SIGPO - Notify

AlmightyCushion

Victor wrote:

A quote like this just creates lots of blank space, expanding the area used and can be confused for part of a post.

Yeah those are the quotes I was on about.

Kintarō Hattori

Victor wrote:

"A quote like this is OK"

Fair enough Victor, thanks for clearing that one up.

Anti

Dub_dan Sig2Big:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/member.php?u=23429

cast_iron

cast_iron wrote:

This guy's sig seems to be nothing but an advertisement for himself and his PC.

6th:
Fixed, only after a PM prompting.

WellyJ:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/member.php?u=26801
Too tall, too wide, too big (200kB+).

Mossy Monk:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/member.php?u=3102
Too big.

Nailz:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/member.php?u=48513
Too big.

blah:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/member.php?u=37838
Too big, too wide and centred.

6th

Only after a pm? Of course, how else would I know? Lots of people advertise stuff they have on Adverts.ie ... it seems to be acceptable. I only removed it because it wasnt working.

As for blah, I sent him the standard pm (you know cast_iron, teh one you should have used when you pm'd me?) and he basically said "so what?".

Sully

Can I see what PM is being sent? I used to be part of a Community Team on another forum, so I might be able to help.

I assume if the signature rules are breached, an SMod removes it?

Also, I do believe "advertisements" in signatures are permitted for Adverts.ie. Its the general "spam" adverts that are not permitted. Therefore, 6th and others signatures are not in breach.

Cheers

6th

Its in the first post of this thread Sully.

I know mine wasn't in breach anyway, didnt remove it because cast_iron said to.

Boston

Sully wrote:

Can I see what PM is being sent? I used to be part of a Community Team on another forum, so I might be able to help.

I assume if the signature rules are breached, an SMod removes it?

Also, I do believe "advertisements" in signatures are permitted for Adverts.ie. Its the general "spam" adverts that are not permitted. Therefore, 6th and others signatures are not in breach.

Cheers

The signature rules are a mess and cloud don't really care anymore. This is like the bible, its been left so long without direct intervention by the authors that people have taken to interpreting the rules or just ignoring them.

6th

Wow, thats a pretty good way of looking at it.

Sully

Sent a new PM to blah. Hopefully he will re-consider.

Hey,

I just wanted to point out to you that your signature violates the Boards.ie Signature Guidelines, as outlined here;
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=547710

There are two main faults;

• The image is to wide
• The image size is larger then 20k

As im sure you noticed, the servers have a tough time serving us Boardsies, and often or not can not handle it so crash! Its pretty costly for the admins to keep the server running, and they rely on our donations and help.

If you would kindly make the small changes to your signature, so that they fall with the guidelines, you would be helping ease the workload of the servers. Every little bit helps!

Note: Offending signatures that are not changed after notification will be removed by the administrators of the forum.

Thanks mate, its appreciated.

(Btw, I take it your a fan of Futurama? Personally, I think its as good as the Simpsons. Really enjoy it!)

6th

He ignored me and he'll ignore you.

cast_iron

6th wrote:

Only after a pm? Of course, how else would I know? Lots of people advertise stuff they have on Adverts.ie ... it seems to be acceptable.

Maybe as you regularly read/contribute to this thread, you would know?

6th wrote:

As for blah, I sent him the standard pm (you know cast_iron, teh one you should have used when you pm'd me?) and he basically said "so what?".

I guess that "Standard PM" is buried in the 2000+ posts? I've never seen it, and don't fancy looking for it. I'd be happy to use it.

6th wrote:

I know mine wasn't in breach anyway, didnt remove it because cast_iron said to.

Good for you. I guess the Adverts.ie exemption is buried also. Why didn't you point this out then?

6th

I'm hardly regular on here but I've at least read the first post.

Boston

6th wrote:

I'm hardly regular on here but I've at least read the first post.

You post more often then cast_iron on this thread.

godtabh

Spryal

biko

kearnsr wrote:

Spryal

Notified

Nailz notified
cellulite_sally notified
dub_dan notified

Nailz, Spyral fixed Gracias!

Anti

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/member.php?u=40295

That dude, Sigway2big

6th

Sully wrote:

Sent a new PM to blah. Hopefully he will re-consider.

So how did that work out for you?

smashey

Hoops1888. Animated. Notified.

