SIGPO is Bollocks-Discuss

Degsy

The sigpo thread makes me sick,people with nothing better to do than measure other people's sigs and squeal to them to remove it.I can understand if sigs were getting boards.ie into trouble somehow but "Centered.."wtf harm is that doing anybody??Creeps.

kaizersoze1980

where do you see this thread??

Sherifu

Leave biko alone. Also your sig is right aligned. :pac:

kaizersoze1980 - http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=252965

biko

Damn them signazis
Please join discussion here and end the tyranny!

Fysh

While I know that a standard reaction to complaints about sigs is "turn them off then", it's not an excuse for having over-size or garish signatures.

That being said, your choice of wording sounds like you're looking for a real discussion about the issue rather than just sounding off like a prat. Recently had a complaint about the size of the Hitler pic in your sig, have you? :P

smashey

Degsy wrote: »

The sigpo thread makes me sick,people with nothing better to do than measure other people's sigs and squeal to them to remove it.I can understand if sigs were getting boards.ie into trouble somehow but "Centered.."wtf harm is that doing anybody??Creeps.

Upset much Degsy?

Rules are rules.

Peyton Manning

Bit of a shit post there Degsy. Havent been the same since Dave McSavage had his way with you, have ya...

Degsy

Archimedes wrote: »

Bit of a shit post there Degsy. Havent been the same since Dave McSavage had his way with you, have ya...

I like your sig though.All about football.Very inspiring.Maybe they'll wheel you on before they play a match sometime.

Sherifu

Here we go...

popebenny16

Fysh wrote: »

Recently had a complaint about the size of the Hitler pic in your sig, have you? :P

.........thats Neville Chamberlan...............

With new servers I'm not sure of the relvency of the SIGPO rules anyway

aidan_walsh

popebenny16 wrote:

With new servers I'm not sure of the relvency of the SIGPO rules anywayp

A lot of the rules had nothing to do with server load, but with the way that large blocks of text, massive images, needless animations and any combination there so of can disrupt the flow of a thread visually. Not to mention large images being a pain for people on dial up.

hullaballoo

popebenny16 wrote: »

.........thats Neville Chamberlan...............

With new servers I'm not sure of the relvency of the SIGPO rules anyway

The rationale behind signature rules is not just to do with them slowing down the site. In fact, iirc, the size of the sig doesn't have much of an impact on server load. The idea is to prevent sigs getting in the way of free-flowing discussion. I've seen sites that have no restrictions on sigs and it makes threads difficult to follow. A signature is not supposed to be an advertisement for the user in question: it's supposed to just be a signature.

Apart from big signatures being garish and interrupting the flow of threads, there are *some* people whose bandwidth isn't all that. Me for example; I use a dial-up connection with my trusty 56k modem. That rarely gives me anything better than a 44-45.2k connection to the internet. Big/heavy sigs make boards a nightmare for me on this connection and would do for anyone else on a slower-than-normal connection.

Fundamentally, then, the rules are in place out of courtesy to other users who are trying to get the most out of the site.

Degsy wrote:

The sigpo thread makes me sick,people with nothing better to do than measure other people's sigs and squeal to them to remove it.I can understand if sigs were getting boards.ie into trouble somehow but "Centered.."wtf harm is that doing anybody??Creeps.

I can't say that I fully understand that rule in particular. I'm not 100% sure it even is a rule, though it has been something we've enforced in the past. Before anyone starts the inevitable application of Godwin's law; this is not a breach of fundamental human rights. It involves removing an oversized image from a few webpages. That is all.

Degsy

hullaballú wrote: »

I can't say that I fully understand that rule in particular. I'm not 100% sure it even is a rule, though it has been something we've enforced in the past. Before anyone starts the inevitable application of Godwin's law; this is not a breach of fundamental human rights. It involves removing an oversized image from a few webpages. That is all.

I've had more than one toady PM me because my sig was "centered".recently somebody(with nothing better to do) told me that my sig was "right somethinged.."So it cant be left,it cant be right and it cant be centered?If its NOT actually a rule then the Stool Pigeons in sigpo should stop bothering people,no?

cornbb

The rules are there for a good reason as people have pointed out (if animated gifs are ever routinely used in sigs/avatars I'll be outta here double quick) but reporting signatures for being right-aligned or centre-aligned is a bit childish in fairness. Degsy's sig certainly falls within the spirit of the rules.

r3nu4l

hullaballú wrote: »

The rationale behind signature rules is not just to do with them slowing down the site. In fact, iirc, the size of the sig doesn't have much of an impact on server load.

The reason people keep saying that sig size effects the servers is because of this:

Raphael wrote:

<Name>,

Your signature is in violation of the boards.ie signature rules, which can be found [ url=http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=547710]here[/url]. As these guidelines exist to improve the browsing experience of the boards.ie userbase, and to reduce the workload on its poor, abused servers, it would be greatly appreciated if you were to edit your signature in accordance with these rules. A failure to comply with this request within 48 hours will result in the notification of a boards.ie administrator

Yours sincerely

<sender>, Boards.ie SIGPO

I remember having a discussion about this before...
Why are people asked to use server load as a reason for reporting a sig if server load has nothing to do with it?

