PDA

View Full Version : Why don't we have signatures with pics?


Legend 4ever
29-08-08, 16:35
OK, so I have been wondering for a while. Why? It is so much fun and personally, every other forum has these.

Is is because it would be hard to track all of the signatures for content of them?
Or because of the speed it would take to load if everyone would have 500X200 pic for their signature?

Or because the forums would look a bit too colorful?

Dunno, to me, those can be pretty damn unique and fun. Anyways, would you guys even like those?

Oh an another thing: What are the reasons we are not allowed to change out avatars by ourselves? Other HUGE and I mean HUGE forums with like over 1.000 people on a daily basis have that enabled yet the forums never crash.

Mad Tony
29-08-08, 16:36
I've wondered this too. Most other forums I know have pictures in their signatures and there's no problems there.

Quasimodo
29-08-08, 16:40
I'm glad we don't. Signature pics add too much visual clutter - it's easy to completely overlook some of the shorter posts in forums that have that feature.

Mr.Burns
29-08-08, 16:42
Signature pics = sucked up bandwidth. That's my guess. I'm not really fussed by them.

maximum_123
29-08-08, 16:45
It's kind of pointless really. Yeah, It looks pretty but then again wastes bandwithand doesn't matter much.

About the avatars, I guess it's to make sure no inappropriate ones get uploaded... :p

toxicraider
29-08-08, 16:46
It's kind of pointless really. Yeah, It looks pretty but then again wastes bandwithand doesn't matter much.

About the avatars, I guess it's to make sure no inappropriate ones get uploaded... :p

it probably saves time in the long run, imagine how tedious it would be to have to check everybody's avatar and replace them if they are unsuitable, or too big/large.

Mad Tony
29-08-08, 16:47
About the avatars, I guess it's to make sure no inappropriate ones get uploaded... :pOther forums let you upload your own avatars and nothing inappropriate is uploaded there.

Mr.Burns
29-08-08, 16:49
Do these other forums have such a vast teen age demographic?

Chocolate
29-08-08, 16:51
Of course they do.

maximum_123
29-08-08, 16:51
Other forums let you upload your own avatars and nothing inappropriate is uploaded there.
What he said...

it probably saves time in the long run, imagine how tedious it would be to have to check everybody's avatar and replace them if they are unsuitable, or too big/large.

I'm not sure why it's like that. Just a wild guess. It does suck though.

Legend 4ever
29-08-08, 16:52
Other forums let you upload your own avatars and nothing inappropriate is uploaded there.

Exactly. I have NEVER, ever seen an inappropriate one on other forums. People usually already know they will be banned if doing so.

As for the signatures, I don't think it is such big of a deal to have a small pic there, not 800X600 pic, but a small, like 600X200 or 600X150 one.

Mad Tony
29-08-08, 16:52
Do these other forums have such a vast teen age demographic? Yep.

maximum_123
29-08-08, 16:53
Do these other forums have such a vast teen age demographic?

*gasp* Are you thinking about this..?

*contains slight excitement*

Mr.Burns
29-08-08, 16:54
*gasp* Are you thinking about this..?

*contains slight excitement*

Nope.

toxicraider
29-08-08, 16:55
Nope.

:vlol:

i'm fine with it as it is :)

Legend 4ever
29-08-08, 16:56
Do these other forums have such a vast teen age demographic?
And that is a problem why? I mean, I know most of the people love sig pics, so it is not about the age really. And this is not NASA central it is for fun, not work, so colorfulness is not a bad thing. I guess.
it probably saves time in the long run, imagine how tedious it would be to have to check everybody's avatar and replace them if they are unsuitable, or too big/large.
Actually there is this thing called size limit which would not allow avatars too big to be uploaded. Every forum has that. And administrator decides of the width and height of the avatar and gives that as an optimum size. :)

maximum_123
29-08-08, 16:57
Nope.

:( :vlol:

xXhayleyroxXx
29-08-08, 17:09
And that is a problem why? I mean, I know most of the people love sig pics, so it is not about the age really. And this is not NASA central it is for fun, not work, so colorfulness is not a bad thing. I guess.

Actually there is this thing called size limit which would not allow avatars too big to be uploaded. Every forum has that. And administrator decides of the width and height of the avatar and gives that as an optimum size. :)

i agree with what you're saying XD
and yeah whats up with the teens? i think people get the wrong idea:ton:

Naomichi
29-08-08, 17:10
I detest sig pics. On every board I'm on I turn them off if I can.

KurtisLonely
29-08-08, 17:12
signature pics x 30000members = alot to load = Load Balances ;)

Endow
29-08-08, 17:13
Other forums let you upload your own avatars and nothing inappropriate is uploaded there.


Yeah I think it's a bit of a false problem. We have enough mods here to promptly ban someone who uploads inappropriate avatars. Posts can contain both inappropriate text AND inappropriate pictures and can be made on the fly.

Signatures with pic though are a big no-no imo. Visual clutter and bandwidth issues like people mentioned.

rowanlim
29-08-08, 17:13
I don't like signature pictures. I prefer to see how we can express ourselves with words (limited characters too, at that), it really shows our creativity & individuality :)

Plus some pictures are an eyesore :p

maximum_123
29-08-08, 17:14
Load Balances ;)

I remember those days... ahh.

Archetype
29-08-08, 17:16
Would kinda like them, but given the amount of traffic on this forum.. its highly unfeasible.

Elysia
29-08-08, 17:16
Because, on the whole, they are, umm, vastly irritating? And that there are quite a few members that would like to read what people have to say *without* ploughing through pages of people declaring their undying love for Lara / Natla / Larson / Emo boyband flavour of the month / *insert TV show here*?

Whilst maybe a small, discreet banner wouldn't be too much of a problem, on most of the forums I go to where this is allowed, so much space is devoted to people 'expressing themselves' via their signatures that what would once have been a 3 page thread ends up 12 pages long due to silly signature banner pictures. That and they would be an absolute nightmare to moderate... considering there are quite a few people here that can't get their heads around the whole 'let the censor deal with swearing' thing, it really doesn't lead me into believing that implementing user controlled sig pictures would be something that wouldn't be abused by some members.

violentblossom
29-08-08, 17:20
I detest sig pics. On every board I'm on I turn them off if I can.

i dont like em, eiether.

