Clean up the sigs in this place

Please, hear me out.

If I have sigs turned on, I get a barrage of Ugly, UGLY sigs, variating in size and quality.

If it's not a REALLY ugly image (which I suppose is in the eye of the beholder), then it's a stupidly large image (either in dimensions or filesize), and if only half of the people have complied at least to have reasonable sigs with out annoying text in them, the effect is ruined by one idiot posting with a huge obnoxious sig that breaks the default tables.

PLEASE GOD, Firstly, make sig limits on the images something less slutty. More like 330x70 pixels.

Second, please, please PLEASE get rid of animated sigs. PLEASE.

Third, conform to have A SET ALIGN VALUE.

And Finally, bloody hell, BE MORE VIGILANT ABOUT THE SIG RULES, There are a load of people who have sigs that don't obey the rules.

relax
forget about it
put your feet up

At the very, VERY least sort these guys out.

"Skyblade"

"kaggski"

Mmm Hmm, yeah, these guys, WHOSE SIGS BREAK THE RULES.

330x70 is pretty small

Oh yeah.

AND THESE GUYS

"call me Karl with a K"

"tan"

EoFF is stricter than most places I've seen in regard to signature and avatar filesize and dimension size. If you don't like it, either add the people with said "obnoxious" sigs to your ignore list, or turn signatures off.

But I dont think everyone has a terrible sig, just a lot of people.

Don't double post. ~Yamaneko

PM a mod about this. A mod other than me. Don't post people's names here.

I'll leave this open, though.

Also:

A maximum width of 550 pixels.
A maximum height of 250 pixels.
These include any text in the signature outside images.
Total file size of all images combined must not exceed 50 KiB (51,200 bytes).
Any signatures not following these or any signatures with questionable or problematic content will be removed/edited by staff, and you may have your signature editing privileges temporarily disabled if this happens several times.

I like the way you're moaning about rules and then double post

I think the current sig restrictions are fine.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yamaneko

A maximum width of 550 pixels.
A maximum height of 250 pixels.
These include any text in the signature outside images.
Total file size of all images combined must not exceed 50 KiB (51,200 bytes).
Any signatures not following these or any signatures with questionable or problematic content will be removed/edited by staff, and you may have your signature editing privileges temporarily disabled if this happens several times.

---

Yeah, I know, and all those people have broken the size limits.

One time I had a tonberry as a sig (Because Final Fantasy was COOL!) and it got deleted, so from that point on I have hated the staff and their sig restrictions.

One time Spiff made me a sig and it was like a zillion miles underneath the size limits but it still got deleted and it got replaced with "taco" and I was, I admit, sad for a second or two.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yamaneko

PM a mod about this.

---

I did, and they didn't do anything.

Perhaps Master Quan should be set in charge of 'sig rating' and personally approve all new signatures :P

[edit-ahahaha, I would be one of the first to go under that regime xD There's what, three animations in there? xD]

If you see a sig that is over the restrictions, please warn the post. Leeza is the sig queen and she's usually right on that.

Taste is subjective and we are not going to delete sigs using that.

I edit/remove an average of 10 sigs a day and I always check on any sigs that are warned (except sometimes when I'm at work). I agree that the sig limits should be smaller, but that is just our opinion, Master Quan. Most wish that they were bigger.

As it is, the limits are set and I do my best to make sure that they are adhered to. If you see a sig that you object to, warn it and it will be checked out. As Del said, taste is taste though. But, of course, it's it's over the line for me, I remove it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Master Quan

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yamaneko

PM a mod about this.

---

I did, and they didn't do anything.

---

PM me personally if a warn is missed and I will check it out, but I normally check on all warned sigs. Maybe what appears too large to you is actually just within the limits.

I'll set to work.

Oh, and did you get all of those ones I just warned down?

The ones you just warned are all just barely within the limits, except one, which I will remove.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Master Quan

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yamaneko

A maximum width of 550 pixels.
A maximum height of 250 pixels.
These include any text in the signature outside images.
Total file size of all images combined must not exceed 50 KiB (51,200 bytes).
Any signatures not following these or any signatures with questionable or problematic content will be removed/edited by staff, and you may have your signature editing privileges temporarily disabled if this happens several times.

---

Yeah, I know, and all those people have broken the size limits.

---

Then Warn them or PM a mod, and Leeza will take care of it, as she usually does. :D

I thought it INCLUDED text as part of the sig?

What resolution are you using?

