Avatar and Signature Size limits

Thaldarin

<div class="IPBDescription">Seen a lot disappear lately...</div>So I've had an avatar over the size limit for pretty much most of the past 2 years until today it was removed. May be look at this rule again?

22KB is reasonable back when bandwidth was an issue, now a days it's not and as long as you haven't got a stupid 500kb image or 1MB image it will load more or less instantly. I can see why the 22KB limit would be enforced if it's held on-site using the UWE bandwidth but for people like myself who host all images off-site the rule needs a review. It's redundant and now that the avatar size in particular has moved from 64x64 to 100x100 the size of the file is naturally going to increase.

I'm all for the size limits on image size ie. 100x100 475x(I forget) although off-site images like mine which were 32KB, could be relaxed a little.

Tesseract

If it's hosted off-site I cannot see an issue with it being of a larger size, myself. I might consider uploading an avatar if the rules weren't "your avatar must be tiny and therefore under no circumstances be pleasing to look at."

RobB

There should be a script in the forum that drops images if they aint loaded in x seconds.

Aside from that, 400x75 is a good size. Only filesize could be increased to 100~150kb.

Comprox

On site versus off site is not the reason for the restriction. The point of the forum is to communicate between people, not be covered in large images. If we allowed everyone 100kb signatures it would just increase load time. And since people can set the forums to view dozens of posts per page, you could easily have a couple meg download just to view a forum page which is just silly.

Having said that, we are looking into it and are seriously looking at raising the file size restriction some. We'll let you guys know in a bit.

Thansal

<!--quoteo(post=1717079:date=Jul 12 2009, 10:58 PM:name=Comprox)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Comprox @ Jul 12 2009, 10:58 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1717079"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->On site versus off site is not the reason for the restriction. The point of the forum is to communicate between people, not be covered in large images. If we allowed everyone 100kb signatures it would just increase load time. And since people can set the forums to view dozens of posts per page, you could easily have a couple meg download just to view a forum page which is just silly.

Having said that, we are looking into it and are seriously looking at raising the file size restriction some. We'll let you guys know in a bit.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

I am all for larger file sizes, just so long as you don't listen to Tessers and let people have large image dimensions.

Depot

<!--quoteo(post=1717079:date=Jul 12 2009, 10:58 PM:name=Comprox)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Comprox @ Jul 12 2009, 10:58 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1717079"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->On site versus off site is not the reason for the restriction. The point of the forum is to communicate between people, not be covered in large images. If we allowed everyone 100kb signatures it would just increase load time. And since people can set the forums to view dozens of posts per page, you could easily have a couple meg download just to view a forum page which is just silly.

Having said that, we are looking into it and are seriously looking at raising the file size restriction some. We'll let you guys know in a bit.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Worth noting: all users have the ability to modify these settings under My Controls/Board Settings:<ul><li>Do you wish to view members signatures when reading topics? </li><li>Do you wish to view images in posts, such as smilies and posted images?</li><li>Do you wish to view members avatars when reading topics?</li></ul>
If any member (such as one on 56k) finds it is taking to long for pages to load, they can simply disable image viewing themselves. In other words, let the viewer determine this. :)

Talesin

Unfortunately Depot, those functions do not operate on a per-user basis; it's an all-or-nothing measure. Taking away everyone's sigs and avatars is a bit much of a nuke-and-pave, even for me.
At this point a reasonable limit has been set, and can be discussed. The limit has not changed as of yet however; even if an avatar or signature slid for a while, it is expected that community members will adhere to the rule, rather than expecting us to review every avatar or signature prior to it being applied to a given account.. which would add quite a bit of waiting-time for even simple changes. So we will continue removing individual avatars and sigs that are found to be over the limit or otherwise noncompliant, when they are noticed.

Tesseract

<!--quoteo(post=1717079:date=Jul 13 2009, 03:58 AM:name=Comprox)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Comprox @ Jul 13 2009, 03:58 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1717079"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The point of the forum is to communicate between people, not be covered in large images. If we allowed everyone 100kb signatures it would just increase load time. And since people can set the forums to view dozens of posts per page, you could easily have a couple meg download just to view a forum page which is just silly.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Countless forums don't impose such a miserly limit on image filesizes and their loading times are negligible. A page is readable long before the images appear, and if the forum is about really just about communication <a href="http://www.unknownworlds.com/ns2/forums/lofiversion/index.php" target="_blank">then there is a simple solution to people who don't want to waste all their mega-precious bandwidth on a tiny collection of pictures</a>.

<!--quoteo(post=1717150:date=Jul 13 2009, 08:00 PM:name=Talesin)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Talesin @ Jul 13 2009, 08:00 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1717150"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Unfortunately Depot, those functions do not operate on a per-user basis; it's an all-or-nothing measure. Taking away everyone's sigs and avatars is a bit much of a nuke-and-pave, even for me.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What you find "tasteful" isn't what's in question here, it's about the file size (but not necessarily dimension size) of users' avatars and signatures. If it's too much for your modem then you disable them, but if you're on anything from 512k or above and you're going to begrudge anything larger than a 22KiB image then... well, I can't phrase it without being insulting, so I won't.

<!--quoteo(post=1717150:date=Jul 13 2009, 08:00 PM:name=Talesin)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Talesin @ Jul 13 2009, 08:00 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1717150"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->At this point a reasonable limit has been set<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

...what defines 'reasonable'?

Daworm

ok ok -- my sig has been nuked again. I'll admit the first was a TAD large, however I reduced under the required size at the time... now the size has been reduced by 25 pixels in height and 60kb.

