Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 11

Thread: Sig height, perfect, but...

  
  1. #1
    chAosDaJuggalo's Avatar
    chAosDaJuggalo is offline -Hacks Ninja
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Your moms house
    Posts
    665
    Rep Power
    11

    Default Sig height, perfect, but...

    width could be a lil more tho. I mean, I've got enough room in my sig's blank area, to put another, if that was permitted . I'm not trying to sound like an ass, but could some one tell me why the limit is 400, when there's so much free space? the height is fine, any bigger that way, and i could see it being a problem.
    thanx guys.


  2. #2
    Dilligaf is offline Gone fishin -Hacks Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    127.0.0.1
    Posts
    517
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Width limit is 450, not 400.

    So there ya go, you get an extra 50 pixels to play with

  3. #3
    chAosDaJuggalo's Avatar
    chAosDaJuggalo is offline -Hacks Ninja
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Your moms house
    Posts
    665
    Rep Power
    11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dilligaf View Post
    Width limit is 450, not 400.

    So there ya go, you get an extra 50 pixels to play with
    lol, fair nuff, but that's still not a whole lot.

  4. #4
    Rob S.'s Avatar
    Rob S. is offline Senior Member -Hacks Titan
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    41° 11' 3" N / 73° 8' 1" W
    Posts
    7,695
    Rep Power
    50524

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chAosDaJuggalo View Post
    width could be a lil more tho. I mean, I've got enough room in my sig's blank area, to put another, if that was permitted . I'm not trying to sound like an ass, but could some one tell me why the limit is 400, when there's so much free space? the height is fine, any bigger that way, and i could see it being a problem.
    thanx guys.

    "Signatures - Only one image is permitted. Signature images will be tolerated within the following restrictions; 150px height limit, 450px width limit."

    The limits are set to make the forums as easy to browse as possible.

    Having multiple or a single massive image, whether horizontal or vertical in a user's post is distracting, unnecessary, and effects low bandwith users.

  5. #5
    chAosDaJuggalo's Avatar
    chAosDaJuggalo is offline -Hacks Ninja
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Your moms house
    Posts
    665
    Rep Power
    11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Oyabun View Post
    "Signatures - Only one image is permitted. Signature images will be tolerated within the following restrictions; 150px height limit, 450px width limit."

    The limits are set to make the forums as easy to browse as possible.

    Having multiple or a single massive image, whether horizontal or vertical in a user's post is distracting, unnecessary, and effects low bandwith users.
    oh? ok. just wondering, what tha reason was, but
    are they not all unnecessary tho. in general. i mean, a picture in a sig is rarely helpful in any way. As for the distracting part, do you know how long i stop and stare at your avatar? It's quite distracting, that may just be me tho.... lol
    thanx.

  6. #6
    Rob S.'s Avatar
    Rob S. is offline Senior Member -Hacks Titan
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    41° 11' 3" N / 73° 8' 1" W
    Posts
    7,695
    Rep Power
    50524

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chAosDaJuggalo View Post
    oh? ok. just wondering, what tha reason was, but are they not all unnecessary tho. in general. i mean, a picture in a sig is rarely helpful in any way.
    True signatures are really unnecessary.

    They are more of a necessary evil.

    Allowing a user to show off some graphic artwork or a quote in their sig to express themselves adds some personality to the forums.

    Completely disabling them would more than likely make the forums less popular, and steer people away from them.

    Quote Originally Posted by chAosDaJuggalo
    As for the distracting part, do you know how long i stop and stare at your avatar? It's quite distracting, that may just be me tho.... lol
    It's a bit distracting. I get many PM's about it, but it's just an ice cream cone.


  7. #7
    chAosDaJuggalo's Avatar
    chAosDaJuggalo is offline -Hacks Ninja
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Your moms house
    Posts
    665
    Rep Power
    11

    Default

    ya know, its not as erotic in full.

    back on the subject now.
    Under UserCP, edit options, Thread Display Options, there are three boxes that can be un-checked, which will dissable the loading of users avatars (box 1), Signatures (box 2) and, Images (including attached images and images in [IMG] code) (box 3).

    couldn't we just inform low bandwith users about this? I mean, i don't want a taller sig, in fact i think i'm gonna take it back down to 100px instead. just a longer one.

    honestly, i really have given up on this for now, i just figured id finish my argument. thanx for playing.
    Last edited by chAosDaJuggalo; 10-20-2009 at 06:04 AM.

