Thread: Signature Size Restrictions - Your opinion?

I agree with size limits, but this is a bit ridiculous. It took me ten minutes to get my sig below the limit. It is smaller then the size limit, but it was like 20 bytes over ;-;

Sigs here are/were a bit ridiculous, probably including mine which I think was made to fit right up against the old limit. I've had sig pics break threads before, which is annoying.

I voted yes for SOME limitations- but really things like keeping them under 1000x700 pixels. I think right now it's a bit harsh In the grand scheme of things they seem a excessively small

Yeah, he said "what's your opinion about sigs having some limitation". I am in favour of it. I just think that reducing ridiculous 10px just to bother everyone is pathetic.

Biased poll is biased. I want a poll that asks people's opinion about the new limitation, not limitations in general. I'm not voting.


Quietly protesting the 10 character limit.

Originally Posted by Shift

I voted yes for SOME limitations- but really things like keeping them under 1000x700 pixels. I think right now it's a bit harsh In the grand scheme of things they seem a excessively small

Under 1000x700 pixels? Wait, are you serious? That's like, my entire screen.

Is it too late to ask for another poll? This one doesn't attack the problem here.

Kromoh you keep complaining about this 10 pixels. It's not about that. We did not change the height limit from 160px to 150px. It was something like 250px. And there were some people with 500px sig heights. That is simply unacceptable. So we had to standardize the height, 150px was chosen as ideal. Your sig just happens to be 10 pixels off. Most everyone else had to make their sigs MUCH smaller.

Yeah, incredibly, my sig used to be 90px below the limit, but now it doesn't fit anymore. Viva la staff.

You're still free to express your reasoning Kromoh. Attack the problem. Make yourself heard.

But not to use my sig. See how everyone who has posted says yes to limitations but hates the new limitations? Only shows the poll is ineffective.

Hard headed staff is hard headed.

I think it's it's a good idea to have some limitation. I've had mine turned off for the longest (images) just to help pages load faster, and it gives the pages a cleaner look overall.

600x150 seems odd to me. irregular, more like a banner then a sig.

Originally Posted by Invader

You're still free to express your reasoning Kromoh. Attack the problem. Make yourself heard.

OT
I thought that said 'make yourself hard'.

Originally Posted by Akono

I think it's it's a good idea to have some limitation. I've had mine turned off for the longest just to help pages load faster, and it gives the pages a cleaner look overall.

What do you think of the new limitations, though? Those that were implemented without a single word being said by staff?

NO.

MY SIGNATURE SHALL BLOCK OUT THE SUN. This isn't an all-caps message.

Poll question is worded to more accurately reflect opinions on the new signature restrictions, all votes reset.

Information edited into original post in red text.

Thanks a lot, Invader. I know I have been a bitch lately. But it's either that or not be heard at all. Thanks, I seriously appreciate it. You're not afraid of going back and fixing mistakes. That's what staff needs.

I've voted, guess my vote.

Originally Posted by Kromoh

What do you think of the new limitations, though? Those that were implemented without a single word being said by staff?

I just turned on my sig graphics to see what was going on, and yeah I could see where you're coming from. Personally I could care less about the size or signatures at all, but changes without notice rub me the wrong way.

Poll has been fixed.

I've had signatures turned off for awhile now, so this doesn't really matter to me

I liked 200px height, but I don't really care either way.




Afro Lenin on the other hand is displeased with the new restrictions.

I'm not a fan of sigs at all. A line of text perhaps, no more.

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.

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.

I totally agree with you slayer. If you save it as a .JPEG file, the quality is a adjustable. Sure those MUCH higher quality sigs might take a hit, but they seem like the minority on the site.

and by the much higher quality ones, I mean ones like guitarboy and Akona have. The ones that look like they have layer-upon-layer of detail in them.

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.

Jebus, YES! THANK YOU! Even with the bigger signatures in place, I didn't even come close to matching the size in kilobytes. Now, though, I really am sorely tempted to go with the higher-quality png image and take up as much memory as I possibly can, just out of pure frustration. (Damnit, if my sig is going to be small, it's going to be of damn good quality.) I was never distracted before by the larger signatures. Truth be told, I would rather look at something bigger and of better quality than something smaller and of sucky quality...that is what I find truly distracting, if anything at all.

My two cents...