Signature Rules: Time for a Rethink?

dr.bollocko

Whats going on? I just saw some animated sigs? Dont wanna name names but I will dammit if it doesnt stop soon.

Adam

dr.bollocko wrote: »

Whats going on? I just saw some animated sigs? Dont wanna name names but I will dammit if it doesnt stop soon.

now. stop whining. :pac:

dr.bollocko

The Wrath of CuLT wrote: »

now. stop whining. :pac:

NEVAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!111111

SimpleSam06

Wincest is best! wrote: »

[I think smccarrick hit the nail on the head when he brought up the fact about "sigpo". Seriously, a pm from some random user on boards means absolute jack shít to most users.

Yeah, I got one from one user, told him to go for it. So he started filling the sigpo thread with comments about it, and eventually I had to reduce it by a few pixels. He was sitebanned a week later.

On another note, has anyone thought about the extra strain large sigs will put on the boards servers? While you may be only viewing that page once, maybe thousands of other people are also viewing it - it adds up rapid, and bandwidth ain't cheap. And seriously, what do they add to the site or to discussions? Not much, imho.

Hagar

The load shouldn't be much, after the first visit isn't the graphic in cache on the local C drive?

Maybe if sig viewing for non-regged guests was disabled it would lighten the load as they would not have to download the images?

dr.bollocko

Hagar wrote: »

The load shouldn't be much, after the first visit isn't the graphic in cache on the local C drive?

Maybe if sig viewing for non-regged guests was disabled it would lighten the load as they would not have to download the images?

Ah yes but then how would the random internetz know the most important aspect of our individuality?

With our avatars? Dont make me laugh!

SimpleSam06

Hagar wrote: »

The load shouldn't be much, after the first visit isn't the graphic in cache on the local C drive?

Depends on the browser, really. I've noticed firefox has difficulty with images if I surf away from a site for a while. And the load could be significant, 5 sigs at 100k each on a single page, viewed by 1000 people is half a gigabyte, and thats only one page. 10 sigs at 50k each is the same, and with hundreds of thousands of unique users monthly, you could end up with serious costs there.

Just a thought.

faceman

have animated sigs been approved? Just noticed someone with them in AH.

javaboy

dr.bollocko wrote: »

Ah yes but then how would the random internetz know the most important aspect of our individuality?

With our avatars? Dont make me laugh!

Most people manage to convey their individuality with a few sentences extolling the supernatural abilities of Chuck Norris. Why do you have to be different?

seamus

faceman wrote: »

have animated sigs been approved? Just noticed someone with them in AH.

Nope.

javaboy

Does the 20k filesize rule mean 20,000 bytes or 20,480 bytes?

Overheal

How about this?
______________________________

regi

Its really nothing to do with bandwidth anymore - its really to do with people not having bleeding eyeballs.

Believe it or not, there's many who find our existing sigs and avatars distracting, unneccessary and childish.

dr.bollocko

Overheal wrote: »

How about this?
______________________________

That is the best signature I have ever seen and deserving of eternal respect and gratitude.

Sully

regi wrote: »

Its really nothing to do with bandwidth anymore - its really to do with people not having bleeding eyeballs.

Believe it or not, there's many who find our existing sigs and avatars distracting, unneccessary and childish.

Any chance we can go with a revised set of guidelines suggested previously? Would be nice to update and adjust where appropriate.

MooseJam

Sigs are plenty big as it is and OP i've reported yours to the sigpo

Xavi6

So when is a rule a rule?

For images in signatures: 1 image up to 300 pixels wide, 125 pixels tall and 20k in size. No animated images are allowed.

According to the bolded above all these Flickr images etc shouldn't be allowed as they are 500 pixels wide. Yet they are.

My image below was deleted because it is 500 pixels wide.

Contradiction much?

Keep the height rule, get rid of the width rule.

Sully

Xavi6 wrote: »

So when is a rule a rule?



According to the bolded above all these Flickr images etc shouldn't be allowed as they are 500 pixels wide. Yet they are.

My image below was deleted because it is 500 pixels wide.

Contradiction much?

Keep the height rule, get rid of the width rule.

But those flckr images are harmless and not an eyesore. Some images are verrrry wide. Some are verrrrry tall. Hence, we need to curb both. A little over is generally accepted but taking the piss isn't. See your point but I guess the idea of leaving them is that they are not disrupting a thread or making it an eyesore?

The_Conductor

500 wide is still wider than the screen on most mobile phones- which is at least partially the reason for the restriction in the first instance?