Avatars, ftw.

on the official Eidos forum, you get to choose your sig, but your avatar is based on how many posts you have.

Legend of Lara
29-08-08, 17:21
Can't say I really care. I'm perfectly fine with the text-only signatures. :)

Titanium
29-08-08, 17:22
Okay how about this.

Bandwidth would be a major issue, but you can always use Imageshack, Tinypic etc to host it.
It can be uploaded by mods and admins like avatars.
And if theres a big debate on cluttering the forum, if theres an option, make signature optional to appear to certain members.

toxicraider
29-08-08, 17:23
I guess maybe a very small banner containing details such as game network info, i've also seen, 'currently playing;' tabs, they might be nice

but no thanks to pictures.

Legend 4ever
29-08-08, 17:23
i agree with what you're saying XD
and yeah whats up with the teens? i think people get the wrong idea:ton:

Well it is a safe and proven strategy to shovel someone off. Unfortunately.

And yeah, pic sigs can be annoying, but they could be really minimal. And I must admit this is the first forum, and I've been on a lot of them, where we can't upload avatars when we want and by ourselves and that is really not OK. And it is not abut the bandwidth. It is just a determination, there is no need to be like that.

Larson_1988
29-08-08, 17:26
I don't really like signature pics, however, longer text would be appreciated. With font editing aswell. :)

Chocolate
29-08-08, 17:26
Legend of Lara, nice avatar! :tmb:

On the whole I'm neutral to the topic of signatures, but I do understand where people are going when they say that some of the huge signatures hurt their eyes. Some are just TOO colourful, some are even animated! But there are a lot of decent signatures out there too, and so far in this community I've seen some very creative, yet good looking and not eye-soring signatures.

A small size limit could be implemented though, something like 400 x 200 pixels. That way it might not mess out the layout so much. As for the bandwith problem...that's not really a problem since you're actually using the image host's bandwith. If the forum decides to approve images instead, well...they could do it so that only moderators can change the signature of the users. But then again, I think most of us would be fine freely editing signatures with text.

Legend 4ever
29-08-08, 17:27
I don't really like signature pics, however, longer text would be appreciated. With font editing aswell. :)

Exactly. I cannot write a sentence there!!! Not a single ONE sentance. Don't tell me even that would CLUSTER the forum?!:rolleyes:

domina
29-08-08, 17:32
Legend of Lara, nice avatar! :tmb:

On the whole I'm neutral to the topic of signatures, but I do understand where people are going when they say that some of the huge signatures hurt their eyes. Some are just TOO colourful, some are even animated! But there are a lot of decent signatures out there too, and so far in this community I've seen some very creative, yet good looking and not eye-soring signatures.

A small size limit could be implemented though, something like 400 x 200 pixels. That way it might not mess out the layout so much. As for the bandwith problem...that's not really a problem since you're actually using the image host's bandwith. If the forum decides to approve images instead, well...they could do it so that only moderators can change the signature of the users. But then again, I think most of us would be fine freely editing signatures with text.

Well said. :tmb:

Honestly, the fact that we can't upload our own avatars and use signatures are two of my biggest complaints about this forum. I understand the need to monitor folks 'cause we gots lotsa youngins here, but plenty of forums allow their members this sort of autonomy with little to no problems. It's almost a slap in the face to the community to assume that most of us can't self-regulate.

I dunno. Maybe it was tried before and turned out poorly. I just think it's unnecessary. And it's got to be a ridiculous amount of work for the mods/admins who have to upload the avatars.

Elmer
29-08-08, 17:38
OK, so I have been wondering for a while. Why? It is so much fun and personally, every other forum has these.

Is is because it would be hard to track all of the signatures for content of them?
Or because of the speed it would take to load if everyone would have 500X200 pic for their signature?

Or because the forums would look a bit too colorful?

Dunno, to me, those can be pretty damn unique and fun. Anyways, would you guys even like those?

Oh an another thing: What are the reasons we are not allowed to change out avatars by ourselves? Other HUGE and I mean HUGE forums with like over 1.000 people on a daily basis have that enabled yet the forums never crash.


If everyone had their own signature picture, the forum would get all... messy.
I like text more then pictures, on forums that is...
And we already have avatars, so, there isn't really a need for signature pictures In My Opinion:)

Legend 4ever
29-08-08, 17:40
Well said. :tmb:

Honestly, the fact that we can't upload our own avatars and use signatures are two of my biggest complaints about this forum. I understand the need to monitor folks 'cause we gots lotsa youngins here, but plenty of forums allow their members this sort of autonomy with little to no problems. It's almost a slap in the face to the community to assume that most of us can't self-regulate.

I dunno. Maybe it was tried before and turned out poorly. I just think it's unnecessary. And it's got to be a ridiculous amount of work for the mods/admins who have to upload the avatars.

Seconded.

Naomichi
29-08-08, 17:41
I would prefer to be able to choose my own avatar.

But I REALLY don't want picture sigs.

tomblover
29-08-08, 17:42
No sig pics please. (And only because all my sig pics are ugly. :vlol:)

I would like more customizable and longer text sigs though.

SamReeves
29-08-08, 17:45
Well said. :tmb:

Honestly, the fact that we can't upload our own avatars and use signatures are two of my biggest complaints about this forum. I understand the need to monitor folks 'cause we gots lotsa youngins here, but plenty of forums allow their members this sort of autonomy with little to no problems. It's almost a slap in the face to the community to assume that most of us can't self-regulate.

I dunno. Maybe it was tried before and turned out poorly. I just think it's unnecessary. And it's got to be a ridiculous amount of work for the mods/admins who have to upload the avatars.

I completely agree with this position. The lack of coming through on the individual avatar control panels casts a shadow of distrust upon the posters. If something really bad happens with an avatar, and has been the case, people do and will complain about it.

VonCroy360
29-08-08, 17:46
I'm glad we don't. Signature pics add too much visual clutter - it's easy to completely overlook some of the shorter posts in forums that have that feature.