Talesin

<!--quoteo(post=1717161:date=Jul 13 2009, 02:23 PM:name=Tesseract)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Tesseract @ Jul 13 2009, 02:23 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1717161"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Countless forums don't impose such a miserly limit on image filesizes and their loading times are negligible. A page is readable long before the images appear, and if the forum is about really just about communication then there is a simple solution to people who don't want to waste all their mega-precious bandwidth on a tiny collection of pictures.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
"Everyone else is doing it" is a weak argument, no matter the 'it'. There are countless other forums, most of which we prefer not to emulate. Countless other forums permit unchecked content in image posting, and no limit on blue language. We are not one of them.


<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->...what defines 'reasonable'?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Discussion and general consensus by board staff, in the case of these forums.

Tesseract

<!--quoteo(post=1717247:date=Jul 14 2009, 08:13 AM:name=Talesin)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Talesin @ Jul 14 2009, 08:13 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1717247"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->"Everyone else is doing it" is a weak argument, no matter the 'it'. There are countless other forums, most of which we prefer not to emulate.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum" target="_blank">Argumentum ad populum</a> is, I'm aware, a fallacious argument, but so is saying <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_example" target="_blank">"we" don't want to be like certain forums</a>. Their unpleasant qualities are <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy" target="_blank">not necessarily because they allow free reign over avatars</a>.

Edit: and now I think about it that's not even the point, I was referring to the <b>loading times</b> of those pages. So your argument is "just because it's not slow for other people doesn't mean it won't be slow for us." Which might be fair if we were living in <i>1998</i> when 56k was what most people were using.

<!--quoteo(post=1717247:date=Jul 14 2009, 08:13 AM:name=Talesin)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Talesin @ Jul 14 2009, 08:13 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1717247"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Discussion and general consensus by board staff, in the case of these forums.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So basically, it's reasonable <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_assertion" target="_blank">"because we say so"</a>.

And yes, I am well aware that Liarpedia isn't a fountain of truth or intelligence, but it's more likely to remain online than the "Logical Fallacies" section of "Billy's Personal Homepage" hosted on Geocities.

Thaldarin

If you can prove to me how much of an invconvenience doubling the file size from 22kb to 44kb is Talesin I will consider anything you say. However a 100% rise would not kill anyone, would it?

briktal

Why not go for something simple: a limit of ~1 meg for sig size (offsite), with the sig area limited to something reasonable (like a current sig + 4 lines of text) but you can click on the sig area to expand it all the way to show the entire sig. The screen doesn't get overwhelmed by large sigs but you can still put stuff there for people to check out.

~~Sickle~~

Daworm

1mb sig? No thanks. I'm for doubling / tripling current limit. (What mine was told to be within not more than
1 1/2 weeks ago) but 50times bigger..... no.

CoolCookieCooks

Personally I dont see a problem with the current sizings, its more fun to try and squeeze all the detail in. If the dimensions do get changed, please nothing too big, Im here to read text, not huge images of peoples names.

briktal

<!--quoteo(post=1717339:date=Jul 14 2009, 06:41 PM:name=Daworm)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Daworm @ Jul 14 2009, 06:41 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1717339"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->1mb sig? No thanks. I'm for doubling / tripling current limit. (What mine was told to be within not more than
1 1/2 weeks ago) but 50times bigger..... no.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Dunno, maybe half a meg is more reasonable, but whatever. Sometimes you need 1000px of height in your sig, for a pic of a person or a couple webcomics or something, you know?

~~Sickle~~

Daworm

<!--quoteo(post=1717342:date=Jul 15 2009, 08:53 AM:name=briktal)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (briktal @ Jul 15 2009, 08:53 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1717342"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Dunno, maybe half a meg is more reasonable, but whatever. Sometimes you need 1000px of height in your sig, for a pic of a person or a couple webcomics or something, you know?

~~Sickle~~<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Mind you, the Ctrl alt del comic linked in a sig... that I could let pass :)

Tesseract

CTRL+ALT+DEL needs nuking, as does any portion of it that seeps onto the intelligent parts of the internet.

Thansal

<!--quoteo(post=1717353:date=Jul 14 2009, 08:58 PM:name=Tesseract)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Tesseract @ Jul 14 2009, 08:58 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1717353"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->CTRL+ALT+DEL needs nuking, as does any portion of it that seeps onto the intelligent parts of the internet.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Then it is fine here.

Tesseract

Touché.

RobB

<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->CTRL+ALT+DEL needs nuking<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
go shave a cat.

as stated before, a file size of approximately 100kb to maximum 200kb with the current image size would be quite a perfect solution.
what are 100k nowadays anyway? most likely a second or two of loading.

Comprox

We have upped the file size limit some on signatures only to 40KB. The rest of the rules are going to stay the same. The rules now read:

<!--coloro:red--><span style="color:red"><!--/coloro-->All signature images must be at most 75 pixels high, at most 400 pixels wide, and less than 40 KB. Avatars must be at most 90 pixels x 90 pixels, and less than 22KB in filesize.<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->

Why 40KB? For the current dimensions, this allows little compression needed anymore. With next to no effort, I could get any image of that dimension under the limit but still saves us from 100 frame annoying animated abominations :P (alliteration!)

Tesseract

Appreciated Comprox - cheers!

remi

400 x 75 is so limiting, and so small on modern screens.
I used to go to some forums that had a restriction of 500 x 100. That was nice.

Tesseract

Eh, it's small but it could be worse.