Erm this is pretty selfish of me (no way around that) but me and a few people have made these pretty cool dynamic sigs and I can't put it in my signature :(

 

 

 

 

Selfish indeed :P Then what happens when someone comes along with their 550 pixel image? Or 600? etc. etc. Or what about the people who want to put two goal/stat signatures next to each other? I personally think that our limits are already pretty generous and I don't see a need to make them bigger.

Selfish indeed :P Then what happens when someone comes along with their 550 pixel image? Or 600? etc. etc. Or what about the people who want to put two goal/stat signatures next to each other? I personally think that our limits are already pretty generous and I don't see a need to make them bigger.

Uhhh...yep!!!

 

 

 

-Ard

Nice "hidden" advertising, though! :thumbup:

Nice "hidden" advertising, though! :thumbup:

 

Just my thought. :lol:

 

 

 

Our limits are fair at the moment. :thumbup:

You meanies! :( :lol:

How about this: You make your signature thinner and taller? :o

How about this: You make your signature thinner and taller? :o

 

But they look perfect now :oops:

How about this: You make your signature thinner and taller? :o

 

But they look perfect now :oops:

 

I'm sure it could be redesigned. ;)

How about this: You make your signature thinner and taller? :o

 

But they look perfect now :oops:

 

I'm sure it could be redesigned. ;)

 

NEVER!!!

It's not even a redesign, it's just making it smaller... And realigning the text a bit.

It's not needed, there are plenty of people who obviously disregard the rules and place much to large images in their signature space. This extension to the sizes you want implemented would only encourage people.

How about this: You make your signature thinner and taller? :o

 

But they look perfect now :oops:

 

I'm sure it could be redesigned. ;)

 

NEVER!!!

 

Then unfortunately they won't be able to be used here. :?

You know for length or width, I always see signatures not taking up this large amount of space left over in the post area. All it is, is grey.

 

 

 

Even on 1280x720, that grey space besides the signature is going to waste and on 2550X1600, there's like a mile of space left.

 

 

 

If you're still in the dark age of 800x600, then you'll probably not have any grey space, but c'mon, who uses 800x600? >.>

 

 

 

The only 'real' reason that actually is logical to not increase the width is because of the extra data to load. Then again, if the signature size limit stays the max, then making the signature longer isn't even going to do anything.

 

 

 

Thus is there any other reason besides us ignoring the point and just looking at the advertising presenting itself? I can't think of one.

 

 

 

Question: How many of the staff have an empty grey area in the signature area, not being used?

 

 

 

How many have centred or realigned their signature to move it off to the right or the centre, and still leave grey space all over?

 

 

 

To be honest as long as the signature isn't distorting the topic or post on a default 1280x720, 16" monitor, why is there a problem?

You know for length or width, I always see signatures not taking up this large amount of space left over in the post area. All it is, is grey.

 

 

 

Even on 1280x720, that grey space besides the signature is going to waste and on 2550X1600, there's like a mile of space left.

 

 

 

If you're still in the dark age of 800x600, then you'll probably not have any grey space, but c'mon, who uses 800x600? >.>

 

 

 

The only 'real' reason that actually is logical to not increase the width is because of the extra data to load. Then again, if the signature size limit stays the max, then making the signature longer isn't even going to do anything.

 

 

 

Thus is there any other reason besides us ignoring the point and just looking at the advertising presenting itself? I can't think of one.

 

 

 

Question: How many of the staff have an empty grey area in the signature area, not being used?

 

 

 

How many have centred or realigned their signature to move it off to the right or the centre, and still leave grey space all over?

 

 

 

To be honest as long as the signature isn't distorting the topic or post on a default 1280x720, 16" monitor, why is there a problem?

 

 

 

That's actually a very interesting point, I never thought of that. However, if the signature is bigger then it is quite likely that the file size will be too large, and it would encourage more users to break the rules. That's all I can think of.

That's actually a very interesting point, I never thought of that. However, if the signature is bigger then it is quite likely that the file size will be too large, and it would encourage more users to break the rules. That's all I can think of.

 

However you can't upload or use a signature that is more than the limit file size can you? And I'm pretty sure the mods have constantly checked each signature themselves already to know when to recheck again.

 

 

 

Mods should be able to know how large an average signature is, or in the general area of the file size. If they see an incredibly detailed sig, they're obviously going to check it, or at least should.

 

 

 

People breaking the rules more is almost always something nay-sayers say when a new suggestion is brought up. There is no way that allowing signatures to be wider that it would somehow encourage people to upload larger file size limits, especially if this is even told in the post announcing this change. Unless there is some logical or rational connection between the two, I'd like to hear it.

That's actually a very interesting point, I never thought of that. However, if the signature is bigger then it is quite likely that the file size will be too large, and it would encourage more users to break the rules. That's all I can think of.

 

However you can't upload or use a signature that is more than the limit file size can you?

 

Yes, you can actually. There is no mechanism for checking them built in, other than the image dimension check (Which does not take multiple images into account)

That's actually a very interesting point, I never thought of that. However, if the signature is bigger then it is quite likely that the file size will be too large, and it would encourage more users to break the rules. That's all I can think of.

 

However you can't upload or use a signature that is more than the limit file size can you?

 

Yes, you can actually. There is no mechanism for checking them built in, other than the image dimension check (Which does not take multiple images into account)

 

I thought so, still I posted as if that possibility was true anyways.

However, if the signature is bigger then it is quite likely that the file size will be too large, and it would encourage more users to break the rules.

 

 

 

You are right sadly, although I think the largest signature size we have for Twitter ones is 16Kb, not too big, it's just the dimensions that are too big :(

Would it be possible to have a dynamic rule?

 

 

 

By that i mean, for ever 20 pixels less high your image is, you can have 20 pixels more wide? It would keep the file sizes the same, but allow more freedom in the sizes (to a limit ofcourse)

 

 

 

However, it could get VERY confusing.

Would it be possible to have a dynamic rule?

 

 

 

By that i mean, for ever 20 pixels less high your image is, you can have 20 pixels more wide? It would keep the file sizes the same, but allow more freedom in the sizes (to a limit ofcourse)

 

 

 

However, it could get VERY confusing.

 

Yes, it would be far too confusing. Especially because not all signatures have even numbers like that. It would be very difficult for both regular users and moderators to spot violations and very difficult for the users to know when they are within the rules.