Implemented Signature Size.

I tend to ramble on when I have ideas so I'll try to be brief this time around.

I'm interested in hearing what you guys would think about tweaking the signature size rule a bit. I'm asking for suggestions, as well, because I don't even know how to phrase what I'm thinking of correctly. Currently, there is a limit on how large your signature can be. 500 x 500 (in total). I don't find this entirely unreasonable.

The amount of signatures over that limit, however, has been increasing lately. (I would give examples, but that feels like calling-out somehow, haha). My issue is that if I wanted my signature to look like this (screen zoomed out), it could. If I want it to look like this (and I don't, lol), it isn't allowed.

Simply put, in my opinion, it makes more sense to judge by how obnoxious your signature is in regards to others (for example, stretching the page, or a huge block of picture, gigantic bright pink marque text.) I believe a set of dimensions is convenient because then there's no debate. It's simple, but I don't know. Like I said, I'm asking for thoughts and opinions on this as well, since telling someone to change their signature because it's annoying to look at isn't really a better method than the 500 x 500 thing, but I would like to be able to...yeah. Change that.

I may also have a problem with this because I have the habit of using PNG transparency a lot, which ends up taking more room than the actual image is.

Just an offhand suggestion. I won't fight to the death for it, I don't want to argue, etc, etc. ​

​

 

They stretch pages, not everyone has ginormous screens on which to view things.

Sometimes, less is more.

 

Not to be rude, but I don't quite understand how this relates to the suggestion?​

​

 

I like to this idea, kinda. I understand how you feel about the giant blocks of pictures, it can be annoying. However, I think if we do increase the signature size, it shouldn't be available for everyone. Why? Because some may abuse it. Not really pointing any fingers but some normal members already tend to abuse the 500x500 limit. I think only Premium Members should have the privilege of having a bigger size than 500x500. What size would you like, Jayn?

I'm sorry, I'm crap at giving my opinion on things, don't hurt me.

 

I feel that 500x500 is more than enough. I mean, we have people with links and colored text and gifs all together. And they managed to do all that within the limit. That's not abusing the signature. It's knowing how to use it lol.

I do sort of agree that just having a lone 500x500 image seems way big. But I don't think there's a way for the system to just allow spaces for different image types.

As for removing a signature for how obnoxious it is? I doubt it'd work because there will always be someone who will not like your signature space. A signature is something that defines you. A signature should be removed if it's harmful or doesn't follow the rules in some way. Not because we don't like the color or text used.

 

The problem with saying "we'll just remove them if they're obnoxious" is that not everyone has the same opinion of what is obnoxious and what isn't. Obviously most people would frown upon something similar to your derp example, but some people like that. It starts to edge near a freedom of expression issue.

That said, the 500px by 500px rule covers your entire signature, not just the image. So if someone has an image that is 400px in height, and an extra 150px of text, they are technically over the limit. Things like having lines and lines of size 7 text would obviously also be frowned upon.

 

I agree that everyones opinion of obnoxious isnt the same, so bumping the sigs that way wouldnt work well. For me i cant even get mine to 500 by 500 yet so ill be perfectly happy with it when I can.The size is fine imo. :P

 

We should probably mess with that rule wording then. Right now that sounds like it pertains to images only.

 

Will reply in detail later, but just clarifying that I also stated that the obnoxious method wouldn't work. Not arguing that.
I'm not really suggesting something bigger or smaller, but rather if its not huge/lagging the page/stretching/breaking the rules, etc etc then, um. Yeah. Like I said I've seen a lot more signatures over the 500x500 limit but lately no one seems to be called out on it (unless its me, for obsessively checking.) unless it's visibly obvious and huge. What I am suggesting is a way for that to be okay, because it honestly doesn't seem like a bother, otherwise I would assume someone else would be saying something about it? x:

I also sort of agree with the wording thing...I thought that it was 500 x 500 for each image, until I was asked to change one of my signatures (and I guess it's the text too, which I didn't know), lolol but it's not that big a deal.

 

+ 1 agreement on the wording being changed in regards to the signature limits.

