Signature size update for the times?

BigDBigD [OldF] Join Date: 2002-10-25 Member: 1596Members Posts: 1,056 Advanced user
Why not bump'em up a bit?
The year: 2002.
The plan: Make signatures less obtrusive and bandwidth friendly.
The result: 400x75x22kb.

And it was good.

But that was over 4 years ago. Screen resolutions have gone up. More people are on high speed internet. The forums no longer host images. I think we could handle a bump.

Nothing huge, still don't want them to be obnoxious. But I'm on 56k myself and I can tell you that I would gladly like to see better quality images. (I have my number of posts displayed set to 30-40 on most forums I read) My biggest complaint is that artifacts in jpegs are sooooo 1999.

I admit, this came about after discovering that Photoshop's "size estimation" when saving a jpeg blatantly lies (this sig is supposed to be 14k?) and after being made aware I was over with the old version, I was immediately annoyed at how little detail fits within a 400x75 image. A simple bump to 30-35kb would give so much more breathing room. Width and height I don't care about, I realize a lot of people don't like sigs taking up space, but I think we can handle a bit more bandwidth in this day and age.

Yes? No? Maybe? So?
www.oldf.net

Comments

  • MaverickkMaverickk Join Date: 2006-12-03 Member: 58857Members Posts: 119
    I'm all for it. There needs to be some limitation though. Yea resolutions have gotten bigger as an average over the years but for those of us still running a small desktop resolution, I don't want someone with a signature that's 600x200 that will break the width of the forums. Something like 400x200 seems fine, maybe 500ish but nothing bigger in my opinion. And allow multiple images in a sig, as long as they don't add up to more than the max limitation.

    And increase avatar file size and dimensions, almost no one has any cool animated avatars, cause it's hard to make a nice looking animation look good in such a small box.
    IPB Image
  • ChocolateChocolate The Team Mascot Join Date: 2006-10-31 Member: 58123Members Posts: 404
    Yeah! Im for it too... Ive gotten my sig removed 2 times already in 2 days.... erg.

    I think the size should be somewhere around the 400x200 mark like Maverickk said. The actual size should be somewhere around the 50k mark, so it could allow those sigs that change more easily.
    QUOTE
    Friendly fire - isn't


    Ingame Name: Chocolate

    Creator of:
    The Art of Dropping
  • WyzcrakWyzcrak Pot Pie Aficionado Join Date: 2002-12-04 Member: 10447Forum Moderators, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue Posts: 920 mod
    Great idea. I do hope it's acted upon.... modestly.
    TGNS Portal | NS2 side-by-side game viewer
    IronHorse wrote: »
    TG's win or lose mod that replaces the concede function is the best of both worlds and should be official.
  • SpaceJesusSpaceJesus Join Date: 2004-07-02 Member: 29683Banned Posts: 938
    suggestion : 450x150, 50kb
    *IMAGE BALEETED.* Sigs are not to exceed 400x75 or 22KB. No exceptions. -Talesin
  • LikuLiku I, am the Somberlain. Join Date: 2003-01-10 Member: 12128Members Posts: 10,081
    Yeah, 400 x 100 is pretty bad, trying to edit something is a pain because you can't get much in.
    image
    QUOTE (Thansal @ Oct 14 2007, 12:14 PM) »
    I am with Them and Liku (who is fun to pwn with a baseball bat).
  • ComproxComprox *chortle* Canada Join Date: 2002-01-23 Member: 7Members, Super Administrators, Forum Admins, NS1 Playtester, NS2 Developer, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Silver, Subnautica Developer, Subnautica Playtester, Pistachionauts Posts: 6,615 admin
    I'm throwing my vote of no in here (but Ill discuss it with the higher ups). The point of a small signature is we are here to read the forums, not stare at oversized signatures all day. A signature is nice so you can easily see who has posted, but that's about it. As for the kb size: yes 22kb is small and meant to take care of the people on slower connections and less people are on slower connections. But really, people's signatures look fine now, and a size increase would be used for one of 2 things (if we didn't increase dimensions): 1. animation. ugh. no. 2. sharper images, which really aren't a problem as is.