Xavi6

Sully wrote: »

But those flckr images are harmless and not an eyesore. Some images are verrrry wide. Some are verrrrry tall. Hence, we need to curb both. A little over is generally accepted but taking the piss isn't. See your point but I guess the idea of leaving them is that they are not disrupting a thread or making it an eyesore?

I agree that some are very tall and wide but if the Flickr ones are deemed acceptable width wise then maybe that should be the new standard?

smccarrick wrote: »

500 wide is still wider than the screen on most mobile phones- which is at least partially the reason for the restriction in the first instance?

But isn't that argument defunct now that we have m.boards?

Sully

Xavi6 wrote: »

I agree that some are very tall and wide but if the Flickr ones are deemed acceptable width wise then maybe that should be the new standard?

But the problem is when it comes to other images that are bigger in legnth and height. This one image is fine but when they get bigger, they get uglier and messier. Im on fast broaband and I hate seeing pages take an extra few seconds to load because an image is fairly big in kb size or the thread layout is ****ed up (each post has different widths) cause some dude has a big ass sig. Hence why the rule, I think, is needed. To stop the abuse and to keep things uniform and tidy.

But isn't that argument defunct now that we have m.boards?

Not everybody on mobile uses that skin set though. Depends on the mobile.

Xavi6

Ok I understand what your saying.

The reason I'm making the query is because my image was deleted despite it being the same size as the Flickr ones. I don't personally see how the two are any different when it comes to thread spoiling.

DeVore

I am and will be for the forseeable future (at least 8 months) accessing this over my 3g phone-as-modem. I'm glad donegal has joined the DSL revolution, thats because about 4 people there will use it. Meanwhile in yuppie central (aka rathmines) we can get nothing. No DSL, no cable, no wireless because of a cnut of a landlord and his precious rooftop.

So, just because YOU have broadband, dont presume everyone does.

As for animated sigs and avatars, I'd rather chew my own ears off. I'm with Beruthiel and Ruu on that one... jesus, *shudder*.

other then that, yes we probably will have to have a review of the sig rules to address issues that have arisen and thoughts put forward and that might happen sooner then you think but dont hold your breath just yet.

DeV.

Red Sleeping Beauty

I've found this forum to be quite restrictive when it comes to sigs and more importantly avatars. I've never heard of a forum charging for the "privilege" to upload your own avatar.

My two cents as a customer of your site.

DeVore

Thats primaraily because we dont want every tom dick and harriette uploading pictures of their winking brown eye as their avatars etc. Its more a perk we through the subscribers then anything else and they still cant be animated.

If you find an avatar pack you want to be made available, link us up and it could happen (it certainly has before, we started out without many of the popular avatars we have today).

DeV.

Dades

alan dunne 27 wrote: »

My two cents as a customer of your site.

Don't customers usually pay for something? :pac:

Kintarō Hattori

alan dunne 27 wrote: »

My two cents as a customer of your site.

Do you pay to use the site?

Red Sleeping Beauty

Kintarō Hattori wrote: »

Do you pay to use the site?

Dades wrote: »

Don't customers usually pay for something? :pac:

boards.ie Ltd recieve income from the Google ads on this site.

In fact, anyone who uses Google or Gmail are their customers too. Google seraches a site for keywords and then puts up relevant ads. Same with your Gmail, they search your emails for keywords and that little ticker above the toolbar displays an ad of relevance. For example, I recently just opened up an email that was a subscription notification for the MMA forum. After I opened the email, the little ticker ad changed to "Mixed Martial Arts - www.Fightshop.com - Equipment, Clothing, Fightshorts TapouT, Sinister, Sprawl and more"

Nerin

alan dunne 27 wrote: »

boards.ie Ltd recieve income from the Google ads on this site.

In fact, anyone who uses Google or Gmail are their customers too. Google seraches a site for keywords and then puts up relevant ads. Same with your Gmail, they search your emails for keywords and that little ticker above the toolbar displays an ad of relevance. For example, I recently just opened up an email that was a subscription notification for the MMA forum. After I opened the email, the little ticker ad changed to "Mixed Martial Arts - www.Fightshop.com - Equipment, Clothing, Fightshorts TapouT, Sinister, Sprawl and more"

Would you like complimentary fries with that? I'll just take your details and pass them on to our hr department

Red Sleeping Beauty

Your users are your customers.
No users, no site traffic, no google ads, no income.

DeVore or some other admin can correct me on that if I'm wrong.