That's a TINY size for a sig. A lot of people, like myself, really like graphic art and that's an awfully restrictive size. I think EoFF is strict when it comes to sigs, but your recommendations are like nazi strict. No offense. I think they're just fine as they are. :)

The 250 pixels height limit does include text and I'm actually checking all of those sigs out at an 800 x600 resolution. Ends up that I will end up removing most of them because that is the resolution that the sig restrictions apply to. Usually I just check the limits at what my screen is set to, but that's not good enough.

Quote:

---

What resolution are you using?

---

It doesn't matter, a pixel is a pixel is a pixel. But, 1280x1024.

Yeah, as far as I know the resolution doesn't matter much, if at all. What does make a difference is the style settings you have. Unfortunately I can't remember which is the one that counts.

The style setting is Classic with the avatars at the side.

The resolution matters if there is a lot of text because then it keeps wrapping around to be way over the 250 pixel limit. And if the image is over 550 pixels in width it will start to stretch the tables.

One thing that has to be taken into consideration is whether or not the staff member you PMed is on. It's much better just to warn a post of the person with a sig in violation, since warns get sent out to everyone on staff.

But that completely goes against what the CKs tell me not to do.

They always tell people NOT to tell them how to do their jobs.

Reporting a post isn't telling us how to do a job, it's telling us that there's something that you think might be worth us looking into. We don't have to do anything, but it brings the person/post to our attention so that if we do see something that we see is wrong, then we can fix it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loony BoB

Reporting a post isn't telling us how to do a job, it's telling us that there's something that you think might be worth us looking into. We don't have to do anything, but it brings the person/post to our attention so that if we do see something that we see is wrong, then we can fix it.

---

I'm sorry, I must have misinterpreted that last post, I thought you meant warning someone by way of a public post.

Which I'm pretty sure you'd get cheesed about.

Oh, yeah. Making a post to warn someone is what is a bad thing to do. Reporting posts is something we encourage because it tends to make our job easier. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Master Quan

But that completely goes against what the CKs tell me not to do.

They always tell people NOT to tell them how to do their jobs.

---

You're getting modwhoring confused with the warn button that's attached to every post that everyone makes. That's what we mean by "warning" them.

In thread warning = modwhoring.
Clicking the Warn button on an offensive post = makes staff happy.

edit: Well there you go.

Maybe if you didn't have an old 800x600 res monitor they wouldn't look so big, would they? If EoFF ever starts digressing, I'll leave. The sig limit isn't at all bad, I've seen avatars bigger than 50k. Most banners have to be 480 x 60 px, the dimensions you gave make no sense. do you honestly expect people to do back flips just cater towards what's convenient for you?

On dial-up, a 50k image should take 10 seconds to download, and only 3 seconds on cable... if you honestly can't wait that long, then I think you've got a personal problem. EoFF doesn't need to digress, you need to update.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ZeZipster

Maybe if you didn't have an old 800x600 res monitor they wouldn't look so big, would they? If EoFF ever starts digressing, I'll leave. The sig limit isn't at all bad, I've seen avatars bigger than 50k. Most banners have to be 480 x 60 px, the dimensions you gave make no sense. do you honestly expect people to do back flips just cater towards what's convenient for you?

On dial-up, a 50k image should take 10 seconds to download, and only 3 seconds on cable... if you honestly can't wait that long, then I think you've got a personal problem. EoFF doesn't need to digress, you need to update.

---

I have 1280x1024 resolution. I have 2mb.

As for "expecting people to do backflips", I can't exactly respond to that, beyond merely saying, I'm just making my opinions heard, In the (apparently vain) attempt to make the idea gather weight.

Quite frankly I think that my suggested size is quite generous, considering there are places with a 325x60 sig size limits.

If people use the old "Creative output, blah blah, enjoyable" argument, perhaps they need to realise what you go on a forum for. Which is to discuss things. I mean perhaps the challenge is to try and think of something that would suit those limits. After all, if they plan to take a CAREER in design, they are going to have to work in confines they perhaps might not like.

I have dial up and it never takes long for a page to load unless I am doing too may things. I personally like the size, plus the height Master Quan suggested is kinda restrictive, and would be hard to read any small text on the sig.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Summoner of Leviathan

and would be hard to read any small text on the sig.

---

The sheer size of a sig never seems to stop people from putting text outside their pictures anyway.

Being a nazi is sad.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Master Quan

If people use the old "Creative output, blah blah, enjoyable" argument, perhaps they need to realise what you go on a forum for. Which is to discuss things.

---

Discussing things, not complaining about sig limits, right? Or did I miss something? ^_^

The sig limits here are fine, I think. We already have enough trouble trying to fit things in a 60x60 avatar xD at least no one has any huge flash animations for sigs xD

There's just no reason to make the limits any smaller.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rubah

Discussing things, not complaining about sig limits, right? Or did I miss something? ^_^

---

Touche.

