editor Posted July 2, 2006 Share Posted July 2, 2006 Recently a couple of people have been using fairly large graphics in their posting signatures. Currently, there aren't any firm rules about what is and isn't allowed in signatures. But I'm considering placing a limit on combined graphic sizes or number of lines of text. The reason isn't because of what we see on HAIF today, but what we see on other forums. This is a typical thread from the Howard Forums. What we see here is people responding with one-liners like "Looks good" and then their signature is 10 times larger than their actual post. I think it makes the forum very difficult to read, and is one of the reasons I hardly ever go there anymore. I don't want that to happen here on HAIF.So, what do people think is reasonable? I don't mind graphical signatures. But I was thinking of maybe an 300x80 pixel limit. Does this seem reasonable? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ricco67 Posted July 2, 2006 Share Posted July 2, 2006 While I agree with your concerns, I don't think you have much to worry about.The two forums are totally different from each other in topic and substance. While I gather Howard forums is more tech based, people love showing off their toys and such.Here, I doubt if anyone would show off their buildings or bulldozers or whatever because of our particular dynamic in conversation. Although, some of the pics that people put up are interested. (I looked long and hard to find mine, BTW) but that's pretty much it.As far as limiting the signatures goes, I think as long as it's of reasonable length and not a draw on you as far as bandwidth goes, then it should be okay.Just my 'umble opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subdude Posted July 2, 2006 Share Posted July 2, 2006 Umm...Oops! Sorry. Giant Robot be gone! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jm1fd Posted July 2, 2006 Share Posted July 2, 2006 I'd rather see it limited to avatars, no sigs at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ricco67 Posted July 2, 2006 Share Posted July 2, 2006 I don't know about that jm1fd, I think our sigs can be used to push our own ongoing thoughts as well as poking fun as our fellow forum members. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heights2Bastrop Posted July 2, 2006 Share Posted July 2, 2006 Some of us are still using antiquated dial-up service for various reasons. I am too far away from an SBC hub to receive DSL. That means it takes forever for pages packed with pictures and other attachments to load. What I don't understand is, when a poster wants to show a number of photos, why don't they provide a link to the hosting site rather including them on their post. Furthermore, it baffles me why people feel the need to include in their reply pictures that appear just above their reply. That just clutters up the thread. On the post, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sevfiv Posted July 2, 2006 Share Posted July 2, 2006 ^ i agree in regards to thumbnails. if i have more than two or three pictures to post, i try to make 100x100 (or thereabouts) pictures that link to the actual picture in a different location. i am not sure if this forum software is capable of generating thumbnails, but it isn't too terribly difficult to shrink photos and make them link to the full-size. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nmainguy Posted July 2, 2006 Share Posted July 2, 2006 As one being quilty of occasionaly posting graphics in my signature, I think a 300 x 80 pixel limit is not unreasonable. H2B is correct-even with broadband, some of the threads take forever to load. Reducing the size of some of our more extraneous stuff might clean it up a bit. <extraneous smiley Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heights2Bastrop Posted July 2, 2006 Share Posted July 2, 2006 A couple of things to consider:Some photos, like a downtown skyline, could be cropped to exclude extraneous portions, thus reducing the size.Also, something even more annoying than download time is physical size. If the photo is twice the with of the viewable screen size, you have to scroll back and forth to read all the posts on the page. BTW, this also applies to links where the page location is used as the link name, which can be quite lengthy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
editor Posted July 2, 2006 Author Share Posted July 2, 2006 I've made a change to the system that allows each user to upload up to 500k worth of pictures for use in posts. I think once you've reached that limit you'll have to delete stuff. But I think it will create thumbnails of large pictures in posts. Someone please test this and let me know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TJones Posted July 3, 2006 Share Posted July 3, 2006 Why does editor always have to make it about ME ? (sob), I am just trying to have some fun here (sob) ! Fine then, Darth Sidious is 86'd once again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trophy Property Posted July 3, 2006 Share Posted July 3, 2006 Umm...Oops! Sorry. Giant Robot be gone! I for one will miss the robot. OK, not so much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Montrose1100 Posted July 3, 2006 Share Posted July 3, 2006 I agree with the signature limit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirzania Posted July 3, 2006 Share Posted July 3, 2006 I would have to agree with the sig limitations... This isn't [H]ardForums or anything. We're not showing our rigs off here. As far as pictures go, I could care less. I try to look at HAIF in lo-fi version just to make things look "important" when I'm here at work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
editor Posted July 3, 2006 Author Share Posted July 3, 2006 I don't mind graphical signatures. I think it's ParrotHead who has a couple of low-profile graphics in her sig. It's just the size and clutter I worry about.Darth and the giant robot are still welcome, but maybe they should be scaled down a little. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Montrose1100 Posted July 3, 2006 Share Posted July 3, 2006 To play the little tattle tale, KimberlySayWhat has a rather bulky pic. sig. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ricco67 Posted July 3, 2006 Share Posted July 3, 2006 tattle tale. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
57Tbird Posted July 12, 2006 Share Posted July 12, 2006 I've made a change to the system that allows each user to upload up to 500k worth of pictures for use in posts. I think once you've reached that limit you'll have to delete stuff. But I think it will create thumbnails of large pictures in posts. Someone please test this and let me know.When does this 500K picture limit go into effect? I've recently seen lots of posts that far exceed that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pumapayam Posted July 12, 2006 Share Posted July 12, 2006 I think it's ParrotHead who has a couple of low-profile graphics in her sig.And we all know what her kids look like now, I see them all the time! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.