    So what if we raise it just a bit? Well, no matter what number we raise it by, someone will want just a little bit more, so there is no right answer.

    And frankly, the small sizes have forced some creativity into people's signatures rather than just smothering them with pictures of 14 things you like.
    NAPT
  • SpaceJesusSpaceJesus Join Date: 2004-07-02 Member: 29683Banned Posts: 938
    QUOTE(Comprox @ Mar 24 2007, 02:50 PM) »
    a size increase would be used for one of 2 things (if we didn't increase dimensions): 1. animation. ugh. no. 2. sharper images, which really aren't a problem as is.


    My sig looks horrible because of the 22kb size restriction....


    *IMAGE BALEETED.* Sigs are not to exceed 400x75 or 22KB. No exceptions. -Talesin
  • RobRob Unknown Enemy Join Date: 2002-01-24 Member: 25Members, NS1 Playtester Posts: 2,604 Advanced user
    QUOTE(SpaceJesus @ Mar 24 2007, 08:59 PM) »

    My sig looks horrible because of the 22kb size restriction....


    I think your sig looks great!

    Seriously, one of the really homey aspects of our forums has always been the heavy restrictions on sig images. I'd surely not vote for a dimensions increase.
    -Rob
  • sherpasherpa stopcommandermode Join Date: 2006-11-04 Member: 58338Members Posts: 1,043
    QUOTE(Comprox @ Mar 24 2007, 08:50 PM) »
    The point of a small signature is we are here to read the forums, not stare at oversized signatures all day.


    Poor argument.
    [Fanarama] you're like kryptonite to electronics, sherpa
  • SnappyCrunchSnappyCrunch Join Date: 2004-08-03 Member: 30328Members, Constellation Posts: 495
    I don't like images in signatures at all.

    People already get an avatar, and it's not hard to see who's posting - you just look a little bit to the left.
    [Low Poly Packs: Marine Structures, World Models, Players]
    [High Poly Models: Phasegate, Infantry Portal]
  • ScytheScythe Join Date: 2002-01-25 Member: 46NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators, Constellation, Reinforced - Silver Posts: 4,371 mod
    The less you've got, the more you value it. You discover amazing new ways to use the space more efficiently rather than just going hog-wild with a ton of crap jammed in any which way. Just look at Quanaut's sigs for an example.

    --Scythe--
    image
    "Show me an operation that is running smoothly and I'll show you someone who's covering up mistakes. Real boats rock." - Frank Herbert
    image PAPT
  • LikuLiku I, am the Somberlain. Join Date: 2003-01-10 Member: 12128Members Posts: 10,081
    QUOTE(Scythe @ Mar 25 2007, 07:46 PM) »

    The less you've got, the more you value it.

    Maybe, but it still doesn't fulfill my hunger.

    I just like the size to be a bit bigger, especially for people with cropped images(like me), the detail turns to fuzz.
    image
    QUOTE (Thansal @ Oct 14 2007, 12:14 PM) »
    I am with Them and Liku (who is fun to pwn with a baseball bat).
  • BigDBigD [OldF] Join Date: 2002-10-25 Member: 1596Members Posts: 1,056 Advanced user
    I quite agree that huge and/or flashy sigs are bad, but 22kb is difficult to get a lot of detail in. Heck, the "nice" version of my sig fits within 30kb a lot better. Sharper signatures would be worth it. A small increment of the memory size alone would be nice.
    www.oldf.net
  • SkinnYSkinnY Join Date: 2002-11-07 Member: 7500Members Posts: 1,255
    Hello,

    My name is Skinny, and i'm a big-images-in-your-sig-hater.

    I've been this ever since i've started going to the NS-forums where they have rather strickt sig-rules. Ever since i started visiting and reading the NS-forums i've become accustom to small clean sigs. This is why no forum will be the same, i can no longer stand to see 512*120 sigs. So, for the love of kittens, don't change the rules.

