1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Thought on signatures...

Discussion in 'AfterDawn feedback & suggestions' started by Vicious88, Jun 17, 2009.

  1. Vicious88

    Vicious88 Regular member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2007
    Messages:
    274
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    26
    Recently I re-sized my signature because it didn't comply with the filesize limitations stated in the rules.

    Granted, this didn't even classify as an inconvience, but I'm curious as to why a limit has been placed on filesize.

    I can understand deeping certain size restraings like 500x200 or such, but I can't really see the 50KB part.

    The images are not hosted on afterdawn, and therefor do not consume any of the websites bandwidth because their embedded from image hosting websites.

    I'm not trying to be disagreeable or anything, just wondering if there was a reason that I'm failing to understand.

    But seeing as no explination is given as of yet, my suggestion is this:

    We should modify the rules to remove filesize limitations on images. This would allow for higher-quality images, and the size difference would be minimal. It wouldn't even hinder users visiting via dial-up in most cases.
     
    Last edited: Jun 17, 2009
  2. ddp

    ddp Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2004
    Messages:
    39,346
    Likes Received:
    121
    Trophy Points:
    143
    does hinder dialup users which is the main reason for the 50k limit.
     
  3. wabashman

    wabashman Active member

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2006
    Messages:
    7,381
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    96
    yea but couldnt dial up users disable all images as i used to do when thats what we had?
     
  4. ddp

    ddp Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2004
    Messages:
    39,346
    Likes Received:
    121
    Trophy Points:
    143
    depends on the user's knowledge if can disable images as not certain we can on this site.
     
  5. wabashman

    wabashman Active member

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2006
    Messages:
    7,381
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    96
    you can with five clicks with firefox,

    1. tools
    2 options
    3 content
    4 load images automatically
    5 ok
     
  6. ddp

    ddp Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2004
    Messages:
    39,346
    Likes Received:
    121
    Trophy Points:
    143
    how about explorer?
     
  7. wabashman

    wabashman Active member

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2006
    Messages:
    7,381
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    96
    not sure, i never use it, but ill check here in a second for yea.

    yep you can.

    1 tools
    2 internet options
    3 advanced
    4 scroll down to multimedia and untick show pictures
     
    Last edited: Jun 17, 2009
  8. Vicious88

    Vicious88 Regular member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2007
    Messages:
    274
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    26
    Thanks, wabashman.

    So this would mean that the AD staff could allow for more than 50KB, but that'd come at the cost of educating dial-up users about how to disable the images.

    But on a percentage scale, do enough people really use dial-up internet anymore that we should put thought into it? I mean... If only 6% of people who visit the site do so through dial-up, that would mean that the other 94% are having to change the quality of their images to accomidate a very (VERY) small minority.

    I'm not trying to be disagreeable, I'm just, I guess, wondering if there's really enough of a user-base on dial-up to justify special action.
     
  9. creaky

    creaky Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2005
    Messages:
    31,683
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    96
    Here's how i look at it. For the first 3 years or so that i'd been here, out of spec signatures took up a lot of moderator time. These days the only time i ever have to comment on signatures is when people use them for advertising, i can't rememeber the last time i had to chase someone for a signature over 50k. It's mostly been kids in the console forums that would abuse the 50k, i guess that over the years of cracking down on signatures they've all got the hint, and most of those kids have moved on so with no over-spec signatures for kids to look at/compete with (in size terms), it seems to me like it stops them wanting to push the limits.
    I personally don't see why the 50k limit needs raising, all that would do is encourage people to want more than whatever the limit is.
    I guess it's just because i classify signatures the same as user titles etc etc, ie they're just not relevant (for instance i've been using my signature gif for something like 4 years now, and have no interest in changing it), but maybe the Admin will comment on the 50k side of things.

    Whilst it's probably true that a large percent of people aren't on dialup anymore, it'd actually be only a very small minority that actually want (ie not need) a larger than 50k signature, if you look at say, wabashman's signature you'll see the quality of image that a gamertag image can handle in that 50k.
     
    Last edited: Jun 18, 2009
  10. Vicious88

    Vicious88 Regular member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2007
    Messages:
    274
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    26
    Noted, of course, but even with the transparent backing of my original signature (the HD version of the one I'm using now), the size came in at 85KB, if I had put the nice HD background to it that I wanted to, that would have boosted the size up to 110KB.

    Could the quality have been reasonably lowered to meet limitations, yes, and it has.

    But I guess I'm just a bit of a detail-oriented person. I mean, if someone spends time making highly detailed images that fit the page size requirements, and the majority of users are not hendered by these larger filesizes, why should the quality have to go down at all?

    But with respect, the quality difference between my current signature and its original is merely cosmetic, and in fact people who had not seen the original might never know that the quality was reduced. So is it an inconvience to lower quality by... let's say 15% in order to cut file size down by 60%? Not really. But it does, in a way, put a limitation as to what people can do with their signatures, creatively.

    There are some images, for example, that are so vast in color and detail, that I could never make them less than 50k without ruining the image as a whole.

    But in review of this thread, I can see the point of the limitation, and if no one feels further need to discuss it, I would completely understand.
     
  11. dailun

    dailun Active member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2006
    Messages:
    3,132
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    66
    I see it as a "distraction". I am not interested in your signature or your choice of expression. I am interested in the content of your post.
     
    Last edited: Jun 18, 2009
  12. wabashman

    wabashman Active member

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2006
    Messages:
    7,381
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    96
    well then dont look at it. granted i feel that people shouldnt have a signature the size of texas, but the 'quality' of a signature doesnt matter to me. if its still 2 inches by 3 inches idc if its 50 kb or 500kb as long as it doesnt take up anymore room than it normally would.
     
  13. dailun

    dailun Active member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2006
    Messages:
    3,132
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    66
    I appreciate your opinion. My point was if you've got a signature that is larger than your post, how can I NOT look at it?
     
    Last edited: Jun 18, 2009
  14. wabashman

    wabashman Active member

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2006
    Messages:
    7,381
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    96
    well my sig is usually larger than my post. mainly because i dont beat around the bush when it comes to telling someone why they can or cannot do what they are asking. ive always thought why waste a persons time reading a book when a simple 3 liner will do just fine.
     
  15. creaky

    creaky Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2005
    Messages:
    31,683
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    96
    My sentiments exactly, i only have one because it's been my sig for something like 4 years now, am quite fond of my dancing bones.

    I'm all for people being individual but a signature should never overshadow the content of a post, else why post.
     
  16. Vicious88

    Vicious88 Regular member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2007
    Messages:
    274
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    26
    ^ Which is why I agree with the size limitation (dementions), but I still sort of wish the filesize limitation would be removed for sake of improved quality.

    But, if quality is something that no one will notice, then what's the point, really?
     
  17. ddp

    ddp Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2004
    Messages:
    39,346
    Likes Received:
    121
    Trophy Points:
    143
    i still like my sig.
     
  18. creaky

    creaky Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2005
    Messages:
    31,683
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    96
    [​IMG]
     
  19. ddp

    ddp Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2004
    Messages:
    39,346
    Likes Received:
    121
    Trophy Points:
    143
    i do & i am.
     
  20. LOCOENG

    LOCOENG Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2005
    Messages:
    11,493
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    118
    you is and you ain't :p
     

Share This Page