I agree. I hate when someone writes a sentence or two in their post and has a 300 pixels high signature under it. :rolleyes:

Fortune&Glory
29-08-08, 17:47
This would easily be one of the choices for my photo signature.

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a313/LadyLuva619/Attempting-To-Give-A-Damn20Larg.gif

Agent 47
29-08-08, 17:48
avatar's
personally it doesn't bother me that i can't change it myself. as i have no intention of changing it, especially to whatever "flavour of week" is.

sig pics
hate them, they add nothing and seriously slow down forums on the whole, even threads take an age to load.

if people want a sig pic badly would you be willing to forfeit your avatar in place of sig pics?

i just feel this thread is for nothing more than a good old moan.

domina
29-08-08, 18:02
avatar's
personally it doesn't bother me that i can't change it myself. as i have no intention of changing it, especially to whatever "flavour of week" is.

sig pics
hate them, they add nothing and seriously slow down forums on the whole, even threads take an age to load.

if people want a sig pic badly would you be willing to forfeit your avatar in place of sig pics?

i just feel this thread is for nothing more than a good old moan.

I'm curious - Do you consider yourself a creative person? There seems to be a tone to your post that suggests the people who want these things (signatures, to change their avatars, etc.) what to because it's frivilous or silly. Flavor of the week? No! Some of us just want to show off our new creations. There are a lot of creative people, and this is just another way for us to be creative and express ourselves visually.

Take a look at some of the signatures (http://sim.evolution-rpg.com/gallery/menu.php?gallery=members&album_id=13)made for my Star Wars RPG forum:

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y115/vixen21/Tomb%20Raider/Runesig.png

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y115/vixen21/Tomb%20Raider/Pietsig.png

Or what about here - Have you ever seen Shrantellatessa's work? Amazing. She makes fantastic avatars, but I would love to see what she could do with a bigger canvas.

It's just not all silly "Oo, I like this picture of Lara - Let's use it for a signature" mentality. Some of us what to have another outlet for creativity.

And to answer your question, yes, I would give up avatars for signatures. No hesitation.

TRfan23
29-08-08, 18:12
Just get Mozilla FireFox webbrowser. Then use Adblocker Plus, so right-click on the images and Adblock the images. Then the image will be unviewable to you :tmb:

Do these other forums have such a vast teen age demographic?

I don't get it\Understand? :confused:

Agent 47
29-08-08, 18:21
Domina, there are indeed creative people here, that isn't disputed.

i simply find sig pics pointless, yes i've seen very good ones on my travels, but to me all they add to a forum is slowdown.........people need to consider folks on lesser connections.

the only fair way to impliment such a luxury is forfeit of avatar and serious policing of content and size.

oocladableeblah
29-08-08, 18:21
Probably for bandwidth issue.
Personally I don't really care I mean I like sig pics and I think some of them are really cool looking, but it doesn't bug me that we don't.

nicola1986
29-08-08, 18:23
I hate signature pics, they are annoying IMO, and sometimes I miss smaller posts or pictures because I think they're just signatures. I don't see the point in them at all, all they do is take up space and make pages load slower for me, all for the sake of a pic.

MiCkiZ88
29-08-08, 18:29
I hate large signature pictures. Sure there might be an option to disable signatures, but wouldn't that disable normal signatures as well? I like reading signatures, but I strongly oppose high signature pictures. Really small ones are cool, but big ones just make it extremely annoying to browse through posts.

domina
29-08-08, 18:31
Domina, there are indeed creative people here, that isn't disputed.

i simply find sig pics pointless, yes i've seen very good ones on my travels, but to me all they add to a forum is slowdown.........people need to consider folks on lesser connections.

the only fair way to impliment such a luxury is forfeit of avatar and serious policing of content and size.

Most forums DO impose limits on signatures. It's not like allowing them means that people are going to have sigs the size of banners and KBs the size of videos. The Eidos forums, for example, allow them (along with small avatars) as long as they are under 30 KBs and I think 400x200 pixels. You also have to be a member for a certain amount of time to lessen the chances of people going crazy with them.

And I was on dial-up until about '06 - Believe me, I have empathy for folks with slow connections. Just because I want to see signatures doesn't mean that I'm not considering folks with lesser connections.

Cochrane
29-08-08, 18:33
Ultimately, every forum has it's own feel. Different moderators, different avatar styles, different members posting - it's all part of the personality of a forum. TRF feels fine to me without image signatures. Forums allowing overly long image sigs always feel more silly than those that don't to me. As an example, compare http://idevgames.com/forum/ with http://is82.com/. The former has no image sigs, small avatars, and has a more technical and serious feel. The other has silly avatars of larger size and image signatures (yes, that rotating ghost is me), and consequently it feels difficult to take it seriously.

Okay how about this.

Bandwidth would be a major issue, but you can always use Imageshack, Tinypic etc to host it.
It can be uploaded by mods and admins like avatars.
And if theres a big debate on cluttering the forum, if theres an option, make signature optional to appear to certain members.

Bandwidth is also an issue for the user end. Not everyone has broadband, especially not all the time, so disabling image signatures no matter where they are hosted is a public service.

I'm curious - Do you consider yourself a creative person? There seems to be a tone to your post that suggests the people who want these things (signatures, to change their avatars, etc.) what to because it's frivilous or silly. Flavor of the week? No! Some of us just want to show off our new creations. There are a lot of creative people, and this is just another way for us to be creative and express ourselves visually.

Take a look at some of the signatures (http://sim.evolution-rpg.com/gallery/menu.php?gallery=members&album_id=13)made for my Star Wars RPG forum:

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y115/vixen21/Tomb%20Raider/Runesig.png

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y115/vixen21/Tomb%20Raider/Pietsig.png

Or what about here - Have you ever seen Shrantellatessa's work? Amazing. She makes fantastic avatars, but I would love to see what she could do with a bigger canvas.

It's just not all silly "Oo, I like this picture of Lara - Let's use it for a signature" mentality. Some of us what to have another outlet for creativity.

And to answer your question, yes, I would give up avatars for signatures. No hesitation.

Those sigs are horrible. No, I do not mean in the artistic sense, do not get me wrong. However, they are higher than an average post, so it means way more scrolling and they disrupt the reading flow. The maximum size that I'd say would be acceptable is the size of the advertisement in the top-right corner. What is it, 468x60? Something like that.

