Images in Signatures

[Milkman]

Hi,

I noticed posting of images is restricted on this board. I can understand doing this in posts but not in signatures. I think it would be nice to be able to have images in signatures, just to add a little bit more personality to the board. When I mean signatures, I dont mean a 700x350 image like I see on CS forums (God its terrible). Another forum that I visit often set the size at 100x600 (heightxlength) and it worked out well. The board rules applied to the signatures so you didn't see anything vile/leud/disgusting. Why not do the same on this board?

PS: I decided to make this a public thread instead of a private message to see what the other board viewers thought of the idea.

PSS: Here are the rules from the other forum:

Signatures and Avatars

Keep avatars and signatures within forum regulations

To keep signatures reasonably small following rules apply:
# - total height of your signature must not exceed 150 pixels, this allows for 100 pixels of images and then 50 pixels for text/URL's if so required.
(Below is a handy "signature ruler" to help you figure out how this rule works).
# - total width of your signature must not exceed 600 pixels.
# - height of any image, flash animation or any other signature single element must not exceed 100 pixels.
# - total size of all files used in your signature must be no more than 100 KB.
# - signature and avatar must be quiet, no sounds may be played back in them by any means.

Signature ruler: http://frutsel.terrainhost.com/frutselapp/dump/placebo/ofp_sigruler.jpg

 

[Yuri]

Other board member's opinion:

No. Ugly. Crying ;(

I respect the professionalism of the request, though.

 

[Chris D]

We've spoken about it in the past and I'm afraid it's just not going to happen.

 

[ComradeBadger]

Yep, Munro trained us staff to hate picture sigs with a passion. And I must admit, I can't stand them

 

[Milkman]

Sorry I was just curious. It worked well on the other forum but eh, that was another forum.
I will respect the staff's decision on the matter.

Here is what I would hope most of the sig would look like, yeah I know its 4 pixels off but meh.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v67/Milkman1/HL2sig2.jpg

 

[ComradeBadger]

For us, it's a vast waste of server resources.

 

[DoctorGordon3]

What is the staff's logical reasoning behind this?

 

[joule]

I think we should all at least try it out for a little bit. Then see how it goes. I kinda like the idea of having images in our sigs. It furthermore defines us on the boards. I'd like to see the pics that everyone has; and even more than an avatar.

Shall I make a poll?

 

[bliink]

No sig images.
It looks ugly, it makes posts difficult to read, it slows down the site, costs bandwidth (money), it makes the site theme look like crap, it gets in the way, they serve no useful purpose, they can be used for malicious code, they can be used for unauthorised advertising/whoring, its hard enough to control peoples TEXT sigs.

 

[diluted]

I think text signatures are good enough. It looks so neat and orderly without a bunch of stupid pics everywhere.

 

[Chris D]

What is the staff's logical reasoning behind this?

More people dislike them than like them.

 

[Munro]

Heeeeeeeeeeellll no

I'm afraid the simple answer is I don't want them.

1) They're very hard to enforce (size limits, offensive material, exploits)
2) They very often look awful with clashing colours, flashing animations and just makes the whole forum less attractive
3) There's a lot more content to download especially if the image has not been compressed properly causing more bandwidth use and slower download times.
4) A few other reasons I can't be bothered to write right now

 

[Chris D]

Heeeeeeeeeeellll no

I'm afraid the simple answer is I don't want them.

1) They're very hard to enforce (size limits, offensive material, exploits)
2) They very often look awful with clashing colours, flashing animations and just makes the whole forum less attractive
3) There's a lot more content to download especially if the image has not been compressed properly causing more bandwidth use and slower download times.
4) A few other reasons I can't be bothered to write right now

Of course his biggest reason is because the majority of members don't like them. Isn't that right Munro?

:E

 

[Milkman]

1) They're very hard to enforce (size limits, offensive material, exploits)

More enforcement then! I can be the signature nazi!



Okay I see nothings going to change so you folks can lock this thread now.

 

[Yuri]

I like your new avatar

Why thank you!

 

[The Dark Elf]

Well the other mods all had a chance to say it so I will too

Sig images, never gonna happen...

But feel free to demand larger Avatars, cause I want those too

 

[Milkman]

Okay,

I demand 64x64 pixel Avatars!


Durka durka durka! :imu:


I have no idea what the imu is but I always wanted it in a post.

 

[Sui]

IMO signitures are just another pointless addition to someone's post. i mean- who actually enjoys looking at them apart from the person who is bearing it? and plus it would be rather hard to actually restrict an avatar to a certain size limit.

in the same respect i feel that 50X50 avatars are fine. Unless you want to display a high-res peice of artwork, you can pretty much fit anything into a small avatar- an emotion, a colour, an image,an animation... and speaking of animations,larger file sizes may slow down 56Kers, as certain people (myself as a very good example) like to make huge GIFs that push the size limit to the maximum

also, i like the streamlined style we have going here... unlike other forums that seem bulky and overloaded with personal colours and preferences, we have more formal and presentable posts, and the 50X50 avatars fit perfectly into the style.

 

[Chris D]

IMO signitures are just another pointless addition to someone's post. i mean- who actually enjoys looking at them apart from the person who is bearing it? and plus it would be rather hard to actually restrict an avatar to a certain size limit.

in the same respect i feel that 50X50 avatars are fine. Unless you want to display a high-res peice of artwork, you can pretty much fit anything into a small avatar- an emotion, a colour, an image,an animation... and speaking of animations,larger file sizes may slow down 56Kers, as certain people (myself as a very good example) like to make huge GIFs that push the size limit to the maximum

also, i like the streamlined style we have going here... unlike other forums that seem bulky and overloaded with personal colours and preferences, we have more formal and presentable posts, and the 50X50 avatars fit perfectly into the style.

