Signature Size Restrictions - Your opinion?

May I ask what size your signature is? because it doesn't seem bigger than my last one and a png version of it fit the limit with room to spare. And I guess I'm the only one that uses png from the start. In my case it has nothing to do with increasing quality, it's retaining it. If you save a jpeg as a png they will probably be exactly the same, if not having the jpg a little higher quality.

And besides, this is a thread for opinions. And, sorry Mario, but no amount of +1s are going to change my opinion. And my opinion is that a file size restriction would have been a much better way to go. And if you don't think there is any change in quality between large png's and small jpg's, then that's all the more reason why a size restriction would be better. It would be almost impossible to notice!

My pic is 417 x 150, and has a file size of 67.28 kb, in jpeg format.

Also, your sig pic is now a jpeg. What happened to the oversized file protesting? :awesomed:

That's pretty big for such a tiny sig. Maybe photoshop and GIMP save differently.

Like I said earlier, as a png this one is .4kb too big. And I still have no knowledge of any file better than jpg but worse than png

Use pngcrush.

what does that do? (too lazy for google :P)

I would assume that it crushes your png files down into slightly smaller files...

Ah, fuck the sig limit! No more 10char!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by slayer

If it's a bandwidth problem, then couldn't they just lower the inital file size instead of lowering the max deminsions?

I am against this new signature change.

---

This.

Basically what slayer said makes 2 of the reasons for the new limit invalid. I can still make a within-limits sig that's much weightier. Reducing the weight cap is much more effective than reducing the size cap.

I still don't figure why people don't listen to my first and foremost suggestion: drop the new limit, and if specific sigs bother staff, ask specific members to downsize specific sigs.

@ the argument that the limitation does reduce bandwidth anyway: if there is another way to do it that doesn't bother members, why pick the hard path?

The limitation is particularly stupid because you can still put on a within-limits image, and then crowd it with text to make it longer.

My main point being: you don't reduce the height cap for 100px with no heads up or explanation. I bet that, if staff had posted a thread explaining the reasons to the downsizing, it would get much more people to agree with it.

Which basically takes us back to that old problem - lack of communication between staff and community. My suggestion: reduce or distinguish better internal forums. That helps staff have a better idea of what has been discussed with the public and what has only been kept inside. Also, make it a policy to always announce big changes to the public. The next step would be to improve the ways of contacting staff, but that has already been done with TTS. Final step would be not to censor discussions the community brings up, but I think that is already being discussed.

Hey guys if you are having problems with your sig...post in Meta, this thread should actually probably be closed since the sig limit is set and is not going anywhere and there's no point for a poll anymore.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aquanina

Hey guys if you are having problems with your sig...post in Meta, this thread should actually probably be closed since the sig limit is set and is not going anywhere and there's no point for a poll anymore.

---

heh, true true, my bad :embarrassed:

Splitting this discussion off to meta and closing the thread.

EDIT: Discussion of uploading issues moved here: http://www.dreamviews.com/community/...ad.php?t=92356

One last thing; the sig size was reduced because some were just taking up too much space. Not only was the image sized reduced, but the number of lines of text was as well. As far as I know, bandwidth was not a consideration.