But then again, this is the Feedback forum.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Master Quan

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ZeZipster

Maybe if you didn't have an old 800x600 res monitor they wouldn't look so big, would they? If EoFF ever starts digressing, I'll leave. The sig limit isn't at all bad, I've seen avatars bigger than 50k. Most banners have to be 480 x 60 px, the dimensions you gave make no sense. do you honestly expect people to do back flips just cater towards what's convenient for you?

On dial-up, a 50k image should take 10 seconds to download, and only 3 seconds on cable... if you honestly can't wait that long, then I think you've got a personal problem. EoFF doesn't need to digress, you need to update.

---

I have 1280x1024 resolution. I have 2mb.

As for "expecting people to do backflips", I can't exactly respond to that, beyond merely saying, I'm just making my opinions heard, In the (apparently vain) attempt to make the idea gather weight.

Quite frankly I think that my suggested size is quite generous, considering there are places with a 325x60 sig size limits.

If people use the old "Creative output, blah blah, enjoyable" argument, perhaps they need to realise what you go on a forum for. Which is to discuss things. I mean perhaps the challenge is to try and think of something that would suit those limits. After all, if they plan to take a CAREER in design, they are going to have to work in confines they perhaps might not like.

---

Oh, I understand NOW. I hope you GET your wish then and EoFF does COMPLY with those size limits you pulled out of your ASS.

Thirdly, those sites probably had 60 posts per page.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ZeZipster

Thirdly, those sites probably had 60 posts per page.

---

You are aware you can change that in the options tab, right?

I have 100 posts per page.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Master Quan

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ZeZipster

Thirdly, those sites probably had 60 posts per page.

---

You are aware you can change that in the options tab, right?

---

What relevance is that to other sites making up for their obscene posts per page by requiring signatures to be small?

I have 9999 posts per page :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ZeZipster

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Master Quan

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ZeZipster

Thirdly, those sites probably had 60 posts per page.

---

You are aware you can change that in the options tab, right?

---

What relevance is that to other sites making up for their obscene posts per page by requiring signatures to be small?

---

It means that the setting for posts per page is not sig size dependant.

I mean you clearly must have thought it bore some relevance, otherwise you wouldn't have brought it up in the first place.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ZeZipster

What relevance is that to other sites making up for their obscene posts per page by requiring signatures to be small?

---

It doesn't matter really about the other sites. We have the restrictions here set to what they are so that anyone who does happen to have to use an 800 x 600 resolution on a dial-up does not have to wait forever to load. Yes, they could turn off their sigs, but why should they have to?

The restrictions here are good and could be smaller, in my opinion. Especially with all of the spam posts that go on in here. No one wants to keep seeing the same sig over and over again with barely the minimun number of words per post in between.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Master Quan

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ZeZipster

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Master Quan

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ZeZipster

Thirdly, those sites probably had 60 posts per page.

---

You are aware you can change that in the options tab, right?

---

What relevance is that to other sites making up for their obscene posts per page by requiring signatures to be small?

---

It means that the setting for posts per page is not sig size dependant.

I mean you clearly must have thought it bore some relevance, otherwise you wouldn't have brought it up in the first place.

---

Uh, yeah, if the posts per page is high that means it'll take that much longer to load the page, which is why the sig limit is usually stricter for places with higher post counts. Deviant Art won't allow signatures because they don't have pages for threads, and that'd be way to much to handle on bigger threads.

continuing to whine about the signature restrictions after everyone has already said they're not going to change is just going to make everyone hate you.

Haha, no it won't. Well, it will make shallow people hate you. :p

Wow, so much debating over signatures :p

Animated sigs stay :monster: :cookie: :cookie:

For what it's worth, I don't give half a crap about what other sites/forums have. This is EoFF, and what other sites do has no relevance whatsoever to this site. I know sites that disallow sigs altogether but I don't go suggesting that here.

Quote:

---

You are aware you can change that in the options tab, right?

---

Quote:

---

Uh, yeah, if the posts per page is high that means it'll take that much longer to load the page, which is why the sig limit is usually stricter for places with higher post counts.

---

The post count per page option isn't definite in forums, the option is there so that if there is someone having problems loading a page, they can customise it such that it isn't a problem for them anymore.

So quite frankly, the reference to ppp was unneccesary.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Del Murder

Haha, no it won't. Well, it will make shallow people hate you. :p

---

well, it will make people with no patience hate you. If having no patience makes someone shallow, then ok. http://www.fools-gold.org/forum/imag...vatar827_8.gif

I still dont understand whats with all the PMS'ing over peoples sigs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Master Quan

Quote:

---

You are aware you can change that in the options tab, right?