I do agree that massive sigs ruin a thread and can mean huge amounts of scrolling just to read 4 or 5 posts but the whole 'sigs cannot be centred' thing is nuts.

Either way...meh!

Maximilian

Sigpo is the last defence against enormous lolcat sigs.

highlydebased

Personally while I do agree it is a good idea to curb some gigantic signitures that end up out there, and that do hinder easy viewing of a thread, it is a tad silly though, to be chasing after people for having an image '5 pixels too big' or it being centred etc.

In fact there is nothing mentioned about alignment in the sigpo-rules:

Originally Posted by Cloud

* For text signatures: 4 lines normal size OR 8 lines small size, and up to 90 chars per line. Font sizes above 2 are not allowed. Do not use the [.quote] [./quote] tags.
* For images in signatures: 1 image up to 300 pixels wide, 125 pixels tall and 20k in size. No animated images are allowed.



Please make sure that your signature DOES NOT contain profanity, bigotry, racism, or any other content that might be considered offensive by others.

MarkR

It's not just images, also for bad language etc. It's either sigpo or the report function.

Hagar

Neon-Circles wrote: »

In fact there is nothing mentioned about alignment in the sigpo-rules:

Centred, glowing, blinking ads will be deleted without notice. You have been warned.

Link to full post.


Cloud seems to think that centred sigs are banned, do you want to tell him or shall I?

Red Hand

Why do people have signatures turned on in the first place?

Degsy

Hagar wrote: »

Link to full post.


Cloud seems to think that centred sigs are banned, do you want to tell him or shall I?

Not "centred" sigs.."centered,glowing,blinking" sigs.
I think an element of common sense should be used here.Some people have taken it upon themselves to boost thier post count by doing nothing more productive than ratting people out for having a sig two pixels too big.I can understand an admin being concerned for the sake of the site and acting accordingly but i do object to being PM'd by a nobody to be told i have to change something thats nothingto do with them.

Sherifu

The alignment rule, as with all the others are there to keep threads readable. I'm not fond of reading a thread with right aligned sigs in it. However it isn't the worst offence and I wouldn't mind if it was relaxed. Animated/Huge sigs are far worse imo.

TerrorFirmer

The whole sigpo thing is a joke in my opinion. OK - obviously, we all appreciate that massive signatures, ones containing multiple images and blocks of text, annoying animated signatures, or what have you, are a pain and interrupt casual reading of a given thread but this whole thing of PM'ing everyone whose signature is 10 pixels too high, several pixels too wide, not centered, or 'breaking the rules' by having one line of text too many is beyond pathetic. I have gotten PM's in the past because my images were something like 17p too wide, and, criminally, I once had 2 lines of text too many.

In fairness Degsy is saying what a lot of people are thinking - nothing inherently wrong with the idea of Sigpo - it's the way they're going about it.

Hagar

It's a comma separated list. None of those types of sigs are allowed.

You're clutching at straws claiming that a sig would have to be centred, glowing and blinking all at the same time to be banned. :rolleyes:


?edit

TerrorFirmer you're fooling no one.
You were the second person ever to be collared by the SigPo when you went by the nick MobileInfantry. :pac::D:D:pac:

TerrorFirmer

:D:D

Fysh

popebenny16 wrote: »

.........thats Neville Chamberlan...............

D'oh, shows how much attention I was paying to the photo itself...surely I get some sort of unintentional comedy prize for confusing Captain "Peace In Our Time" with Hitler though.

At the same time though, I love the way that there are rules for how big signatures are and yet the people being whinged about here are the ones who point out that others have broken those rules.

Regarding image sizes : if the rule is 300pixels wide, and someone has a 320pixel image as a sig, there are two choices - report it, or "let it slide". But that makes the rule either totally meaningless or effectively 320 pixel. Which then means that someone with a 340 pixel image could then say "oh, let it slide" and the whole thing becomes pointless.

Regarding images as a whole : I for one wholeheartedly endorse the idea of limitations on images including their alignment. There's a perceived reduction in the clutter of your screen's real estate if sig images are forcibly aligned to the left...

RoundyMooney

I agree.

Just move the bloody thing back to the left and be done with it. It's hardly something worthy of this much attention in the grand scheme of things.

Fysh

I note with some amusement that, possibly as a result of this thread, Terrorfirmer has had his sig edited....

randylonghorn

I seem to remember DeV saying before that the "rules" were more strong guidelines than absolutes, and that 5 pixels here or there wasn't really the issue ... I think the way he put it was "once someone isn't taking the pish".

Mind you, this thread seems to validate his other contention that the more you actually articulate specific rules, the more people will argue about pixels ...

RuggieBear

My guideline would be if you want to post in the Sports Cat that you obey the signature rules.

Overheal

Ill post to the SIGPO if theres a sig that bothers my attention away from what I'm reading for the most part. Overly sized pics and centered justification usually does it. But for the most part, I care not. One time I grilled Nerin for having multiple images but thats about it.

if its a problem in a forum leave it up to the mods to tell posters to remove their sig from their posts within that forum: its as simple as a checkbox.