Split topic.. Sigs thread

Message

Aladinsaneuk · #16 Post by **Aladinsaneuk** » Mon Jan 22, 2007 11:46 pm

may i suggest some bandwidth guidelines first?

combined what is worksafe?

then see what is right afterwards

tbh, once people have seen a sig from a regular poster, then it is going to be in the browser cache, so should not affect download times - as to what is work safe, then we just need to talk a little and set up some guidelines

just a thought -= and i do happen to like ladies with their lotties out, but my wife tells me I will go blind and my testicles will fall off - probably with the aid of a sharpened spoon but she can be an evil cow....

BikerGran · #17 Post by **BikerGran** » Tue Jan 23, 2007 3:39 am

Though I voted FOR sigs, I can see that it's not just a question of bandwidth or worksafe - large picture sigs can be distracting, they break up the thread and personally I tend to agree with those who don't like them.

I appreciate they can be works of art but I dont think in between posts in a thread is the best place for them.

Gio · #18 Post by **Gio** » Tue Jan 23, 2007 7:26 am

BikerGran wrote:Though I voted FOR sigs, I can see that it's not just a question of bandwidth or worksafe - large picture sigs can be distracting, they break up the thread and personally I tend to agree with those who don't like them.

I appreciate they can be works of art but I dont think in between posts in a thread is the best place for them.

Bigger avatars then, as they don't get in the way of posts

DavShill · #19 Post by **DavShill** » Tue Jan 23, 2007 11:58 am

I vote no sigs. I find the long banner things really annoying especially on the long threads and as now we've got all the new animated emoticons too. Avatars are fine by me.

Just my opinion though guys.

Myrkk · #20 Post by **Myrkk** » Tue Jan 23, 2007 1:33 pm

I'm a no [ish] to sigs. I don't mind the small textual quotes that you get on sigs but the humungous picture sigs can be irritating.

#21 Post by **Kwackerz** » Tue Jan 23, 2007 5:32 pm

Waiting for an answer from Hammy on something.

Yes, I know I said i'd turn them off at the end of the week... ok so I lied.. keep debating for a bit. some good feedback has been put up, apart from Avatars getting bigger. They wont... so there...

Gio · #22 Post by **Gio** » Tue Jan 23, 2007 8:17 pm

Kwackerz wrote:Waiting for an answer from Hammy on something.

Yes, I know I said i'd turn them off at the end of the week... ok so I lied.. keep debating for a bit. some good feedback has been put up, apart from Avatars getting bigger. They wont... so there...

Well I want sigs then spoilsport

falcomunky · #23 Post by **falcomunky** » Tue Jan 23, 2007 8:37 pm

BikerGran wrote:large picture sigs can be distracting, they break up the thread

Personally I feel that sigs make finding your most recent post a lot easier.
As long as the sigs are all significantly different it helps to make your last comment stand out, (useful in a long thread to help you quickly scroll to the next comment after yours).
All I think that is required, (other than an all out NO-vote!), is a decision from Admin on allowed size and content. Then a Sig Rules sticky could be put up under each main thread.
Any abusers and their sig gets the bullet.
Alternatively a blanket ban on them.
Seems a bit daft if the ban is due to 'content' when you consider some of the language used round ere though!

Likewise the ban being based on sigs as a distraction. I feel they enhance an otherwise boring page, (no offence to our great little forum!); Thats why theres a big colourful banner at the top and not a small line of text, (granted it isnt under everyones posts!).
It is a little noticable when there are only two or three peeps with a sig, but if there were more of em...

Samray · #24 Post by **Samray** » Tue Jan 23, 2007 9:13 pm

falcomunky wrote:
BikerGran wrote:large picture sigs can be distracting, they break up the thread
Personally I feel that sigs make finding your most recent post a lot easier.
As long as the sigs are all significantly different it helps to make your last comment stand out, (useful in a long thread to help you quickly scroll to the next comment after yours).Avatars serve the same purpose ... and you only have to scroll half as far.
All I think that is required, (other than an all out NO-vote!), is a decision from Admin on allowed size and content. Then a Sig Rules sticky could be put up under each main thread.
Any abusers and their sig gets the bullet.
Alternatively a blanket ban on them.
Seems a bit daft if the ban is due to 'content' when you consider some of the language used round ere though! Comments are not visible from the other side of a room.
Likewise the ban being based on sigs as a distraction. I feel they enhance an otherwise boring page, (no offence to our great little forum!); Thats why theres a big colourful banner at the top and not a small line of text, (granted it isnt under everyones posts!).
It is a little noticable when there are only two or three peeps with a sig, but if there were more of em... ... even more people would leave?