As for the topic at hand, judging on the basis of subjective opinion on the quality of the signature and removing it on that basis is, as stated previously, a tad unwieldy and would be immensely controversial due to different tastes in signatures, and how a signature is representative of a person regardless. In this manner, it is easiest to make the restrictions physical through dimension limits as is already present. Perhaps the signature function requires notifications in the signature editing section to show whenever a signature has exceeded the dimensions or some such. What can be done, as Kelly stated, is an increase in the dimension size and perhaps even the memory size - at least for Premium members, but this would have to be verified through the staff to make sure things do not strain on the server (if that would even be a problem at this point, which I am slightly doubtful of regardless).

 

Can't we change it to images total 500 x 500 and actual text would be a separate limit? Not sure how to enforce something like that, but still.

 

Hm, how do you mean? Like, (say), a limit of 400px by 400px on the images in your signature, and the text may not exceed 200px in height?
It seems a bit too complicated and, if someone maxes both of those out (granted those were random numbers), we could have a pretty huge signature on our hands.

I am fine with rewording the rules to be more specific, I have been meaning to give them a revision anyway (as the latest iteration is approaching two years old), so I will add this to the list of Things to Remember.

 

Bumping for some kind of resolution.

I guess several things are being suggested now.

1. Find an alternative way to measure signature size. For example, if the signature is interfering with something (nicer way of saying annoying). Lagging, stretching the page either way, etc. So eliminating a fixed dimensions rule.

2. Signature rule rewording. (Which I think has been agreed upon).

3. 500x500 being the image limit, with text being another limit completely.

4. 500x500 being the image limit, and text just not having a limit.

 

To me the image size is fine. It's the file size that gets to me if im trying to do a gif. But it doesn't bug me really.

 

1. A fixed dimension is set up in the admin control panel, basically. It's not so much a rule as it is a limit established to...not overload the server? Not sure about this.

3. I'm...not sure the limits can be separated for the above reason. It may be set up a certain way (admin clarification would be great)

4. While I can see the usefulness of this, I can also see people adding a lot of text (more so than now) which would mean we'd have to start taking care of signatures where text was too long. Which isn't a big deal overall, but it could get to a point where it would be tedious.

 

So this is kinda bringing back a very old thread, but I was told it'd be okay when I asked as long as I bring points of my own to the topic, which I certainly have.

~

So recently, I myself used a sig that I accidentally didn't realize went over the limit. Jayn came to me about it as she would have to and we ended up briefly discussing about sig size limits and the like. Which was when she actually linked me to this thread in the first place.So... this got me thinking anyway. Since we've moved to Xenforo, a lot of things have changed in terms of what the site can handle, right? So maybe it might be a good idea to re-look at this thread now and it's suggestions.I'd like to present a few different points that I've thought about as well as to why I think this might be a good idea now.

First of all, I said this to Jayn in my conversation with her:

For example, the sig I was using before was 660 x 125:




So wouldn't such a short height balance out with the slightly bigger width? (This of course only matters if site memory is still a big issue etc)
It might be an idea to implement a rule where it's the case of as long as the overall size doesn't add up to over 1000, that a sig can go over the 500 limit depending on the height and width.
I know that then some worry might occur now that some people would then have massively wide signatures which would 'stretch' the site. But... That brings me to my next point:
I've noticed that Xenforo seems to resize sigs/banners and the like automatically anyway (and the thing can be then clicked to show the original size at the viewers discretion) if they were gonna cause stretching, so that would also be a counter measure towards having overly massive sigs anyway. (Those using the 'fixed width' option for the site's layout can click on the sig example above to see what I mean.)

And also again, Jayn's earlier point:

So in such a case, maybe it'd be an idea for staff to evaluate and judge the sig instead of sticking to the 500 x 500 dimensions thing by heart? I mean, as long as members know not to take advantage of having more freedom with sigs, would it be that much of an issue?



But yeah, frankly I think in conjunction with some of Jayn's (and other's) earlier points and suggestions above, combined with the new developments on the site now since we're on Xenforo, and finally the above points I made. That this could at least be revisited as it was never actually concluded last time anyway, but just died instead.

What are other people's thoughts and opinions on this matter? And can staff see any issues with anything I said? (After all... I don't know how the site truly works when it comes to this stuff lol, but yeah)

 

I personally think 500 x 500 is too much in terms of the height, which is why we only allow 500 x 250.

Anyway, I don't see any reason why the rule can't be bended depending on the width. However, can't that bring the possibility of abuse?