I do not think it's okay to use your signature to show off your new creations, sorry. Your interest in showing off your new things does not outweigh the rest of the forum's interest in less visual clutter and faster load times, especially as quite a few forum members won't be interested in them.

Elysia
29-08-08, 18:38
I do not think it's okay to use your signature to show off your new creations, sorry. Your interest in showing off your new things does not outweigh the rest of the forum's interest in less visual clutter and faster load times, especially as quite a few forum members won't be interested in them.
I've got to say, I'm with you on this one, Cochrane. As a creative person, I like to express my creativity, but do it via the appropriate channels - I participate in an art based website (DeviantART) and post in the art forums here, but when I am discussing something, I'd rather things were focused upon the discussion and wasn't forced to trawl through post after post after post of other people's 'creativity'.

TRfan23
29-08-08, 18:45
I've got to say, I'm with you on this one, Cochrane. As a creative person, I like to express my creativity, but do it via the appropriate channels - I participate in an art based website (DeviantART) and post in the art forums here, but when I am discussing something, I'd rather things were focused upon the discussion and wasn't forced to trawl through post after post after post of other people's 'creativity'.

Ah good point, and also to Cochrane :tmb:

Yeh no images for siggys, makes them become saggys instead :tmb:

Minty Mouth
29-08-08, 18:47
I really wouldnt see a problem if you could turn them off in the options menu. In fact i would quite like them, only if there was a strict size limit though, mind you. Something like 200x500 px

The Great Chi
29-08-08, 18:53
I agree with the Moderator on this one :tmb:

We have enough ways on this forum to show our individuality, plus you can change your Avatar, if you want to.

Also you have a written signature at the bottom to convey your individuality, and again, that can be changed if required.

This should be enough for everyone, and does not disturb the visual impact of the forum.

Drone
29-08-08, 18:55
if there was such a feature I would turn it off. Ain't gonna see what crap everyone put in their signature

Larapink
29-08-08, 18:55
What happend to that new feature of Profile pictures? I'd love that if it was back. :D

Death Mask
29-08-08, 19:01
What happend to that new feature of Profile pictures? I'd love that if it was back. :D

Maybe it takes too much bandwidth and resources, which would make the site run slower.

Larapink
29-08-08, 19:02
Maybe it takes too much bandwidth and resources, which would make the site run slower.
Damn.

jamieoliver22
29-08-08, 19:03
I personally don't like large annoying signature images, and I don't think it would suit these forums either. I don't mind userbars however, they can look rather swank.

Here are some examples of what userbars are:

http://rlblaster.blog.prog.hu/uploads/pics/userbar.JPG

Twilight
29-08-08, 19:05
Personally, i found them extremly annoying and obnoxious. This is one of the many reasons why i actually keep coming back to this particular forum.

remote91
29-08-08, 19:05
Those users bars are okay, Jamie. I just don't think i'm a fan of the idea, it would seemed cluttered and untidy.

Larapink
29-08-08, 19:06
I like userbars too. :tmb:

stereopathic
29-08-08, 19:08
I detest sig pics. On every board I'm on I turn them off if I can.

i echo his sentiment. signature images are nothing but clutter.

Dark Lugia 2
29-08-08, 19:14
It'd be cool if wecould have them, but with a size limit :p

Sedge
29-08-08, 19:20
I don't mind signature pictures as long as you can choose yourself whether you want them to be showed.. That way it wouldn't irritate anyone, eh? :)

As for changing avatars by ourselves.. I do wonder why that isn't yet allowed as it continually causes confusion for newbies, but ah well. At least I really don't think "inappropriaty" would be a problem, misuse of such a feature would be easily spotted and I just don't think anyone would bother doing something like that. _o

domina
29-08-08, 19:21
Those sigs are horrible. No, I do not mean in the artistic sense, do not get me wrong. However, they are higher than an average post, so it means way more scrolling and they disrupt the reading flow. The maximum size that I'd say would be acceptable is the size of the advertisement in the top-right corner. What is it, 468x60? Something like that.

I do not think it's okay to use your signature to show off your new creations, sorry. Your interest in showing off your new things does not outweigh the rest of the forum's interest in less visual clutter and faster load times, especially as quite a few forum members won't be interested in them.

I've got to say, I'm with you on this one, Cochrane. As a creative person, I like to express my creativity, but do it via the appropriate channels - I participate in an art based website (DeviantART) and post in the art forums here, but when I am discussing something, I'd rather things were focused upon the discussion and wasn't forced to trawl through post after post after post of other people's 'creativity'.


I realize that the sigs I posted are larger than the average signature and the post here; however I feel you're taking that slightly out of context as the point I was making in that post and with those images is that sigs and avatars aren't just all about the "flavor of the week," as Agent 47 suggested. I wanted to demonstrate that they can be and often are an artform.

What I don't understand about so many of these objections, though, is that folks are acting like everyone would have gigantic, hideous signatures that would slow everything down. Hell, not even everyone would necessarily have image sigs! And I don't think I've ever been to a forum that couldn't regulate size or allow the user an option to block signatures. There are plenty of ways to appease both sides.

lararoxs
29-08-08, 19:38
I personally dont really like them, but I know a lot of members are up for the idea.

Yes
If we did get them I would say they have to be a certain size (aaaxbbb) The usual sort of thing, No bright colours ect. They kill everyones eyes!

No
We already have signatures and avatars, picture signatures are just a combanation of them both.
They often consist of people making them themselves, and they require a lot of creativity. Members who dont know or dont have much skill, wont want to make one, because of others showing off theirs.
It would turn into a showing off contest.

Why do you want to waste bandwith on Picture Signatures when it could be used on something better?

Legend 4ever
29-08-08, 19:43
OK, I really know that signatures are pretty much impossible to be won for this forums, but is there even a possibility to allow us to put our own avatars. Doubt it.

Cochrane
29-08-08, 19:44
I'm not a fan of userbars at all, and there's a couple reasons for that. They have widely varying art styles and color schemes, so they are visual clutter and they tend to be way too many, again, increasing sizes. Most importantly, though, I don't care. Advanced Opera User (what the hell is that anyway?), H2O user (no, it's not that funny), Heroes fan none of that is even partly interesting for me. Of course, the same can be said for normal signatures, especially if they are in a different language (ahem), but they are not as obnoxious.