Text signatures are different. I love reading what people put in their signatures. Just really hate the idea of image sigs.

 

[Ennui]

Image sigs get really old after a while and eventually all they are are little photoshop show off tags that add scrolling and waste resources.

 

[oldagerocker]

Image sigs suck, enough said.
Larger Avatars...mmm, some forumers would like that if they have talent creating art and great animations, but for the majority it'll make the site slower and the content of posts themselves would be overshadowed by these huge flashing images ontop. So in my opinion the avatar size is fine also. It's all good, pink and fluffy on these here forums

 

[Ennui]

I'd like maybe 50x100 or something so that it wouldnt add to space but allow for abit more TEXT...

 

[Chris D]

We're not having larger signatures either

 

[joule]

We're not having larger signatures either

If I were to make a poll asking whether or not "you" would like to have images in "your" sig and the results were an unanimous or overwhelming YES, would you and the staff reconsider?

I doubt it will happen, but it's worth a shot. Is it okay?

 

[Neutrino]

Ugh, no. Image signatures are just annoying and serve no purpose.

 

[Chris D]

If I were to make a poll asking whether or not "you" would like to have images in "your" sig and the results were an unanimous or overwhelming YES, would you and the staff reconsider?

I doubt it will happen, but it's worth a shot. Is it okay?

Look at the responses in this thread... it'll be a negative majority. Besides, we've voted on it before and it came out as a unanimous or overwhelming NO

 

[joule]

Look at the responses in this thread... it'll be a negative majority. Besides, we've voted on it before and it came out as a unanimous or overwhelming NO

Doh!

Tis okay. :cheers:

 

[Chris D]

Doh!

Tis okay. :cheers:

http://www.halflife2.net/forums/showthread.php?t=20890&highlight=image

See?

 

[joule]

http://www.halflife2.net/forums/showthread.php?t=20890&highlight=image

See?

I see.

I suppose we can deal without them then. :E

 

[Some_God]

I love reading what people put in their signatures.

I like reading mine too.

 

[CyberSh33p]

After being in a forum(i.e. this one) without them, I can barely stand forums that do have them. always some lame abstract picture advertising a clan or how cool the person is or whatever.

I dislike em now, ty hl2.net

 

[Some_God]

Umm... I wen't to the DoD forums and they had nice sig pics that blend in with thier forum and gives a nice WWII feel to it.

Hopefully I didn't stirr up the hornet's nest by this post. ;(

 

[bliink]

Umm... I wen't to the DoD forums and they had nice sig pics that blend in with thier forum and gives a nice WWII feel to it.

Hopefully I didn't stirr up the hornet's nest by this post. ;(

yes, but DoD is a specialised community, with less people, so its already a more mature environment. This is a wide spectrum community, with lots of different types of people.

 

[Some_God]

yes, but DoD is a specialised community, with less people, so its already a more mature environment. This is a wide spectrum community, with lots of different types of people.

Yeah.


Well, it was worth a try.

 

[Dr. Freeman]

Well the other mods all had a chance to say it so I will too

Sig images, never gonna happen...

But feel free to demand larger Avatars, cause I want those too

i am with u on this issue, no sig images but larger avatar size i wouldn't mind... now that doesn't mean i want huge avatars.. just something a bit bigger which at the same time doesn't take away from the posts themselves.

 

[Operator]

I like the clean theme going on now, like others though a little larger avatar wouldent be too bad. I say no to image sigs, cause I suck at photoshop.

 

[Hazar]

I really don't want the picture sigs, they really clutter things up.

But like I've said before, I'd like a bigger size of avatar, not number of pixels or area, but I think it should be bumped to 30kb.

 

[bliink]

Hmm.. at least with larger avatars (only a little larger) the only cost would be bandwidth.. this is the most significant possible cost yes, but well.. more chance of that than picture sigs.
I wouldnt mind another 10 pixels on either end or something, maybe fill it out a bit, because as you can see, it doesnt completely fill the colour bar its in, theres a buffer; take a bit out of the buffer, increase the buffer a touch, and it wouldnt be too big an impact

But dont get your hopes up lol.. we wont see something like that for a loooong time..

 

[Zerimski]

Signature images wouldn't actually cost us any bandwidth, as we would never allow users to host their images on our server, and therefore they will be hotlinked from another source, using their bandwidth.

However, this is irrelevant as we will also never allow users to have signature images. As already stated, they look awful and are very hard to enforce in a community of this size.

 

[Maxi]

Signature images wouldn't actually cost us any bandwidth, as we would never allow users to host their images on our server, and therefore they will be hotlinked from another source, using their bandwidth.

However, this is irrelevant as we will also never allow users to have signature images. As already stated, they look awful and are very hard to enforce in a community of this size.

Yeah, that's what I would be afraid of you doing, if for some obscure reason you would allow pic sigs.

That would make threads EVEN longer to load than if you hosted the pics yourselfs. Most people host their sig images on free servers which suck or are in china(ie very far away from me, not actually in china) so threads take ages to load.

That's why I like this forum, with it's small avatars and no pic sigs. Makes forum browsing cool, fun and easy. I would, however be in favor of making the avatars 64x64, with lika a 22kb size limit? that wouldn't impact the thread download speed THAT much, nor take too much more server bandwith and storage space.