + a lot earlier than a week ago, and still no change, even though the person posted yesterday (my time) on here.

Johnk, I know they can do something similar like that, and it is about time they did.

Now someone above said we shouldn't be showing who has an offending signature, (& I reported a while ago, and again the other day), but I believe we should, as it might just get them to change it. Since this has taken a while, and it seems it was oversize on purpose (200 high, as against 100 limit, now you can't tell me that that wasn't done on purpose), I have a good mind to post the user's usernames that are way over the limit on my website.
Last edited:
Um Smileyman, you do know that your signature is 518 bytes over the limit?
Lol, no it isn't.
There are 1024 bytes to 1k, not 1000.
That's as true now as it was 30 years ago, and I thought that it would be common knowledge by now.

There are organisations who want the term to mean 1000 bytes, and are trying to get the standard changed, but the fact is we're using a binary system (power of 2) and it's clearly 1024 bytes, and unless you're familiar with the works of the IEC and other like-minded organisations, then you probably made the same mistake most people have made.

Incidentally, if they have their way, we'll lose the word kilobyte and have to say kibibyte (I think) instead, as well as having words to replace megabyte and gigabyte too.
Don't you just hate it when short, fat, bald men sit around a table and try to fix something that's not broken. :n:

I digress. :hehe:
Back to the point.

Unless Auran have moved the goalposts again, the limit it 30k and my banner is 29.8k.
Or, if you like, the limit is 30720 bytes and my banner is 30518 bytes.

And when I create my banners, I get them as close to 30k as possible.
It's how I get my kicks. :D

I started programming z80 machine code around 1980, and I've been graphic designing for about 15 years, so as you can imagine, byte size and graphic files are sort of my area. :hehe::D

As for naming people on your website, I think it might be a bit extreme, and possibly unfair to some.
We don't know that everyone with an oversize banner has been contacted, or that they've read this thread.

In the first instance, they should be contacted by a Mod and politely told, and then given time to change it.
We don't know if that's happening or not.

I'm not convinced that Auran are all that interested in this forum at the moment, and that they couldn't care less what happens here.
Watch all that change temporarily when the release of TRS2009 gets nearer.

Last edited:
We try not to be heavy handed about it because some members may not be aware
So would you call 200 wide by 150 high over the limit? It may not be over the wide limit, but is over the height limit, and is just two or three posts above a certain moderator (who posted in a new member's thread), yet this person with that signature has been here since November last year. Surely he/she should know the limit by now.

Think I'll go and oversize may signature - nuh better not!
Think I'll go and oversize may signature - nuh better not!
Not until you get one of the "get out of jail free" cards, which the mods in this thread are doing nothing to disprove, as you pointed out about the oversize banner near a mods post in another thread.

This thread should be locked, shredded and deleted, because it was started by a mod to let people know what size banner they're "allowed" to have, but it has no bite because no mod seems prepared to back it up with action against those whose banners are too big.

I know how to get this thread locked.
I'll suggest we post the names of people with oversize banners here, and then we can keep an eye on whether the Mods are doing anything about it.

Thread locked!

I used to run the Trainz Web Ring and I can tell you from bitter experience that the offenders probably, make that more than likely know they're defying the rules, but honestly, they couldn't care less. As soon as I asked someone to change a breach of guidelines, they kindly did so - for a week. They then when back to their old antics:

- Removing the Web Ring banner from their home page so that people directed there had nowhere else to go.

- Making the next site visited appear in a small window so that the visitor couldn't see anything.

And the list goes on.

I think you should all do what I'm about to do - unsubscribe from this thread. Let's face it, the people we're talking about here have massive egos, they're not going to change something they grew up with just to please a few of us. As I said earlier, Trainz programmers can stop the rot instantly. Only yesterday I saw a post on another forum where a small graphic appeared instead of the sig. The graphic simply read: Signature graphic removed because of excessive bandwidth usage. If I find it again, I'll post it here.
At 500W x 375H, as if you didn't know by now (rolls eyes)

EDIT: Isn't interesting, that moderators (including the moderator that has an oversize signature above his post) seem to react to oversize photos, yet they take their time when it comes to signatures. A user has had an oversized signature now for quite a few months, and I am now prepared to post the members profile.
Last edited:
And we have another signature (that I've just made the moderators aware of) that is 468x110 high, and he/she has been here probably before the forum "crash" of November 2006.

Surely, you can NOT tell me that this person isn't trying to sneak a slightly higher image that the CoC allows, and didn't know?
Ok first ill explain why im showing this photo, I got showed a printscreen of my Signiture from another member which showed it was huge but on my screen it was a normal decent signiture.

So if my signiture looks huge on your side of the PC heres my veiw of it.


as of right now you signature is within guide lines:


earlier today yours was as mentioned above (by RR).

Thank You 0099

Voluntary compliance is exactly what we look for, and as in your case, the Trainzer may not be aware the sig is over the top. And thanks to all that see these and pass it along.

Cheers All

Just to let people know how big signatures effect computers, I was at a library today WITH broadband. It took longer to download 0099's picture of his signature, not his signature of his picture (does that even make sense/sence?) on a broadband public computer than what it did on dial up, and even then only one third of the top of the picture showed.

So that is proof that it big signatures also effect broadbanda, and their limits.

EDIT: (Having trouble editing also) Before 0099's picture downloaded, I didn't realise that he took a picture of his signature at normal allowed size.
Last edited:
And again, I have noticed two signatures in the same thread that are 150 pixels in height. These two should know the signature limit by now, and I presume (rather STRONGLY) that they tried to sneek over the limit, as their signatures are only about 450 pix. wide.

IT doesn't matter how wide they are under the limit, when the height says 100, then that IS the height limit of a signature.
Hi All,

OK: Whats wrong with this one.


I tried to load it into my sig, following all the rules, but I get the error message 'Only allowed XXX characters' or something similar to that.
I did manage to load it once, but it was so small you needed a magnifying glass to see it.

This is a serious request. If someone could point out the problem I would appreciate it.

Not open for further replies.