---

Quote:

---

Uh, yeah, if the posts per page is high that means it'll take that much longer to load the page, which is why the sig limit is usually stricter for places with higher post counts.

---

The post count per page option isn't definite in forums, the option is there so that if there is someone having problems loading a page, they can customise it such that it isn't a problem for them anymore.

So quite frankly, the reference to ppp was unneccesary.

---

I was giving a reason for those sites to have those limits. Quite frankly, the reference to a different website was unneccesary.

what?

This thread has gone haywire since the original post, so I'm just going to address the original.

These are the rules. If you dont like it, go somewhere else. Nobody else seems to have a problem with it

You no like my animated sig? :(

Haha and I do think the current limit is fine, as long as it's not... one huge image and has some text in it xD

Jojo, rainbows have 7 colours :p

Not in China.

If you don't like signatures several options have already been made available to you. You can't expect everyone else to agree with your signature ideas. You asked and they didn't. Simple as that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cl_out

Jojo, rainbows have 7 colours :p

---

Yeah but the last two are like the same. XD I've never figured out the difference between violet and indigo, really... or I always forget! *shoots you*

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Master Quan

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Summoner of Leviathan

and would be hard to read any small text on the sig.

---

The sheer size of a sig never seems to stop people from putting text outside their pictures anyway.

---

By "Text on the sig" it's meant that there is text on the pic in the sig. Many members associate sig with banner rather than the whole get-up. The banner is the sig for some people with the text just being something extra (that happens to add to the sig size :p )

Personally, I think there should be a sig activation button. Once, I turned off the sigs in my Profile and all my sigs disappeared. I started trying to make posts to include my sig and there was no way to reverse the "sigs off" for a single post which I thought was the stupidest thing ever!
No one puts in the extra effort to click the little checkbox that says "Show signature in post" to turn it off. Once they're done typing, they're done. That's why most of them make typos and misused words and reply to something that really doesn't need their reply because someone already answered the exact same thing and it's also why they double-post. They can't be bothered to click the "little things". Only a select few manage to gather their brains up out of their asses and stop being so damned lazy. Moi, for example.

If you want to fix the sig problems new option in the profile page to have the "Show signature in post" checkbox UNCHECKEDDDDDD!! This way, if people TRULY want their signature in the post, they can scroll down and check the box. In fact, I think this should be the default option. If you want to add your sig to, then click "Show," if you're lazy and don't care, then don't, because no one else cares to see your sig post 14 times on the same page (60 posts per page).

Do you understand what I just said?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hawkeye

Nobody else seems to have a problem with it

---

You don't know until you try.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Master Quan

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hawkeye

Nobody else seems to have a problem with it

---

You don't know until you try.

---

Good non-sequitur.

If anything, we need to pick on lowbandwidth people and dail-uppers by loosening the restrictions on signatures. My beautiful Ghost of Eest animation loses much of its glamour when resized to fit EoFF's Nazi standards.

I have no real problem with the current setup nor think it should be changed.

Too many posts:

1) Right click the image and check the res. If it's 550x250 then leave it alone..unless it has text underneath in which case it IS against the rules.

2) turn off sigs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Monkey

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cl_out

Jojo, rainbows have 7 colours :p

---

Yeah but the last two are like the same. XD I've never figured out the difference between violet and indigo, really... or I always forget! *shoots you*

---

Indigo is closer to blue, I always feel. And darker.

*shoots Sara L and Bawb* xD All fixed.

Yeah rubah, but both of them can fall into a nice easy category - purple? ^_~ I always thought a rainbow was red orange yellow green blue purple. Simplicity ;x

roygbiv

like the Boards of Canada song.

ask Krissy

:love:

Boards of Canada are excellent. That's the only part of this thread that I care about.

I've been saving something(big) for such an occasion. The whole thing was very large indeed.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v4...s/ownedlol.jpg

Hey, I got you all something. It's called "a life". Have fun with it.

Hey, no one cares.

The same could be said in response to your demands in this thread, imho

ONLY BECAUSE IT HAS NOW BECOME APPARENT.

I was merely enlightening -N-.

Obviously, otherwise you wouldn't be bitching about something so dumb.

But who cares.

Exactly.

i see no point in continuing this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -N-

Obviously, otherwise you wouldn't be bitching about something so dumb.

---

-N-, your sig is overheight so please edit or it will have to go and following rules is never dumb.

As a last word (one that Raistlin can't have here :)), I want to thank Master Quan for bringing all of those sigs to my attention because I care.