I realize that the sigs I posted are larger than the average signature and the post here; however I feel you're taking that slightly out of context as the point I was making in that post and with those images is that sigs and avatars aren't just all about the "flavor of the week," as Agent 47 suggested. I wanted to demonstrate that they can be and often are an artform.
Yes, they can be. But looking at avatars, my guess is that most of them won't be. If you allow me to make a horribly wrong comparison: Swearing can be an art form, too, but it's still not allowed.

Again: If you make art that's cool but:
Most people don't care most of the time. I might care once, when I see the new sig, after that, I tend not to be interested.
Most signatures won't be art. Pleasant to look at might already be too much too ask.


What I don't understand about so many of these objections, though, is that folks are acting like everyone would have gigantic, hideous signatures that would slow everything down. Hell, not even everyone would necessarily have image sigs! And I don't think I've ever been to a forum that couldn't regulate size or allow the user an option to block signatures. There are plenty of ways to appease both sides.

If many people are likely to disable a feature then you have to ask yourself whether it's really worth the work including the feature (and the disabling-the-feature part) in the first place. Sure, if everyone can disable image signatures, we'll all be happy, but are there really enough people who care about having them in the first place?

Lara Croft Fan Joe
29-08-08, 19:45
Because they are fugly and crowd up the screen.

Legend 4ever
29-08-08, 19:49
But looking at avatars, my guess is that most of them won't be.

Exactly. But wait, why would they be? IMO people use pic signatures to show the celebrity they like usually and that is perfectly fine.

AmericanAssassin
29-08-08, 19:50
I prefer it this way. The pics make the pages take longer to load. Plus, it takes forever to scroll with them there. :mad:

remote91
29-08-08, 19:51
Exactly. But wait, why would they be? IMO people use pic signatures to show the celebrity they like usually and that is perfectly fine.
It seems kind of pointless when we always have a 'Your hottest celeb' thread lurking around.

Legend 4ever
29-08-08, 20:16
It seems kind of pointless when we always have a 'Your hottest celeb' thread lurking around.

Yeah. But it is kind of different. You can do whatever you wanna do. And that is a prerogative. To have fun.

Angelus
29-08-08, 20:22
Because they're pointless, especially when we've got avatars.

Dingaling
29-08-08, 20:24
I wouldn't mind them. And Jamie's suggestion of userbars would be a good comprimise between have signatures and not having them. Plus you can always be pretty creative and fitting some amount of (nice, hopefully) art into such a small bar :).

Hey Joe, nice to see you above me ;) :p.

Angelus
29-08-08, 20:26
Yeah, it makes a change from you being there. :rolleyes:

da tomb raider!
29-08-08, 20:29
I don't like such things.

Sir Croft
29-08-08, 21:08
Maybe because it's not a must and as Mr.Burns said, it sucks the bandwidth.
On the avatarsm I'm fine with them being set by moderators, and it keeps the members within the 28 days period to change the avatar again.

Cochrane
29-08-08, 21:14
To all those who want them: I don't care why you want to have one. Why do you want to see those of others?

Having fun, showing off art, all nice things, but do you actually care about these a hundred times a day, often with the same people, while only making scrolling longer?

I'm not saying the ones who want them are liars, but I do think everyone should consider whether it's really just "I'd love to have them" instead of the much more difficult "I'd love everyone to have them".

touchthesky
29-08-08, 21:16
I wouldn't mind either way. It'd be nice but I'm sure there'd be plenty of people who didn't read rules and ended up with 1340x4000pxl pictures as their sigs.

That would be annoying.

Legend 4ever
29-08-08, 21:28
I wouldn't mind either way. It'd be nice but I'm sure there'd be plenty of people who didn't read rules and ended up with 1340x4000pxl pictures as their sigs.

That would be annoying.

That is why the size limit exists.:rolleyes:

touchthesky
29-08-08, 21:29
That is why the size limit exists.:rolleyes:

Please don't be sarcastic. People would no doubt complain if there was a size limit set in place.

It's a no-win situation.

I DO think avatars should be allowed to be uploaded by us though..and if someone wants to upload anything inappropriate then...instant ban.

Legend 4ever
29-08-08, 21:32
I DO think avatars should be allowed to be uploaded by us though..and if someone wants to upload anything inappropriate then...instant ban.
Exactly.
Please don't be sarcastic. People would no doubt complain if there was a size limit set in place. It's a no-win situation.
Actually, it would be the same like now having a 128X128 avatar limit. Nothing more or less.

Kerrigan
29-08-08, 21:41
No, it would be a very, very bad idea, and even worse than that.It would slow down the forums, would be distracting and it would look very noob-ish and unprofessional.

LegenDarY
29-08-08, 21:43
I hope we don't get them. Things get really cluttered and I always find it much harder to normally brows a forum and read comments when picture sigs are allowed. To be honest, I just find them annoying as hell.

I wouldn't say no to an (optional) actual profile picture though, so people can see who we are.

Paperdoll
29-08-08, 22:21
Well there's two options... specially considering TRU is coming soon.

a) we don't get pictures sigs and everything remains as it is.

b) we get picture sigs and a ****load of load balancing.


Certain forum features don't get disabled at times just for kicks, you know. Throwing a hissy fit and the "why not" card won't help (despite certain people presenting some valid reasons, gotta admit). Things are the way they are for a reason. I don't pay for servers nor do I own the forums therefore I can't elaborate more but things are the way they are for a reason.

As far as my opinion goes with signatures (despite the obvious technical aspects), I'm neutral. Until the flashy and glittery pictures appear X_X

Mr.Burns
29-08-08, 22:24
Going off of what Paperdoll mentioned, I can only assume that the hosting company allows for so much bandwidth usage per month and if we threw in the picture sigs, that would most likely force Justin to bump up the bandwidth needs, thereby increasing his costs and since he's forking over the cash for this, I'd say let's stick with what we have.