#25 Post by **Kwackerz** » Tue Jan 23, 2007 9:26 pm

falcomunky wrote: All I think that is required, (other than an all out NO-vote!), is a decision from Admin on allowed size and content. Then a Sig Rules sticky could be put up under each main thread.
Any abusers and their sig gets the bullet.
Alternatively a blanket ban on them.
Seems a bit daft if the ban is due to 'content' when you consider some of the language used round ere though!

I did suggest a limit of 4 times the size of an avatar and also put it up to debate. No one debated, agreed or disagreed until the sexy gifs tipped up on screen and the debate was relit.. started.. whatever. Im actively looking to have the membership assimilated in some other way. Waiting on a PM back from the Furry Borg

Content is a fair reason for banning of indecent sig pics. My 8 year old cant read the writing to understand it, over my shoulder, but did comment on the boobies that He managed to snaffle a glimpse of. I just scroll up/ down if he comes looking now. I dont consider him scarred for life.

Moose · #26 Post by **Moose** » Tue Jan 23, 2007 9:42 pm

I vote no sigs. I find the long banner things really annoying especially on the long threads and as now we've got all the new animated emoticons too. Avatars are fine by me.

I concur

Johnny the fox meets jimmy the weed

I new I'd seen that avatar before

Gio · #27 Post by **Gio** » Wed Jan 24, 2007 12:09 am

Kwackerz wrote:but did comment on the boobies that He managed to snaffle a glimpse of.

I haven't seen any boobies on RS

#28 Post by **Kwackerz** » Wed Jan 24, 2007 4:49 pm

There's one big Tit to be honest.

I have received my PM from the furry one.

Sigs are being looked at and changes will be possibly made once a few other things have been sorted.

For now, I shall turn sigs off.

(Mainly cos Gio doesnt read a bloody word I write. )

Gio. Avatars are larger than yours normally. Youre just a stubborn git and wont reduce your image quality down to allow your avatar to be larger. Resolution old bean. Resolution...

Gio · #29 Post by **Gio** » Thu Jan 25, 2007 12:09 am

Kwackerz wrote: 1. There's one big Tit to be honest.

2. I have received my PM from the furry one.

3. Sigs are being looked at and changes will be possibly made once a few other things have been sorted.

4. For now, I shall turn sigs off.

5. (Mainly cos Gio doesnt read a bloody word I write. )

6. Gio. Avatars are larger than yours normally. Youre just a stubborn git and wont reduce your image quality down to allow your avatar to be larger. Resolution old bean. Resolution...

1. I don't need a bra, I'm a bloke

.
2. Care to share it?.
3. OK
4. Fine
5. Fine again, but you do chop and change with the breeze.
6. who wants to look at an avatar thats 80x80 and looks like a bunch of downing pixels. Why don't we have the option of having a link to a decent picture hosted elsewhere as an avatar that looks half decent. Doesn't tie up forum hard disk space either.

BTW there's nothing rude about the pic I used as a sig, the female form like that has been looked at as an art form for centuries.

1 sad poster here

#30 Post by **Kwackerz** » Thu Jan 25, 2007 9:05 am

Gio wrote:

1. I don't need a bra, I'm a bloke . :
2. Care to share it?.
3. OK
4. Fine
5. Fine again, but you do chop and change with the breeze.
6. who wants to look at an avatar thats 80x80 and looks like a bunch of downing pixels. Why don't we have the option of having a link to a decent picture hosted elsewhere as an avatar that looks half decent. Doesn't tie up forum hard disk space either.

BTW there's nothing rude about the pic I used as a sig, the female form like that has been looked at as an art form for centuries.

1 sad poster here

1.

2. No.
3.

4. Is done
5. *shrugs*
6. a.Have you tried adjusting the resolution to have your avatar at 80 by 80?
6. b.Why dont we have, etc?

Upload Avatar from a URL:
Enter the URL of the location containing the Avatar image, it will be copied to this site.

You can host a pic from elsewhere. It will be on this site however as otherwise it could be classed as bandwidth theft. As it's in the avatars and is relatively small, we can take the hit on that.

There may be nothing wrong with your sig, I agree ....apart from the fact she's a skinny moose...