  8. #8
    but2002's Avatar
    but2002 is offline -Hacks Veteran
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    /root/media/sda1
    Posts
    1,059
    Rep Power
    13

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Oyabun View Post
    ....user's post is distracting, unnecessary, and effects low bandwith users.
    Says the person with the smoothest animated, 1.3MB large animated GIF in their signature.


  9. #9
    .:BioHazard:. is offline Senior Member -Hacks Guru
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    1,561
    Rep Power
    14

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chAosDaJuggalo View Post
    ya know, its not as erotic in full.

    back on the subject now.
    Under UserCP, edit options, Thread Display Options, there are three boxes that can be un-checked, which will dissable the loading of users avatars (box 1), Signatures (box 2) and, Images (including attached images and images in [IMG] code) (box 3).

    couldn't we just inform low bandwith users about this? I mean, i don't want a taller sig, in fact i think i'm gonna take it back down to 100px instead. just a longer one.

    honestly, i really have given up on this for now, i just figured id finish my argument. thanx for playing.
    Not that I really care but if I'm going to be 100% honest I kinda agree with you, I mean 600 or maybe even 800 would hardly stretch the page for anyone. Okay 640x480 and 800x600 resolution exist but is hardly common and pretty much half the web if not more is made for screens with at least 1024px width. But yeah that's just my honest opinion. Reolution of the picture is often not the biggest factor when it comes to large files slowing it down for dial up users since a 300x100 sig with a lot of colours and or a gif can be many times larger then a 600x100 picture that uses less colours and aren't animated, if that's the problem a size limit in bytes would be a lot more useful then in pixels, it's hardly impossible to check, there's even a built in filesize() function. And for distractions the content of the signature is often a much bigger factor here, a 32x32 pixel signature can be so much more distracting with the right content.

    Even after saying that I still don't have anything against the current rule and I totally respect it but I can't deny that chaos got some valid points.
    Now I really am BioHazard

    Spoiler:
    Satan is throwing a tea party in hell and you're all invited

  10. #10
    Rob S.'s Avatar
    Rob S. is offline Senior Member -Hacks Titan
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    41° 11' 3" N / 73° 8' 1" W
    Posts
    7,695
    Rep Power
    50524

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chAosDaJuggalo View Post
    Under UserCP, edit options, Thread Display Options, there are three boxes that can be un-checked, which will dissable the loading of users avatars (box 1), Signatures (box 2) and, Images (including attached images and images in [IMG] code) (box 3).

    couldn't we just inform low bandwith users about this? I mean, i don't want a taller sig, in fact i think i'm gonna take it back down to 100px instead. just a longer one.
    Low bandwith users are informed about hiding images in the cp, and have been for quite some time:

    http://www.psp-hacks.com/forums/f116...-read-t123262/

    Having this limit set still allows low bandwith users to have an image or quote displayed in their posts.

    They shouldn't have to disable it.


    Large images for signatures look ridiculous and are absolutely unnecessary.

    Signatures are intended to be a short end piece to a user's post, and should be low profile.


    There's no reason for someone to have to look at massive images plastered in a user's post, especially if that user posts several times in a thread.

    If members want to show off their artwork, we have a graphics forum for that.


    Low bandwith users aside, as everyone has the ability to hide images, i'll set a new signature guideline (One image allowed):




    If anyone's signature violates the signature guideline, it will be removed and they will receive a warning.

    If someone doesn't have the artistic ability to make a nice looking sig within these guidelines, they can request one in the graphics forum.




    Quote Originally Posted by |Hultnér. View Post
    if that's the problem a size limit in bytes would be a lot more useful then in pixels, it's hardly impossible to check, there's even a built in filesize() function.
    There is already a file limit size in bytes and pixels set. This however only effects usergroups who are able to upload signatures to the server.

Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •