View Full Version : Any chance of allowing images in sigs
bigmikeherrmann
10-01-2006, 03:33 PM
comeone ive made some great ones for other forums that id like to use
http://img512.imageshack.us/img512/2016/elmarcosigqk3.png
http://img470.imageshack.us/img470/4642/ksesignm3.png
http://img430.imageshack.us/img430/9079/willytsigei5.gif
http://img470.imageshack.us/img470/1179/chilltownfinig9ps5.png
g33k0ft3ch
10-01-2006, 03:35 PM
Yea but maybe only one image per sig. You could always mash those up. I know I have done that millions of times.
bigmikeherrmann
10-01-2006, 03:36 PM
Yea but maybe only one image per sig. You could always mash those up. I know I have done that millions of times.
yea, i ment just using one of them
tokenuser
10-01-2006, 03:39 PM
If we do allow images in sigs - we should limit their size.
I am not against graphic sigs, but hate having to scroll through one line posts, with a graphic sig or lines of text that are 10x larger than the actual post.
diela
10-01-2006, 03:39 PM
comeone ive made some great ones for other forums that id like to use
Please tell me you don't want all four of those *at that size* at the bottom of every post. You will be on my ignore list in a matter of minutes. One's signature should never be longer than one's posted material, IMO.
Although the margins here are pretty wide... what looks like a full paragraph in the text box ends up being one line here.
Edited to add: I would like to be able to add my XboxLive tag though. Like this: http://my.livecard.net/shinyb/Diela.jpg (http://live.xbox.com/member/Diela)
bigmikeherrmann
10-01-2006, 03:41 PM
Please tell me you don't want all four of those *at that size* at the bottom of every post. You will be on my ignore list in a matter of minutes. One's signature should never be longer than one's posted material, IMO.
Although the margins here are pretty wide... what looks like a full paragraph in the text box ends up being one line here.
no, one of them
not all of them
tadpole256
10-01-2006, 03:41 PM
I am a moderator on a Political Debate forum. We briefly tried allowing images in sigs, and it simply wasn't worth it. It increases the load time of a thread, especially for those of us on a super slow satellite connection, and it's too hard to control the content. Not that I condone censorship, but it seems like it would be fairly easy for people to abuse image sigs. I know that regular sigs or even regular postings can be abused as well, but images in sigs can become particularly troublesome.
Of course, that is just my opinion, perhaps others have had a better overall experience than my own in the realm of image sigs.
g33k0ft3ch
10-01-2006, 03:43 PM
Yea but you could always mash them up. Or you could make it switch the picture in a cycle, like my sig.
http://nverted.net/files/Finalsig.gif
klitzy
10-01-2006, 03:46 PM
I dont think it really matters....Anyone can turn on and off sigs...I currently have it not displaying any so doesnt matter to me.
bird603568
10-01-2006, 03:47 PM
if you have a simple image unlike yours you probably could make it into ascii art
treeninja
10-01-2006, 04:24 PM
I'd like images to display either my blog link as a 88x31 button or the FD Flickr Toy profile bar.
adamzx
10-01-2006, 04:53 PM
if we have images in sigs, I think they need to be something like this:
http://www.userbars.com/
*just an idea
rabidbadger
10-01-2006, 05:01 PM
if we have images in sigs, I think they need to be something like this:
http://www.userbars.com/
*just an idea
If we did something like userbar and we all adhered to it I would turn images back on in my options.
klitzy
10-01-2006, 05:02 PM
Oh boy, pretty soon we are going to see a "Request Sig Thread" and a "Pick Up Thread."
No but seriously, have a sig if you want but lets not have this forum be a place for you to request for other people to create a sig for you. I have seen too many of those.
casework
10-01-2006, 05:23 PM
Nothing wrong with allowing graphic sigs, just limit them to say, 400x150 or so pixels, and only one graphic sig is allowed. That's how it is on my forums I go to and it's not a problem. It's only ever an issue when sites have no sig rules, that's when it gets crazy.
Also, it shouldn't really increase the load time, unless you are on dial-up. The sigs will all be stored on different webhosts, so it's not like all the information is coming from one place(like the Rev3 servers). And if you ARE on dial-up, or for some reason the sigs take forever to load, or you just don't like them, you can just turn them off.
But sigs are a nice way to identify people, and they're fun to make. I'm part of a graphics community, and making sigs is how I learned to use Photoshop. If you want to check out my sigs, http://s30.photobucket.com/albums/c325/casework/.
ramzis-hairy-chest
10-01-2006, 05:26 PM
http://jaxita.com/UMsigsize.png
noonebutme
10-01-2006, 05:43 PM
500x100 px seems better IMO - it's nice & thin, wont make the page stretch any bigger then it needs to be.
Though if your that desperate for a sig, use the [img] tag at the bottom of every one of your posts or something.
casework
10-01-2006, 06:43 PM
100 pixels is too thin. most sig designing, the maximum standard is 150. And 500 is a bit wide in my opinion... If you're concerned about the flow of the page, you'd rather have it a little taller and less wide, in my opinion.
bird603568
10-01-2006, 06:46 PM
http://jaxita.com/UMsigsize.png
that seems a tad tall
lordfoul
10-01-2006, 07:02 PM
I for one wouldn't like to see large graphics all over every page. It just looks tacky and takes away from the posts which is what a forum is supposed to be about. IMO
ramzis-hairy-chest
10-01-2006, 07:04 PM
I for one wouldn't like to see large graphics all over every page. It just looks tacky and takes away from the posts which is what a forum is supposed to be about. IMO
Thank goodness I have adblock installed. :)
phool
10-01-2006, 07:05 PM
i like small sigs, with small pics and maybe a small link. Sometimes people come up with some great banners etc..
I agree that tons of crazy super huge sigs with pics and tones of content is way to much and cause a little syndrome I like to call the scroll-a-tack, very serious.
casework
10-01-2006, 07:06 PM
I for one wouldn't like to see large graphics all over every page. It just looks tacky and takes away from the posts which is what a forum is supposed to be about. IMO
There should be an option in your profile to disable signatures.
ramzis-hairy-chest
10-01-2006, 07:08 PM
There should be an option in your profile to disable signatures.
Yup. So here's the deal...
User CP > Edit Options (http://www.revision3.com//forum/profile.php?do=editoptions)
http://www.disaffect.com/arch/thereis.png
penguinboy
10-01-2006, 07:11 PM
Can somebody explain the purpose of graphical signatures to me? Because I don't want to come to a forum and be bombarded by everyones bad photoshop skills and things they find "funny".
Graphical signatures are intrusive, they cause excessive load times, and they are ugly. If you want to represent yourself, create an avatar, a unique username and put a textual quote in your signature. That's enough for anyone to locate your posts.
I also find graphical signatures scream immaturity most of the time, and it would be nice if the Rev3 forums were more of a mature environment.
Just my two cents.
casework
10-01-2006, 07:22 PM
Can somebody explain the purpose of graphical signatures to me? Because I don't want to come to a forum and be bombarded by everyones bad photoshop skills and things they find "funny".
Graphical signatures are intrusive, they cause excessive load times, and they are ugly. If you want to represent yourself, create an avatar, a unique username and put a textual quote in your signature. That's enough for anyone to locate your posts.
I also find graphical signatures scream immaturity most of the time, and it would be nice if the Rev3 forums were more of a mature environment.
Just my two cents.
Well first, it's a nice way to identify people. Not everyone chooses to use an avatar, and a sig is something that can take its place. And sure, while there will be crappy MSPaint sigs, a lot of people actually take sigmaking seriously. There are tons of graphics communities where the idea of making signatures is what gets people into graphic design. As long as there are restrictions that are inforced by the staff, there shouldn't be any problem with sigs. If someone has an offensive, immature, or obstrusive sig, all a moderator has t do is ask them to remove it, or remove it themselves.
The key to a forum remaining balanced while allowing sigs is strict rules that are inforced.
Me personally, I am an admin at a forum with about 10,000 members, and we don't allow graphical signatures. On the other hand, I've done graphic design for about 4 or 5 years now, and I'm an active participant in graphics communities. I've seen both sides of the fence.
Also, as I mentioned in an earlier post, load times really aren't an issue. Sigs will be stored on all different webhosts, so it's not like everything is coming from the Rev3 servers. If load times ARE an issue(say you're on 56k), or you don't like seeing sigs, all you have to do is disable the feature in your control panel.
ramzis-hairy-chest
10-01-2006, 07:25 PM
If you want to represent yourself, create an avatar, a unique username and put a textual quote in your signature.
Fo' shizzle, my nizzle.
klitzy
10-01-2006, 07:26 PM
Two things.....
1)I beleive that those small graphics should be allowed the "Firefox User", etc..
2)Ramzis Hairy Chest, Why do you have Jay as your avatar? You keep confusing me.
ramzis-hairy-chest
10-01-2006, 07:30 PM
3) So here's the deal.
4) I'm cool with having no graphical sigs.
bigmikeherrmann
10-01-2006, 08:32 PM
i think 350x150 is a good limit for a sig
nextgenxbox
10-01-2006, 08:36 PM
No images in sigs please. Would just slow down the forums. Instead, how about some bigger/widescreen avatar support.
sugarsickness
10-01-2006, 08:40 PM
ehhh, the only thing I would do any different is a last.fm image with the last one or two tracks listened to on it but I dont really care. I would prefer just text though.
No images in sigs please. Would just slow down the forums. Instead, how about some bigger/widescreen avatar support.
I agree with you, I'm on alot of forums, this one would look good with just nice avatars.
wastern
10-01-2006, 08:57 PM
keep them under 100px tall, don't stretch the side of the forum out, so under 600px wide and it should be good
on top of that, limit file size of the sig, I think since they are hosted externally this just has to be something mods watch. Some people are retarded and throw up 3mb animated gifs thinking it will be cool. It isn't
the main sig I used is 550x90 and only 12kb. I don't think that gets in the way much and the small file size doesn't mess with page loads much at all