Bigger Sigs/ Avatars?

Ya.. so why is the option for Sigs/Avatars so low...

There was a very large thread on this a while back: More Avatar and Signature Freedom.

In short: the avatar limit was raised from 80 x 80 to 100 x 100 not too long ago, and the signature limits were revised in 2006. The limits will not be raised anytime soon.

Personally, I think that sigs are too long as it is, since I can quote a quote of a quote, and respond to it, plus have a couple pics. This stretches the page a lot.

Signatures are a small mark about you, not a billboard. They're fine the way they are now...

Ya.. so why is the option for Sigs/Avatars so low...

Or would you prefer 80x80 (6kb) avatars, 300x150 (30kb) sigs?

And a long time ago the character limit was 255 including tags and urls within the url tag and img tags.

i would hate having big signatures everywhere...the way it is works fine for me :)

I think the current limits are more than adequate for all needs. I really hate it when a persons sig is larger than the post. And despise some other Runescape forums that look like this:

________________

~Mercifull

VISIT MY BLOG!

Check out my Forum about Runescape, first 10 members get mod! http://i87.freehosting.crappyhost/index.php

________________

ARGGGGHHHHHHHH

hehe, i was about to say that you were a big hypocrite merciful :XD:

The current sig is more than enough in my opinion. You should be very grateful that a large community site such as tip it offers such a large sig and avatar size.

when thinking about a forum it is important to maintain the flow of a thread.

People use sugnitures to identify themselves and basically promote them seleves as a presence on the forum, they must not interfear.

If the sigs where any bigger they would simply over power the content of most posts. there is a happy balance that needs to be kept.

hehe, i was about to say that you were a big hypocrite merciful :XD:

Me too :XD: It fooled me it was that good :thumbsup:

I have to agree completely with Mercifull. That is possibly one of the most annoying things you can do in a forum. It burns, seriously. -.- Posting one liners all the time is sort of borderline, but when you see a one line post next to this monstrous sig it makes you cringe.

Like the rest who have posted here I think they're fine as they are, and if anything large sigs detract too much from the post's content. It's partly why I have an undersized sig and very small font. As Cruiser said, it's just a small mark about you; let your posts' content speak for you instead.

I would possibly say that the Sig's size needs to be increased by about 5KB, but that's it. Having said that, my opinion doesn't hold much weight, and I can fully understand the Administrators' decision to keep it at its current size.

As said before, signatures are exactly that, a unique mark of who you are. They're not designed to be a mini-blog of your RS adventures, plus a place for any other random crap (excuse my language, but I really can't think of any other word to describe half the stuff I see... -.-).

IF anything I'd like to see the avvy limit go up by 5kb. Its a bit annoying trying to get it under that limit, especially it being so low. But either way, I don't mind.

@ Merc. ROFL.

To up the limit on sigs by 5kb would really help those that like to animate their sigs.

To up the limit on sigs by 5kb would really help those that like to animate their sigs.

And help to annoy the rest of us on dialup that have to load that extra 5kb and those that hate animation where it doesn't belong.

Every time this is brought up, people want another couple kilobytes to tack on to what is already more than plenty. If you can't fit it into those dimensions and file size, it's too much content for a forum signature.

Animated sigs, or avvys, are what ginger said 'crap'. You don't need an animated sig to give a reflection of who you are.

I think the sig limits, and avvy limits could be decreased. In some cases its really annoying. I think there's more signature on a page then text in General. -.-

lol Merc.

Please don't quote me when I said crap. Actually, I dunno, is that even a swear? I don't think technically it is, not that you can have a technical swear word... anyways! :P

This would be the jusitification I accept from the administration:

And help to annoy the rest of us on dialup that have to load that extra 5kb and those that hate animation where it doesn't belong.

It may only be 0.1sec on a 52KB/sec connection, but I can understand that adds up and gets quite annoying.

However, here's something to think about. There was a large site I went on once. Its owner and admin had a signature size of, wait for it, 97KB! TBH, it was no better than any I've seen on these forums either. Just an indication that file size doesn't equal high quality.

The problem with the "with 5kb more I could..." argument is it doesn't really have an end. I dug through and found the thread where this last came up that resulted in an avatar increase. Notice the last post, the sig size limits won't be addressed no matter how good the argument is until next year.

That extra 5kb actually adds another second to the load time on a 56k connection, not .1 seconds. 56kbps = 7kb/s = 4.2 seconds to load 30kb signature under perfect conditions. Add 5kb (35kb sig), you get 6 seconds of load time for one signature. This doesn't factor in overhead either, decreasing that 7kb/s.

We went over this many, many times in the last huge thread about signature sizes. If you want to advertise something, use the advertising sticky or use a link to the page/image. It doesn't belong in a signature. The posts are what matters, not some funky little image people think should be 50kb.

Additionally, I point you to this reply by Albosky on the matter.

Please don't quote me when I said crap. Actually, I dunno, is that even a swear?

Ask Tony Stewart (NASCAR Nextel Cup Driver for those of you who don't understand who he is). He got fined $25k for saying that on live Television...

As for the topic at hand, I believe it was Albosky who said that people are here to look at your posts, not your signatures (or something to that effect). A general signature and avatar that is unique enough to identify you is plenty. For example, my Avatar and Signature are unique (I don't know anyone with a Fairly Oddparents signature) so my posts are easily identifiable and that's the main purpose of Sigs. Given, I had to crop and resize my signature quite a bit to make it fit, I did and I'm happy with it and I don't feel that additional increases are needed...

Besides, if we keep bringing up these topics over and over, eventually we'd be getting to arguments to make the signature space large enough to stretch the screen.

Please don't quote me when I said crap. Actually, I dunno, is that even a swear?

 

 

 

Ask Tony Stewart (NASCAR Nextel Cup Driver for those of you who don't understand who he is). He got fined $25k for saying that on live Television...

Bull****.

Don't forget that he got docked 25 points as well.

Basically, like stated earlier, this was in a thread not so long ago concerning this issue.

 

Fine, we'll re-evaluate every 2 years like you said.

 

 

 

And since signature limits were revised in '06, and avatar sizes were revised just a few months ago , we'll see you next year.

 

This post was posted May 11, 2007. So, we really are jumping the gun a bit. They said that they would re-visit this subject every two years. That's good enough for me! Besides, my signature is wonderful, no need to make it any bigger.

I totally agree with Darkblade concerning this issue. Here's the exact quote that I digged out. Good old seach button! :)

 

I see absolutely zero reason to discuss another change to allow for more "personal expression" and as I said in the other postings, people are not here to view your signature, they are here to read and discuss what your posts say.

 

A signature is just there for an introduction of yourself. It does not need to be a whole biography. Leave it up to your posting styles to determine the rest. :wink:

I like the current signatures. I don't feel they need to get any bigger.

I believe that in a year, when they re-visit this idea, size can be determined then.

For the time being, the size is very reasonable.

Most people on the forums don't even use the max amount of signature space, and right now imo the signature area is quite huge without causing extra scrolling.

The only thing some peopel seem to have an issue with is the image size (data wise).

It is worth reminding peopel that if you can "save for web" you nock about 2/3rds of the file size off.

Using that feature means you can have alot more (withing the pixel limit). I will say it again though, size wise I think we are fine now, Avatars could possibly increase by another 5px in both dimensions but anymore than that may cause problems.