Evil Phil

User Mathie has the following in his sig

Want 20 Euro in free cash when you open a Rabo account?
PM me your email address and full name if you're going to open a Rabo account!

A bit dodge to ask for PII, non? Particularly when it comes to bank accounts.

biko

Nala
Notified 24-08-2007
Ignored
Sig too wide and heavy

Report hardly doing anything with that I support breed specific legislation

Hagar

What's the position on sigs containing pics like this ?



They take time to load, and they run processes examining the readers PC settings. Is this not intrusive?
They change every refresh. Effectively they are animated as they are not static.
Does it not slow down thread display?

_blank_

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/member.php?u=117285

Animated sig

Terry

I'm gonna PM that user.
They seem to be advertising crap.

cast_iron

Hagar wrote:

What's the position on sigs containing pics like this ?



They take time to load, and they run processes examining the readers PC settings. Is this not intrusive?

I don't see them slowing the boards.ie server, as I'd say it's hosted remotely. Not sure quite how intrusive it is either - every site can check your machine for basics like that.

Hagar wrote:

They change every refresh. Effectively they are animated as they are not static.

A bit of a stretch, IMO. No more animated than me changing my sig on a very, very regular basis, and most importantly, there's no animation when it is being displayed.

Hagar wrote:

Does it not slow down thread display?

Very marginal, I would have thought. Whilst it is marginally over the max width allowed, it's filesize is just 3.6kB.
I don't bother reporting them as (1) there is too many of them, and (2) they only just break size rules. Oh, and also because no one breaking the rules themselves with one has come in here reporting others for sig violations.:)

smashey

smashey wrote:

Hoops1888. Animated. Notified.

Sorted.

Hagar

cast_iron wrote:

I don't see them slowing the boards.ie server, as I'd say it's hosted remotely. Not sure quite how intrusive it is either - every site can check your machine for basics like that.

But should we allow it? The ability of other sites to interrogate, at any level, our posters PCs should be a concern to us. As for allowing it because other sites can do it well other sites can run animated porno clips but we don't allow them them in sigs, do we?

cast_iron wrote:

A bit of a stretch, IMO. No more animated than me changing my sig on a very, very regular basis, and most importantly, there's no animation when it is being displayed.

The point is static images are cached, changing images must be downloaded each time they change. Regardless of from where they are downloaded, they impair the browsing experience for users of Boards. Also let's not forget that they are all contain an ad for Danasoft.com. Advertising on Boards costs money, why should they get free publicity?

cast_iron wrote:

Very marginal, I would have thought. Whilst it is marginally over the max width allowed, it's filesize is just 3.6kB.

I'm not querying the size, just the fact that it's an running an executable bit of code.

cast_iron wrote:

I don't bother reporting them as (1) there is too many of them

If any of the points I've tried to make have any merit then the fact that there are so many of them surely is more reason to be concerned rather than brush the issue under the carpet because of the volume.

Maybe someone with the authority will make a ruling decide on their "legality".

oscarBravo

Hagar wrote:

But should we allow it? The ability of other sites to interrogate, at any level, our posters PCs should be a concern to us.

They're not interrogating our PCs, they're regurgitating information sent by our PCs to the Internet.

cast_iron

Hagar wrote:

But should we allow it? The ability of other sites to interrogate, at any level, our posters PCs should be a concern to us. As for allowing it because other sites can do it well other sites can run animated porno clips but we don't allow them them in sigs, do we?

No, as porno and animated sigs are a direct violation of the rules. I don't see the issue - it tells you info you already know, and only you can see it!

Hagar wrote:

The point is static images are cached, changing images must be downloaded each time they change. Regardless of from where they are downloaded, they impair the browsing experience for users of Boards.

Still - it's no more an issue than when you visit a thread with a sig you have not come across before (which happens quite often). And it's very small.

Hagar wrote:

Also let's not forget that they are all contain an ad for Danasoft.com. Advertising on Boards costs money, why should they get free publicity?

Technically correct, I suppose. More a secondary function of the sig though, I would have thought.

Hagar wrote:

Maybe someone with the authority will make a ruling decide on their "legality".

Indeed, that's what I'm waiting for. My arguments are obviously nothing more than my own opinion.

6th

Hagar wrote:

What's the position on sigs containing pics like this ?



They take time to load, and they run processes examining the readers PC settings. Is this not intrusive?
They change every refresh. Effectively they are animated as they are not static.
Does it not slow down thread display?

I hate them!