talkmagic.co.uk

What is the point in specifying an 8k 80x80 size limit on avatars if people are going to put these stonking great images of 50 or 60k in their signatures? They take up space on the page to no real purpose, they take ages to load and they distract from the text that you're trying to read.

Can anything be done about these? Am I the only on that's being driven up the wall by the damn things?

Just thought: I'm using my monthly download allowance on these moronic bl**dy pictures.

Just to add (because I'm particularly grumpy today) that MiniMindFreak as an image in his signature which is 150k!

Note that none of these humungous images contain Elmsley's, Vernon's, Hugard's, Corinda's or Scarne's picture, to name but 5 people worth mentioning - usually, it's just an easy gimmick jockey.

i agree it was called a signature strip origional for a reason, a bit of text a quote or some nonsense like what your currently reading.

we should not single anyone out in particular and have a go, if the facility is there then its going to be used so please mods make it text only please otherwise we'll end up with flash adverts, rotating text and adds for viagra.
ok maybey not that far but not all of us have large pipelines please show some consideration, some of us have sight problems and short attention spans.
the adds at the bottom of the screen are bad enough, a necesary evil but bareable.

So what does everyone think?

Should we limit the size (physical height and width dimensions as well as the size of the image)?

Should we ban images in signatures altogether?

What does everyon think? Should I start a poll? if so what options do you want to see on the poll...

Frankly, I think I've personally been treading on thin ice since I added a signature image. As far as I recall, I was the first to start doing it—and it was for my own selfish gain, and an abuse of the signature system.

I'm all for banning them entirely if it stops the stupidity which has been happening with bigger, brighter, bolder.

One post I read yesterday from my laptop took about 40 seconds to load (over GPRS) and that was down to signatures.

Personally, I find the more sensible ones which are of a small size and general nature to be tolerable. But I guess this could end up as a game of double-standards.

Considering that the images are usually hosted elsewhere I'm not sure how you're effectively going to put a limit on the size.

I would have thought the options are:
1. Prevent HTML in sigs (if this is technically possible with the BB software)
2. Allow HTML, but disallow the specific tags that would pull in images hosted elsewhere (ditto)
3. Ask individual offenders to change their ways (or else...!)
4. Status quo.

The problem with options 1&2 is that a few people who have 'reasonable' images would get clobbered too (and maybe they're not possible). The problem with option 3 is hassle and possible aggro for mods.

Are there other options?

Hi mine was made for me is it classed as too much???

Speaking personally I find it annoying.
Since it doubles the size of a single line post (like that one), gets repeated for every post you make on a page and serves no useful purpose then I'd say it's too much.

But that's just me.

I think that something needs to be done. TBH I think that something the size of Seige's is about the right size...banners in signatures don't do anything to impress me, they don't make me go "Wow thank Heaven's that's there" and when I see signatures which take me about five seconds to properly load I just know that that is more usage allowance right down the drain.

ever heard "a picture is worth a thousand words"???? would you rather have me wright 1,000 words in my signature!?!?!?!? also the signatures keep the posts separated, before i couldent tell when someone added a new post just reading the text

Perfelti wrote::evil: ever heard "a picture is worth a thousand words"???? would you rather have me wright 1,000 words in my signature!?!?!?!? also the signatures keep the posts separated, before i couldent tell when someone added a new post just reading the text

Oh come on, mate, don't take offence. A sig is just supposed to be a few clever words. Why not just reduce the size of what you do have?

bananafish wrote:Should we limit the size (physical height and width dimensions as well as the size of the image)?

If that's possible in phpBB then I think it's probably the best of the do-able options.

Perfelti wrote::evil: ever heard "a picture is worth a thousand words"????

Yes. I don't think every picture is worth a thousand words though. I can sum yours up in one and it isn't one that bears repeating for every post you make

would you rather have me wright 1,000 words in my signature!?!?!?!?

No, that would be just as unnecessary and would take up even more room. Was that a trick question?

also the signatures keep the posts separated, before i couldent tell when someone added a new post just reading the text

That's a point I suppose, but I can't say I've ever found it a problem.

I have been on forums where huge signatures like these rule - it is a bit irritating, believe me.

And by the way, long before there were loads of signatures I could easily distinguish between posts quite easily because of a) the different avatars and b) the gaps between the boxes. And you can tell where there is a new post because of the little orange highlighted box type thingy at the top of each one.