Feather Duster
29-08-08, 22:41
Am I the only the one who likes the forums as it is? :confused:

Cochrane
29-08-08, 22:56
Going off of what Paperdoll mentioned, I can only assume that the hosting company allows for so much bandwidth usage per month and if we threw in the picture sigs, that would most likely force Justin to bump up the bandwidth needs, thereby increasing his costs and since he's forking over the cash for this, I'd say let's stick with what we have.

Well, this is assuming that all image signatures would be hosted on this forum's server like the avatars, which I would and do consider a suboptimal solution either way.

SamReeves
29-08-08, 23:22
vBulletin allows all the user pictures to be offsite. Which could mean potential saving$ to bandwith costs. An example below of a sig control panel from another forum I belong to, and yes a very offensive sig pic! :whi: :p

http://img409.imageshack.us/img409/6906/sigboxhb9.jpg

Ward Dragon
29-08-08, 23:24
I like having avatars since they are to the side and aren't in the actual post section (it would be cool to upload our own, but I'm not too bothered about it). I like text signatures since they are clearly separated from the post and don't distract me (I think the character limit should be a bit longer, though).

I do not like signature pictures because they get in the middle of the posts and I find it hard to concentrate on what is actually being said when I keep having images distract me :o If having personal banners is such a big deal, then I think it would be better to have an option on the profile where a person can post a link in image tags to what their banner is. That way anyone who is interested can see it by checking the person's profile, but it doesn't clutter up the actual posts :)

Gabi
29-08-08, 23:42
Yeah. But it is kind of different. You can do whatever you wanna do. And that is a prerogative. To have fun.
In a community like ours no one will ever be able "to do whatever you wanna do" and since when is "having fun" any one's prerogative on these forums? It's good that we can have fun, yes, but more a bonus than a prerogative.
Pictures in signatures get a definite "no" from me. Just browsing some other forums who allow them, gives me a headache.
As to members uploading avatars themselves, I can not see it happening in the near future. The amount that gets deleted in the "avatar request" thread for being unsuitable for one reason or another does not give the impression that members would actually be able to handle this responsibly. And if those members would get banned (as suggested by some), we would have a little mass exodus and this would become a much less frequented place.
I can see that some members would like these options enabled, but I guess it is like in real life: you can't always get what you want...........

Lew
29-08-08, 23:55
Do these other forums have such a vast teen age demographic?

look at smosh forums then... full of teenage emos!

I always wanted a banner :(

Camera Obscura
30-08-08, 00:04
You guys want pic-sigs like this? http://www.halo3forum.com/halo-3-general-discussion/161256-i-promise-not-cheat-h3-thread-yours-truly-2.html

No thanks. I'm happy with the forum we currently have. :wve:

irjudd
30-08-08, 00:19
People do tend to get carried away with the signature images that are larger than your average monitor.

tampi
30-08-08, 00:23
You guys want pic-sigs like this? http://www.halo3forum.com/halo-3-general-discussion/161256-i-promise-not-cheat-h3-thread-yours-truly-2.html

No thanks. I'm happy with the forum we currently have. :wve:

Yes, some forums are totally confused because of their signatures.
They seem a Tokyo's street :p

Crystal girl
30-08-08, 00:27
You guys want pic-sigs like this? http://www.halo3forum.com/halo-3-general-discussion/161256-i-promise-not-cheat-h3-thread-yours-truly-2.html

No thanks. I'm happy with the forum we currently have. :wve:

My God it's a real mess. I don't want that to happen here too sincerly, i'm happy with a simple sentence under my post.

trXD
30-08-08, 00:27
I have always wondered this, its very annoying and frustrating that we cant have image signatures. The same goes for uploading avatar's. I have joined many forums and all of them except for this one allow stuff like this.

Do these other forums have such a vast teen age demographic?
yes of course they do
You guys want pic-sigs like this? http://www.halo3forum.com/halo-3-general-discussion/161256-i-promise-not-cheat-h3-thread-yours-truly-2.html

No thanks. I'm happy with the forum we currently have. :wve:
I dont think anybody wants that, of course there should be limitations to our image signatures!

Edit: And why is everyone assuming the image's would be hosted on the site?

KC Mraz
30-08-08, 00:31
No pic sigs plz. I'm happy with TRF being a forum withouth things like this one

http://i106.photobucket.com/albums/m262/Icy_018/CopiadeCopiadeSeijyunHighSchoolGirl.jpg

*pukes*

Thorir
30-08-08, 00:35
Because noobs have crap taste and cannot be trusted.

touchmyheart
30-08-08, 00:38
I think that under controlled circumstances (size restrictions, outside hosting etc.) picture-signatures would be acceptable. I happen to find userbars in particular to be quite nice :) But really, I think things are fine the way they are.

This is purely my own opinion but I know I'd personally feel under pressure to have an awesome signature if many others on the forum had them and since Im useless at creating graphics (hence why I never personalise my Avatar :p) it would kind of get me annoyed. In that respect, its kind of a relief to me that we dont have picture sigs lol :D

CroftScionGuard
30-08-08, 00:39
things how they are now are fine for me. Think about the work mods will have if we get free av upload and pics instead of sigs? Maybe, if one day we will be allowed, then we should have some time in the forums, like to upload pics we have to have X nr of qualitative posts and X year(s)-old in the forums, time enough to proove our responsability.

Also, how sure are we that we can upload this or that pic for avs/sigs?

Ada the Mental
30-08-08, 00:40
I rather be able to upload my avatar on my own,instead of having to rely on the mods, but I don't really care as long as I have an avvie.

I'm perfectly happy without image signatures. They clutter up the threads and are plain distracting.

What I would like is an option for longer text signatures. You can barely fit a sentence with the current size limit!

Quasimodo
30-08-08, 00:47
[COLOR=darkslategray]In a community like ours no one will ever be able "to do whatever you wanna do" and since when is "having fun" any one's prerogative on these forums? It's good that we can have fun, yes, but more a bonus than a prerogative.Pictures in signatures get a definite "no" from me. Just browsing some other forums who allow them, gives me a headache.As to members uploading avatars themselves, I can not see it happening in the near future. The amount that gets deleted in the "avatar request" thread for being unsuitable for one reason or another does not give the impression that members would actually be able to handle this responsibly. And if those members would get banned (as suggested by some), we would have a little mass exodus and this would become a much less frequented place.I can see that some members would like these options enabled, but I guess it is like in real life: you can't always get what you want...........