    Thank you for your time.
    yea... i post crap...
  • CabooseCaboose title = name(self, handle) Join Date: 2003-02-15 Member: 13597Members, Constellation Posts: 4,708 Advanced user
    Hehe, for the love of kittens.

    I like the width and height restrictions as well, but I'd like to see increase to 30kb. I've made sigs in the past that ended up being too grainy for me to even use because of the 22kb limit.
  • RoverRover blargh Join Date: 2003-09-23 Member: 21139Members Posts: 1,006
    edited April 2007
    QUOTE(Caboose @ Apr 2 2007, 06:23 AM) »

    Hehe, for the love of kittens.

    I like the width and height restrictions as well, but I'd like to see increase to 30kb. I've made sigs in the past that ended up being too grainy for me to even use because of the 22kb limit.

    Agreed. Not that I need a bigger one or anything, but still tounge.gif


    edit: and yes I know I'm necroing. Yes, I know I didn't have anything new to say. Yes, I'm an idiot.
    IPB Image
  • AndosAndos Join Date: 2003-10-17 Member: 21742Members Posts: 267 Advanced user
    I vote no too..
    I'm here to read posts, not to look at pwetty images were people can write their name in.

    This is no MySpace site wink-fix.gif
  • BigDBigD [OldF] Join Date: 2002-10-25 Member: 1596Members Posts: 1,056 Advanced user
    QUOTE(Andos @ Apr 14 2007, 04:16 AM) »

    I vote no too..
    I'm here to read posts, not to look at pwetty images were people can write their name in.

    This is no MySpace site wink-fix.gif


    And hence, for people such as yourself, the option to disable the viewing of signatures is available. smile-fix.gif

    Personally, I believe the avatar and the signature define the person moreso than a couple words making up a name. It's the "face" of the internets!

    Anyway, 30KB would be a nice bump, if nothing else.
    www.oldf.net
  • JimmehJimmeh Join Date: 2003-08-24 Member: 20173Members, Constellation Posts: 3,174
    edited April 2007
    QUOTE(Comprox @ Mar 24 2007, 08:50 PM) »
    *snip*


    QFT.

    Especially this part:

    QUOTE
    And frankly, the small sizes have forced some creativity into people's signatures rather than just smothering them with pictures of 14 things you like.


    After being on the NS forums, I've really come to appreciate the amount of space I have. I used to be (and still am with other things) over the top, huge images where I could easily fit it into something a lot smaller. I didn't optimise my images at all. A simple animation which could of fitted in current sig limitations was about 100kb.

    I occasionaly have problems when my sigs are 30b, maybe even 40kb. How do I get around this? Change the file format, optimise or shrink the sig slightly. Been working fine since I joined.

    Keep the limits. Please.


    QUOTE
    And hence, for people such as yourself, the option to disable the viewing of signatures is available.


    I want to see them though. Sometimes they're wonderful art and they really help me identify who's who - more so than avatars because they stand out more and can fit a lot more art and detail in. I just don't want anything bigger than what they already are. Any bigger than current limits and they get obstructive, the file sizes causes more crap I don't need to download to be downloaded - wasting my bandwidth. People don't optimise them. People don't try to do anything original - they have loads of space to work with so why bother?
  • AhnteisAhnteis teh Bob Join Date: 2002-10-02 Member: 1405Members, NS1 Playtester, Constellation Posts: 2,291 mod
    QUOTE(Comprox @ Mar 24 2007, 01:50 PM) »

    I'm throwing my vote of no in here (but Ill discuss it with the higher ups). The point of a small signature is we are here to read the forums, not stare at oversized signatures all day.


    I agree. Small, fast loading sigs are better. I don't WANT to see a bunch of animated large signatures.

    I WOULD like to see user-selectable skins for the forum.
    IPB Image
Sign In or Register to comment.