I doubt anyone daft enough to upload an inappropriate avatar and get themselves banned for it would be missed around here anyway. How about letting members who have been here at least 6 months or a year upload their own avatars? By that span of time, a member has a good handle on what is acceptable here or not and will be careful not to get themselves banned from a forum they've liked enough to stick around for so long.

M.A.
30-08-08, 00:47
Yes, this forum is among few who monitor Avatar and disallow PicSig. But this Forum is also the most NEAT and TIDY. Not an eyesore like some forums that allows rows and rows and rows of PicSig per user. I hate those. It's a nightmare when you're trying to read multiple pages of thread.

dizzydoil
30-08-08, 02:37
I doubt anyone daft enough to upload an inappropriate avatar and get themselves banned for it would be missed around here anyway. How about letting members who have been here at least 6 months or a year upload their own avatars? By that span of time, a member has a good handle on what is acceptable here or not and will be careful not to get themselves banned from a forum they've liked enough to stick around for so long.

I likey :tmb:!

Feather Duster
30-08-08, 02:47
You really want this?

Feather Dusters rule! XD

http://i38.************/rldcpc.png

;)

tlr online
30-08-08, 02:48
I doubt anyone daft enough to upload an inappropriate avatar and get themselves banned for it would be missed around here anyway. How about letting members who have been here at least 6 months or a year upload their own avatars? By that span of time, a member has a good handle on what is acceptable here or not and will be careful not to get themselves banned from a forum they've liked enough to stick around for so long.

In principle I agree Q. But there is a security worry I need to investigate first. It's on my list tho. Same with profile pics.

spikejones
30-08-08, 03:29
I doubt anyone daft enough to upload an inappropriate avatar and get themselves banned for it would be missed around here anyway. How about letting members who have been here at least 6 months or a year upload their own avatars? By that span of time, a member has a good handle on what is acceptable here or not and will be careful not to get themselves banned from a forum they've liked enough to stick around for so long.

i think rather than time limit, a post limit should be imposed. actually it would make sense for it to be a combination of the two. someone may be a long time member with very little amount of posts since they only come round once in a blue moon.

Melonie Tomb Raider
30-08-08, 04:12
I've been on other forums where people uploaded inappropriate avatars, and they immediately get banned or at least warned. I mean seriously, we are equally as capable as posting inappropriate pictures, but tell me, how many times do people actually do this? It's not a very common thing, and it stopped pretty much as soon as it starts. I don't see sigs or avs being any different.

This is the only forum I'm subscribed to that will not let you upload your own, save for another forum that won't let you have avatars, period. :p

rowanlim
30-08-08, 04:20
In a community like ours no one will ever be able "to do whatever you wanna do" and since when is "having fun" any one's prerogative on these forums? It's good that we can have fun, yes, but more a bonus than a prerogative.

I completely agree. Nothing fun about having to see images you rather not see voluntarily.

As to members uploading avatars themselves, I can not see it happening in the near future. The amount that gets deleted in the "avatar request" thread for being unsuitable for one reason or another does not give the impression that members would actually be able to handle this responsibly. And if those members would get banned (as suggested by some), we would have a little mass exodus and this would become a much less frequented place.
I can see that some members would like these options enabled, but I guess it is like in real life: you can't always get what you want...........

I agree again, the current status quo is working very well, I think it will be a mess to let members upload their own avatars.

Quasimodo
30-08-08, 04:26
i think rather than time limit, a post limit should be imposed. actually it would make sense for it to be a combination of the two. someone may be a long time member with very little amount of posts since they only come round once in a blue moon.

Good point - sometimes neither seniority nor post count is a fair indicator of trustworthiness, but it ought to be enough to make a member eligible for such a privilege. Much like the mature board, I imagine the upload-your-own-avatar privilege would be 'switched on' once the admin/moderators approves that person, if such a feature gets implemented.

Angelus
30-08-08, 09:18
Forget signatures with pictures - where are the spoiler tags!? :p

CroftScionGuard
30-08-08, 09:25
If images will be allowed where a sig stands, then let it be optional to display. I don't want to look over threads where all I see are pics and not comments.

Imagine a reply like this:

thx:)
__________________
*PIC*


Now imagine the Congratulations Forum...

Ada the Mental
30-08-08, 09:45
Forget signatures with pictures - where are the spoiler tags!? :p

Spoiler tags! Good thinking, that would be neat. :tmb:

Cochrane
30-08-08, 09:46
For what it's worth, I've not seen a single suggested signature in this thread that I actually like. The exception is SamReeves's suggestion, but if I want to see streamliners I can do that much better if the resolution is way higher.

A risk with externally hosted signatures is that they can change very rapidly, up to the point where you can write a script that gives a different signature each time it's requested. This isn't theoretical, I did that once (though I likely wouldn't do it again, turns out people don't remember your signature if it's different every time they watch). There are also sloganizer signatures and the like, which also have varying text content every time, and some of that is not suitable for little children. As far as I know, there is absolutely no effective way to block such dynamic signatures, and I'd imagine they'd be mods' nightmares.

As for avatars: I can't imagine anyone is happy with the situation as it is right now, I just think that most people don't actually mind. I'm in the "don't actually mind" group myself, of course.

The Great Chi
31-08-08, 08:39
The last thing we want is 'load balencing' problems again.

It is better to keep things as they are :D

scion05
31-08-08, 08:49
I think off-site signatatures with a resolution of something like 80*400
would be fine, they'd barely be distracting at all. As a video games
forum, TRF looks very very bland without them, as most of the others
have them.

@ Justin : If we ever do get self uploaded avatars ( linked from another
host, does that mean we'll be able to have a higher limit for size ? ( kb's, not resolution ) ?

Tthe Spirit
31-08-08, 10:16
I am glad there isnt...

They disturb and annoy me alot, and the forum sometimes may take longer to load...

TRfan23
01-09-08, 12:26
I was just thinking, hoping this wasn't mentioned before...

Even though the topics about images in our sigs.

May I ask, why on earth is the signiture box large? Yet we can't even write a sentence lol.
Why not have it the size of our "Location" Box on our profile? Also to limit to how much we type in it ;)

So it'll stop us from typing more in the box, then we know if we've gone over the limit. Instead of being dissapointed when we click "Save Signiture"

Angelus
01-09-08, 12:31
Yes, the current size limit for signatures is ridiculous.

Nefertiti_89
01-09-08, 12:40
Agreed!

Tomb Raider Master
01-09-08, 12:59
No to image signatures, no to longer text signatures, and no to members self-uploading avatars. That would ruin TRF.

Larson_1988
01-09-08, 13:00
No to image signatures, no to longer text signatures, and no to members self-uploading avatars. That would ruin TRF.

I do agree with you on the image signatures and self-uploading avatars. But how on earth would longer signature text ruin the forum?

TRfan23
01-09-08, 13:01
No to image signatures, no to longer text signatures, and no to members self-uploading avatars. That would ruin TRF.

I actually meant, that though we can't type a lot in the signiture box. Why is the point in the box being so large?

Tomb Raider Master
01-09-08, 13:01
But how on earth would longer signature text ruin the forum?
I was against signatures in the first place. I like to look at nice, clean posts with no extra lines of text. That's why I've never had a sig. :)

Larson_1988
01-09-08, 13:04
I was against signatures in the first place. I like to look at nice, clean posts with no extra lines of text. That's why I've never had a sig. :)

Of course i understand that, i too have times with no signature. Like now. :p But we all are different don't you think?

Tomb Raider Master
01-09-08, 13:06
But we all are different don't you think?
Of course. I got used to signatures now. As long as they doesn't mix up with the original post because of their length, they're fine.

Lara Croft!
01-09-08, 14:02
I don't change avatar often, so I don't mind. I would like to have a signature but it's something I can live without. The admin must have his reasons.

Domino
01-09-08, 15:14
I say yes to all of them, but restrict avatar and signature sizes, so a mod/admin deletes them if they are too big. There was talk of a time/post limit for avatars, why not have that with sigs, and maybe have an option to turn them off.... is that even possible?

peffect
01-09-08, 15:23
Because it's a useless and youngish feature!
And it's makes the posts more of a thing to look at then to read.
AND, TRf is one of the largest communities and those colourfull images won't make the forums' aisles any easier to roam.

LaraCablara
01-09-08, 15:27
Because it's a useless and youngish feature!
And it's makes the posts more of a thing to look at then to read.
AND, TRf is one of the largest communities and those colourfull images won't make the forums' aisles any easier to roam.

No there are a lot larger communities out there with twice as many members who have signatures with pictures. Sure it could make things look messy, so it would be nice to have an option to turn them off like turning off avatars.

Signatures with actual links would be nice also :o

Also, we have 33,049 members, yet less then 4,000 of them are actually active so load balancing wouldn't be that huge of a problem. Plus the most users ever online was 1,836 according to the main page.

This is what two posts would look like with a signature image (sorry I got these off GameSpot :o)
Its honestly not that bad at all.
http://img524.imageshack.us/img524/6464/itsbritneyju2.png

jarhead
01-09-08, 15:28
The forums would look too messy with image signatures, not to mention taking to load. Thats the thing that attracted me to this forum, was the lack of all the images bewlo and to the side of every post.

peffect
01-09-08, 15:49
No there are a lot larger communities out there with twice as many members who have signatures with pictures.

Sure it could make things look messy, so it would be nice to have an option to turn them off like turning off avatars.

Signatures with actual links would be nice also :o

Also, we have 33,049 members, yet less then 4,000 of them are actually active so load balancing wouldn't be that huge of a problem. Plus the most users ever online was 1,836 according to the main page.

This is more of an issue about the forum's mechanism. I'm here for more than two years now, I and I've known times where we, all TRf members, had to face load balancing problems and avvies momentary removal to faciliate the navigation because of the huge mass of us tlogged on at once. Not to mention the visitors from everywhere.

LaraCablara
01-09-08, 15:51
This is more of an issue about the forum's mechanism. I'm here for more than two years now, I and I've known times where we, all TRf members, had to face load balancing problems and avvies momentary removal to faciliate the navigation because of the huge mass of us tlogged on at once. Not to mention the visitors from everywhere.

But a new server was purchased more then a year ago and we hadn't had those since, plus we even got our search functions back and the calender.

Angelus
01-09-08, 16:34
I was against signatures in the first place. I like to look at nice, clean posts with no extra lines of text. That's why I've never had a sig. :)

That's you, though. There's a lot of other people who like signatures and would like them to be longer.

Cochrane
01-09-08, 17:33
But a new server was purchased more then a year ago and we hadn't had those since, plus we even got our search functions back and the calender.

Yes, but even new servers don't have unlimited capacity.

St4r
01-09-08, 17:42
Signatures should be removed completely, IMHO.

Little-Lara
01-09-08, 18:45
I'm glad in a way. We already have avatar, with extra space for personal info, plus signature. If there were pics in the signature, it would be soo freakin annoying to read the posts.

Shrantellatessa
01-09-08, 18:50
In principle I agree Q. But there is a security worry I need to investigate first. It's on my list tho. Same with profile pics.

And what about a theme that suits TRF reputation and image? :)

Legend 4ever
02-09-08, 09:25
I doubt anyone daft enough to upload an inappropriate avatar and get themselves banned for it would be missed around here anyway. How about letting members who have been here at least 6 months or a year upload their own avatars? By that span of time, a member has a good handle on what is acceptable here or not and will be careful not to get themselves banned from a forum they've liked enough to stick around for so long.
Seconded.

That is a good idea, because there is not way I would normally change the avatar every 28 days. To me, an avatar serves to show my current interests and they change weekly, so that would mean 4 avatars a month, not 1, which is really dull IMO.

TRfan23
02-09-08, 10:56
In principle I agree Q. But there is a security worry I need to investigate first. It's on my list tho. Same with profile pics.

When you say security, do you mean if people had the option to upload their own Avitars, and profile pics. Some people, could be evil enough to attach spyware\viruses on them?

If that's the case, I say leave the site as it is :tmb: