Signature limits

[scwizard]

I want to have a siggy with a lot of links in it. I can't because signatures are limited to 1000 characters of text (including code).

This doesn't stop people from having HUGE sigs, but it does stop my sig (which would be quite small, just with many links).

Could you please remove/change this pointless siggy limit?

[Rawhide]

I'm sorry, but signature limits will be going down, not up.

[Samiam303]

Use http://www.tinyurl.com (http://www.tinyurl.com/) to shorten the URLs.

[Emperor Tippy]

I'm sorry, but signature limits will be going down, not up.
Will as in they will at some point in the future or will as in if we do anything to the limit it will be lowering it?

[Ego Slayer]

I'm sorry, but signature limits will be going down, not up.
...Why down? They're just fine the way they are. Especially because you can spoiler your entire sig.:smallconfused:

[Lucky]

...Why down? They're just fine the way they are. Especially because you can spoiler your entire sig.:smallconfused:Because people choose not to spoiler them, and it annoys the bloody heck out of people.

At least that's the way I see it.

[Ego Slayer]

Because people choose not to spoiler them, and it annoys the bloody heck out of people.

At least that's the way I see it.
Well, that shouldn't ruin it for the rest of us who do spoiler.:smallyuk:

[Roland St. Jude]

Will as in they will at some point in the future or will as in if we do anything to the limit it will be lowering it?

"Will" as in we are finalizing new rules explicitly limiting sigs in size as well as (the already in place) character limit. I can't say exactly when they'll be revealed. But they have been discussed for quite a long time among the staff and many versions have been considered. We think we've struck a good balance, and I think we're close to launching the rule. But I don't have an ETA, and I can't say more about the contours until we release it.

Putting your sig in spoilers is helpful, but the page still loads all the spoiler text and images each time (before anyone even clicks to expand it). So, it's not a total solution. It helps with balancing the trade off between what some people see as annoying and others see as an important part of their board character. But large sigs do impose some technical costs.

P.S. Rawhide's comment above should be read to mean that we will be limiting those HUGE sigs down not that the character limit will be reduced any further. (As far as I recall, I don't have the present and future character limits memorized.)

[Lucky]

Well, that shouldn't ruin it for the rest of us who do spoiler.:smallyuk:Well, how about people who can have a political discussion and not flame people. We don't make rules to stop them from flaming, you do it to stop the ones who do flame from flaming. Same principal here.

[Death, your friend the Reaper]

I'm sorry, but signature limits will be going down, not up.

Damn, I guess now was a bad time to invest in them...

[Amotis]

Would it be possible to limit the size of the sig without touching the limit? Don't see how but just throwing it out there.

[Khantalas]

Strange thing is, I can't spoiler my signature. After putting in everything else, spoiler tags just won't fit.

And I downsized it already. Twice.

[Zherog]

I'm sorry, but signature limits will be going down, not up.

*sniff*

I love you, man!

[Matthew]

Yes, I too will be glad to see signature sizes being reduced.

[bosssmiley]

I'm sorry, but signature limits will be going down, not up.

I have a new favourite Aussie Mod. :smallbiggrin:

The shorter the sig limit the better IMO. I come here to read posts, not look at sigs. If you think the link/image is that good, mention the URL in your post and I'll go look.

As for over-large Sloganizer images: MySpacian (http://www.deviantart.com/deviation/31639185/) timewasting. :smallamused:

[Ego Slayer]

Strange thing is, I can't spoiler my signature. After putting in everything else, spoiler tags just won't fit.

And I downsized it already. Twice.
Well, I think you happen to be one of the people who has a rudely large signature. You should take something out and spoiler it.:smallyuk:

[scwizard]

I have NOTHING against signature limits. Its just that on most website the limit is a dimension (x pixels by y pixels) and not a character limit.

My sig would be VERY small, it would just have a lot of code. What's wrong with this?

I'm saying that there's no point in having a character limit if you already have a pixel size limit.

[Samiam303]

Strange thing is, I can't spoiler my signature. After putting in everything else, spoiler tags just won't fit.

And I downsized it already. Twice.
The quotes in your sig are already spoilered.. Just add the entire thing into that set of spoiler tags.

[Myatar_Panwar]

I cant seem to make both of my images and links to be under one spoiler tag, any idea why?



Well, I think you happen to be one of the people who has a rudely large signature. You should take something out and spoiler it.:smallyuk:I think he was saying that he was trying to spoiler it, but hes having trouble.

[Jack Squat]

but there's already a spoiler in it, as has been mentioned. All that's needed is to is expand the spoiler to include the entire sig.

oh, and Khan's a guy.

[Captain van der Decken]

Yeah.

This seems the place to ask- do you think my sig's too big? Should I spoiler more of it?

[Jack Squat]

yes, it does look a tad big. I'd move the spare avi and the line under it into the spoiler and move the quote down to the bottom.

Now I might as well ask; does anyone think my sig is too big? Should I spoiler it? :tongue:

^ Much Better.
V I really wasn't expecting a serious answer to that question

[Zherog]

Yeah.

This seems the place to ask- do you think my sig's too big? Should I spoiler more of it?

Yes, I think it's too big. And note that your spare avatar mentioned by jack is already in a spoiler block (leading me to believe you took his advice).


yes, it does look a tad big. I'd move the spare avi and the line under it into the spoiler and move the quote down to the bottom.

Now I might as well ask; does anyone think my sig is too big? Should I spoiler it? :tongue:

While I hate images in sigs, yours is about the size I consider reasonable for a signature.

[Roland St. Jude]

Okay, the question's been asked and answered; let's not turn this into an "is my sig to big" thread. Thanks.

[Rawhide]

I'm saying that there's no point in having a character limit if you already have a pixel size limit.
For technical reasons it is impossible to have a pixel size limit that is enforced by the board software. We are discussing a pixel size limit that is enforced manually by the mods.

[Timberwolf]

A board I post on, where the vast majority of people who post on it have sig images like the one I have spoilered (only better), enforces a limit of 200x500 pixels and the mods there will remove it and pm you a request to resize it if it's too big. The one I have spoilered in my sig is 200x400 if you want a look at roughly how big that is. Anyway, that seems to work nicely.

[The Vorpal Tribble]

I guess mine is one of those 'big ugly sigs', eh? :smallannoyed:

But yeah, TinyURL.com is your friend.

[Zherog]

Yes. Yes it is. http://boards1.wizards.com/images/smilies/twitch.gif

[scwizard]

For technical reasons it is impossible to have a pixel size limit that is enforced by the board software. We are discussing a pixel size limit that is enforced manually by the mods.
Sounds good to me. But once this is implemented I see no reason to have a character limit as well. As we can see the character limit hasn't barred people from having really big sigs.

[Rawhide]

Sounds good to me. But once this is implemented I see no reason to have a character limit as well. As we can see the character limit hasn't barred people from having really big sigs.
Nothing will eliminate everything, the combination of all the settings will help make signatures and enforcing signature sizes maintainable.

[Zephra]

People who don't want to see long sigs can turn that feature off, and see no sigs, right?

[Rawhide]

People who do not want to see any signatures can turn off all signatures. People who do not want to see long signatures cannot turn off long signatures.

Forcing people to turn off all signatures because a few people have signatures that are too long is not an option we are considering.

[Zherog]

At the risk of repeating myself....

I love you, man!

In a manly sort of way, of course. :)

You said it perfectly. I like reasonable sigs. I hate having to turn them off because a few are (in my opinion) ginormous.

[Emperor Tippy]

So would the size of your sig be the acceptable size Rawhide?

[Roland St. Jude]

So would the size of your sig be the acceptable size Rawhide?

I don't think we're quite ready to unveil the rule just yet, and I think that if Rawhide answers that we're going to be deluged with similar questions as posters attempt to narrow it down. Could we, perhaps, allow it to suffice for now that new limitations will be forthcoming? (Please say 'yes' because if you say 'no' and press the issue, it will make me look and feel bad for having elaborated on Rawhide's comment in the first place. :smallredface: )

[Emperor Tippy]

Yeah, its fine. I've just been thinking of bringing a sig of mine from another board on over here and I was wondering if his was roughly the max size. I guess that I'll just wait until the rules are posted and then see.

[Death, your friend the Reaper]

I don't think we're quite ready to unveil the rule just yet, and I think that if Rawhide answers that we're going to be deluged with similar questions as posters attempt to narrow it down. Could we, perhaps, allow it to suffice for now that new limitations will be forthcoming? (Please say 'yes' because if you say 'no' and press the issue, it will make me look and feel bad for having elaborated on Rawhide's comment in the first place. :smallredface: )

[Pssht]They need to go and measure all the mods sigs first to advoid embarrassment[/Psssht]:smallwink:

[Quincunx]

Please do post a pixel image of the proper size (just a rectangle of color) when you introduce the new rules, so we who can't judge pixels easily have an easy reference.

[NEO|Phyte]

I suppose that means I may want to start coming up with new sig ideas in the event of the limit being smaller than what I've got.

[Pepper]

I grabbed the ad-block plug in for firefox, and i just block every offending image, whether it be sig or avatar. Its great, only have to do it once per person, and i can still see the pictures i deem worthy for repeated viewings.

[Stormthorn]

I dont like sig size limits. They mess around with my ability to express myself.

[Tormsskull]

Forcing people to turn off all signatures because a few people have signatures that are too long is not an option we are considering.

I'll be one of the people who doesn't just squeal with joy everytime a mod says something that actually agrees with this. Long sigs are very distracting and I personally always trim mine down to what I think is reasonable. If it looks to be getting too big I spoiler it.

There's nothing more irritating than looking at a response to a post that is 2 lines long that has a sig that is 15 lines long.

I enjoy seeing normal-sized or small sigs, and I don't think I should have to turn them all off just because a few people are using huge sigs.

Edit: V: You are absolutely right. Now define "significant".

[Catch]

There's a certain personal liberty that comes to a signature. Other than bandwidth rationing and issues with significant screen consumption, generally there's no occasion for complaint. It's like walking up to someone you notice on the street and demanding something suitably inane.

<poke> "Hey. I don't like the color of your shoes. They're annoying. Take them off."

If you want to be spartan with your signature, feel free. Expecting others to do so just because it offends you is one of those things that makes me throw up my hands and make the "whaaaat?" face. It's a signature. On the internet.

Not a big deal.

[/rant]

[atteSmythe]

My general rule of thumb is "Thy signature shall be shorter than thy average post." Short posts, like this one, are cutting it close, but the avatar/infobox on the left increases the minimum post size anyway.

[Rawhide]

There's a certain personal liberty that comes to a signature. Other than bandwidth rationing and issues with significant screen consumption, generally there's no occasion for complaint. It's like walking up to someone you notice on the street and demanding something suitably inane.

<poke> "Hey. I don't like the color of your shoes. They're annoying. Take them off."

If you want to be spartan with your signature, feel free. Expecting others to do so just because it offends you is one of those things that makes me throw up my hands and make the "whaaaat?" face. It's a signature. On the internet.

Not a big deal.

[/rant]
Signatures are a privilege, not a right.

[Catch]

Signatures are a privilege, not a right.

Absolutely. When I was on the World of Warcraft forums, the max length was 300 characters with no images or code of any kind. We made do and with little griping.

However, my point was (and still is) that it's the forum's staff that should (and is) be in charge of signature length, restriction, and as you've stated, existence. The petulant cries of signature-minimalists really shouldn't have any pull around here or any other forum for that matter.

As it is, I'm explaining all this in severe contradiction to my strict policy of "Pick Your Battles" and "There Are More Important Things to Fight About (Than the Internet)."

[HempRope]

While I mostly agree with you, Catch, the Forum Staff spends most of its time making this a happy place. To figure out how to alter the signature limits to make it a happier place, they need to hear from the posters.

[Bears With Lasers]

Signatures are a privilege, not a right.

So's using internet forums. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make, other than "we can take them away from you if we want to."

[HempRope]

That's exactly what he's trying to say. Well... "we can take them away from you or do whatever else we want to them or you."

[Rawhide]

Absolutely. When I was on the World of Warcraft forums, the max length was 300 characters with no images or code of any kind. We made do and with little griping.

However, my point was (and still is) that it's the forum's staff that should (and is) be in charge of signature length, restriction, and as you've stated, existence. The petulant cries of signature-minimalists really shouldn't have any pull around here or any other forum for that matter.

As it is, I'm explaining all this in severe contradiction to my strict policy of "Pick Your Battles" and "There Are More Important Things to Fight About (Than the Internet)."
Ah, I thought you were arguing for signatures to be large. A misunderstanding on my behalf and I would be happy to point out why if you ask.

We've already noticed that there is a problem with the size of signatures and are drafting up a solution that will be a good compromise. My statement wasn't about taking signatures away, but that we know there are signatures that are far too big and will be imposing tighter limits. We have no intention of taking away signatures altogether.

[Roland St. Jude]

So's using internet forums. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make, other than "we can take them away from you if we want to."

I believe that it was an attempt to counter the implication in Catch's initial post that having a lengthy signature, or having a signature that says whatever you want, is a right. Given the use of the term "personal liberty" that seemed to be the implication.

Catch has since clarified that this wasn't his point at all; rather, Catch meant that whatever the forum staff decided would be within their power and right, but that we (staff) ought not be swayed by complaints from posters.

[Bears With Lasers]

Ah, I see. I just hate that phrase, because it's generally used to justify things it in no way justifies; it doesn't change anything--just because something is a privilege doesn't mean it's not bad to tromp all over it. For example (I'm not saying it was suggested or implied), taking away sigs entirely would be a jerky thing to do, whether or not you are empowered to do it (barring concerns like bandwidth) regardless of whether they;re a privilege or a right.

And I say that as someone who's all for limiting the size of sigs, because scrolling past people's giant in-sig quotes, banners, avatars, etc. after two-line posts is annoying.

[Zherog]

The petulant cries of signature-minimalists

What a lovely way to categorize those of us who think there's way too many big ass sigs around here. Bravo.

[Mauril Everleaf]

Irony much? You complain about members with long sigs, ranting and raving about how much they bother you and (if I read you correctly) should be completely eliminated so that your precious time is not wasted viewing an internet forum. This whole website is a time waster. That's the point. There are very few places on this forum that are not devoted to hobbies, leisure activities, frivolities or things relating to them. About the only thing here that has any sort of real to it would be the Depression Thread and ones like it. Other than that it's just people talking about unimportant things. Not that I don't love this site, or that I don't spend multiple hours a day here, but I recognize it for what it is, frivolous.

Sigs are the same. They are frivolous and, for the most part, pointless. Just like the forum as a whole. I agree that long sigs can be bothersome, and that limits need to be set up, if for no other reason than for the mods to be able to have some sort of control over those they are supposed to be controlling.

Zherog, feel free to have a sig or no sig, whatever. But you have no right to complain when someone utilizes the privelages given them by the powers that be. If I choose to use every single character available for my sig, why do you get to complain about it?

It would be rediculous to complain about your lack of signature. "That big blank space under your post really bothers me. Put something there so the gap between your words and the buttons is filled. Big blank spots are annoying."

The mods are handling it as they see fit. If "long" sigs bother you, turn them all off, because "long" to you appears to be anything containing more than 10 characters.

@Mods: I would be a proponent of pixel limits as a replacement for character limits, or to exlude coding from the char count (although I'm pretty sure that's not possible). My sig appoaches the character limit, but only because I have a few of the avatars made for me posted in a spoiler, not because of any insanely long wording. If implementing a pixel limit has to be done manually, will posters be able to use the "report" button to report extra-long sigs? If so, would having a sig too long count as an infraction? I know that your decision is not finalized yet, but I think these are concerns that may need to be discussed. Thank you for your time.

[Timberwolf]

If it'll help the mods come up with a hard and fast rule, here's a link to the rules for a forum where I'd say 90% of the users have sigs like what I have spoilered.

http://www.mechwarriorleagues.com/cgi-bin/leagues/rules.cgi?action=viewRules&ruleid=1#3.2

Yes, I know Zherog, your personal hell, but anyway, rule 3.2.2 covers sigs. Simply put, the mods there will remove anything that breaks the (quite generous) pixel and memory size limit. Nothing quite beats, after PM's, naturally, "Image removed by Gladius, read the rules and resize it" at getting the point across. Characters don't tend to come up so much, but I guess they'd do the same for that. Anyway, hope that helps. MWL's been running since about 2000 I think and the rules seem to be effective.

[Zherog]

Irony much? You complain about members with long sigs, ranting and raving about how much they bother you and (if I read you correctly) should be completely eliminated

A) Find one instance of me "ranting and raving" on this or any other thread. I've said I don't like long sigs. I don't think that counts as ranting or raving by any stretch of either definition.

B) I'd also like you to find one instance where I've said sigs should be eliminated completely. Go ahead, but here's a tip - you won't find it.


Zherog, feel free to have a sig or no sig, whatever. But you have no right to complain when someone utilizes the privelages given them by the powers that be. If I choose to use every single character available for my sig, why do you get to complain about it?

I get to complain about a long sig because

A) it's on topic for this thread
B) I haven't yet violated the CoC by calling anybody names (unlike some of those who favor long sigs, I'll point out)



The mods are handling it as they see fit. If "long" sigs bother you, turn them all off, because "long" to you appears to be anything containing more than 10 characters.

Yay. Would you like to put some more words in my mouth while you're at it? I can try and open it a little wider so you can try to cram in a few more things.

[Rawhide]

The Hairy Modfather: Ok, lets not turn this into an argument. We have seen a problem and are going to correct it. We don't make decisions in a vacuum and thank you for your input, but we don't want to see any personal attacks.

No infractions or warnings have been issued to anyone and I am not assigning anybody blame, but lets keep it that way, ok? :)

[Zherog]

The Hairy Modfather:

http://www.majik.be/smilies/rotfl.gif

Either that's new, or I don't see you issue the smack down enough to remember it. That's awesome!


...thank you for your input,

You're welcome. :)


but we don't want to see any personal attacks.

Agreed. Personal attacks suck! :)

[Samiam303]

Nope, I don't think that's new. Rawhide's just so awesome that he doesn't even NEED to use mod powers. :wink:

[Mauril Everleaf]

<snip>
You can say more than just with words. Intent, my friend. Intent.

I read the tone of your writing, and followed your points to their logical conclusion. I am sorry if the impression that you were broadcasting was not your intent. And I am sorry for interpreting it as such.

But, in all honesty, and without hostility, can you point to a signature that has content that you do not deem to be too long?

[Lord Lorac Silvanos]

Zherog has stated several times (also in this thread) that he likes reasonable signatures.

He even answered two questions about size in this thread alone and responded to specific examples.

I, for one, do not have any doubts about word or intent.





Personal attacks suck! :)

Zherog think I suck :smalleek:

:frown::frown::frown::frown:

[Mauril Everleaf]

Apparently I missed them. Would you please point them out to me? seriously, if I am reading him incorrectly, I want to know, to avoid more mistakes.

[Jack Squat]

Yes, I think it's too big. And note that your spare avatar mentioned by jack is already in a spoiler block (leading me to believe you took his advice).



While I hate images in sigs, yours is about the size I consider reasonable for a signature.

character limit

[Lord Lorac Silvanos]

Apparently I missed them. Would you please point them out to me? seriously, if I am reading him incorrectly, I want to know, to avoid more mistakes.

General comment:


Manly love talk

You said it perfectly. I like reasonable sigs. I hate having to turn them off because a few are (in my opinion) ginormous.

In response to Jack Squat. (^^^ EDIT: who shows up when needed ^^^)



While I hate images in sigs, yours is about the size I consider reasonable for a signature.

These were from this thread alone.

There are other threads with the same subject and also one on the Spoooooooooooooky board.

[Charity]

Your sig has put on a few pounds Silvanos, since you started that core class battle, too much between bout snacking I reckon.

If you are wondering why something needs to be done Mr leaf, look no further (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=37373&page=2)

[Mauril Everleaf]

I'll agree that Nightwing's sig was insidious, but nothing that a spoiler wouldn't fix. If the mod change was that all sigs are immediately spoilered, there would be no problems about them looking too long, since all sigs would be a single grey-mint box that reads "spoiler". Or even create a special coding for sigs, that reads "Signature" rather than spoiler, and put a pixel limit on the size of that expanding box. Solves Zherog and others' problems of long sigs, solves the bandwidth problems of long sigs for the mods, lets those who want to put stuff in their sigs to do so. I also like watching the expanding boxes expand (simple pleasures are the best), so it works well for me.

[Roland St. Jude]

Nightwing's sig is an example of a sig that we will act on, even under the current rules. If you see a sig that extends to half a page or causes sidescrolling, please let us know.

[Mauril Everleaf]

Should we PM a mod about that, or just use the Report button?

[Ego Slayer]

Is it acceptable if I were to ask someone, simply as a courtesy, to add spoiler something? Since we don't seem to have written signature rules, and I'm suggestion, not demanding. 'Cause I mentioned spoilers to some Pixie with a massive sig and he did it. Maybe that was wrong, and would assume so after we have rules, now I'm just wondering... >_>

[Mauril Everleaf]

I'm sure it was fine. Like my mentioning to Cobra_Ikari today that when he quotes he should just qoute the relevant part, not the entire 2 paragraph post. As long as you weren't mean about it, I guess.

[Ego Slayer]

Oh, of course I wasn't mean. Not the slightest bit. It's easier to get people to listen when you're nice. :smallwink:

[Mauril Everleaf]

A man offended is harder to win than a strong city. A wise man once said that.

I should listen to him more often. :smallannoyed:

[slapdash]

I didn't even know we could turn off signatures! No more looking at people's ridiculous stick-person museums!

I fully support this. Just take the 0 off the 1000 and I think we have a great signature length...

[Roland St. Jude]

Should we PM a mod about that, or just use the Report button?

Please use the "Report Post" button.


Is it acceptable if I were to ask someone, simply as a courtesy, to add spoiler something? Since we don't seem to have written signature rules, and I'm suggestion, not demanding. 'Cause I mentioned spoilers to some Pixie with a massive sig and he did it. Maybe that was wrong, and would assume so after we have rules, now I'm just wondering... >_>

I think you're exactly right. Right now, you are free to comment on someone's sig, to suggest that it be spoilered or trimmed down for asthetic reasons. Once it becomes a rule, though, that comment by you should more appropriately be an courteous link to the rules and a report to the mods. Otherwise, you're dangerously close to vigilante modding.

[Ego Slayer]

Alright. Yeah, I understand that once there are rules I'd link to them, and/or report a post.

[Bears With Lasers]

Edit: my bad, I didn't see that there was a third page.

[Mauril Everleaf]

I would like to point out that we have moved on, Bears, and that I confessed to not reading him correctly, and had a few examples produced to counter my mistake. All you are doing now is trolling. Please stop. Thank you.

[Bears With Lasers]

Whoops, didn't see Page Three.

[Lord Lorac Silvanos]

Your sig has put on a few pounds Silvanos, since you started that core class battle, too much between bout snacking I reckon.


I am round, not curvy.
Bloated perhaps,
and full of obnoxious gas.
Yet I still float around, lighter than air.


Ohhh you were talking about my sig. :smallredface:

[Charity]

Aw look he's gone on a crash diet... I didn't mean to be mean, I was just admiring your voluptious form.

I can hardly talk I used to have this sig

http://img74.imageshack.us/img74/5235/alarra2dh.gifhttp://www.theonion.com/content/files/images/onion_news1528.article.jpg
Tremble in fear Crisp eater
Your time is nigh.
Puddingmageddon Is upon you.

[Zherog]

But, in all honesty, and without hostility, can you point to a signature that has content that you do not deem to be too long?

Overall, I've been looking to avoid being critical of specific sigs in this thread (though I've "broken" that personal rule). However, pointing out sigs that are reasonable seems OK to me. So even though others have quoted some of my previous posts, here's a few:

Lord_Silvanos - His sig is neat and orderly, and has information people might find useful; he also uses it to give his avatar artist credit. Perfectly fine sig. Note that if he didn't shrink the size down a bit, it might seem worse.

Jack Squat - As I said, I normally don't like images in sigs, but his banner is small, and that's the only thing there. No problems there.

Charity - I mean, come on. Even the biggest sig haters would probably agree his sig is small enough. Roland is in the same category (even with a link that some day I might check out) And finally, slapdash is also in this category.

Bears With Lasers - The length is fine here, too

Quincunx - This one's fine, too. It's only five lines, with a bunch of links and pretty colors.

Catch - Another sig with an image that falls into my personal "OK" range. It's honestly a bit bigger than I would like, but the image is small and I could "live" with seeing it on a regular bases.

So there's a bunch of examples of actual sigs I find to be OK. I think there's a decent variety among them.


...but nothing that a spoiler wouldn't fix. If the mod change was that all sigs are immediately spoilered, there would be no problems about them looking too long, since all sigs would be a single grey-mint box that reads "spoiler". Or even create a special coding for sigs, that reads "Signature" rather than spoiler, and put a pixel limit on the size of that expanding box. Solves Zherog and others' problems of long sigs, solves the bandwidth problems of long sigs for the mods, lets those who want to put stuff in their sigs to do so. I also like watching the expanding boxes expand (simple pleasures are the best), so it works well for me.

A few things here. Technical stuff first, then personal.

It actually wouldn't solve the bandwidth problem. The data in the sig is still loaded when the page is loaded. In addition, the initial load would need to create the sblock. It would actually make bandwidth slightly worse.

On a personal level, I don't like this sort of option. I want to see sigs. There's lots of cool stuff in sigs - funny quips, useful links, and yes - even some interesting images. I don't want to have to open the sblock to see if there's anything good there or not. *shrug*

***

Are the mods accepting suggestions for ideas? Well, if not ignore the rest of this post. :smallbiggrin:

Over on the WotC boards, they have an option that causes each user's sig to display only once per page. I love this feature - and I find myself grumbling about "obnoxious" sigs less over there, because I don't see them constantly - only once per page (assuming, of course, the person with the "obnoxious" sig posts more than once per page).

WotC also uses vB, so I know it's possible. I'm just wondering if it's something the mod team would consider.

[Mauril Everleaf]

Zherog, I actually suggested using a spoiler like system that has pixel restraints, which would reduce used badwidth. The mods could implement a new option (similar to the see or don't see sigs option) to have all sigs opened or closed. Since there would be a pixel limit, rather than a charcter limit, most sigs would be pretty uniform in size.

[kuja.girl]

Some people may also not realive that their sigs are "too long."
Nightwing (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/member.php?u=22645) had a really long one for a while - I wrote the following after he double posted in a thread


Nightwing - no only did you double post, but you have THE most annoyingly long signature I've yet seen. Use the spoiler button man. It saves load times and my patience.
He's using the spoiler button now which is awesome.

I have to say - it's not that I don't enjoy seeing people sigs, it's that I often just want to get to the next post and a long sig distracts from that.

[Rawhide]

Zherog, I actually suggested using a spoiler like system that has pixel restraints, which would reduce used badwidth. The mods could implement a new option (similar to the see or don't see sigs option) to have all sigs opened or closed. Since there would be a pixel limit, rather than a charcter limit, most sigs would be pretty uniform in size.
We can not, for technical reasons, set a pixel limit on any pictures. Limitations such as these have to be moderator enforced.

[Mauril Everleaf]

You are able to set pixel limits for avatars, though. Could signature "spoilers" not be reformated to be treated similar to avatars? Mind you, my knowledge of vB is limited, so my suggestion may be completely ludicrous and inconceivably irrational.

[Rawhide]

That was a big job where I went through and completely recoded the avatar handling subsystem. This is a very different situation, signatures are just an extension of the standard posting code.

There is a bbcode called [sigimg], unfortunately we can't use it, for the very same reason that I had to completely recode the avatar subsystem, it uploads and stores the images on the server.

As the images are not stored on the server, we cannot set pixel limits.

[Zherog]

Along with the feature at WotC that I mentioned earlier about only showing a sig once per page, they have a few other sig display options as well. All of these are things people can set in their profile - so I would have to think they could also be "hard coded" on the back end if they were the sort of thing that would make sense for that.

sig lines to display - in theory, this allows you to control how many lines of a sig are displayed. It only counts hard returns when figuring it out, though. So, for example, each of these paragraphs would count as one line. This allows users who whine about sigs being too long (like me ;) ) to set a length that they find reasonable. WotC's version, at the moment, doesn't always work though. For example, mine is set to show 6 lines over there - but sometimes I still see incredibly long sigs.

Signature Window - You enter a number of pixels; if a user's sig is longer than that number, it creates a scrollbar for it. I've never used this feature, so I don't know how well it works.

Signature Ignore List - The field accepts a list of user names, separated by a semicolon. Signatures of users on your list will not display.

Sigs Once Per Page - see my previous post for this one.

No, of course, I'm tossing those out there as ideas for the mods to work with. I'm not begging for any or all of those to be implemented. :)

[Lord Lorac Silvanos]

I'm not begging...

Ummm Zherog, why are you on your knees then? :smalltongue:

[Rawhide]

None of those options are part of vBulletin and would need to be coded or supported by a modification.

[Samiam303]

But as he said, the WotC board uses vB, so we know the modifications exist...

[Roland St. Jude]

But as he said, the WotC board uses vB, so we know the modifications exist...

However, we also know that WotC has had significant problems with things like backups, archiving, etc., at least in part due to the modifications that they have made to vB. Just because things can be altered mean they should be.

[Samiam303]

Heh, fair enough. I don't use WotC enough to know about their problems, I was just going with what Zherog had said.

[Zherog]

However, we also know that WotC has had significant problems with things like backups, archiving, etc., at least in part due to the modifications that they have made to vB. Just because things can be altered mean they should be.

I don't know of any problems they've had with backups or archiving, actually. They have had a ton of problems with searching, however.

And again, I'm not asking for these sorts of things here. I'm just tossing out some features I know of from another board that also uses vB. Maybe they're features of the software; maybe they're easy "hacks;" maybe they're a pain in the ass. Whatever - I'm really just tossing out things that are possible.

[Roland St. Jude]

...And again, I'm not asking for these sorts of things here. I'm just tossing out some features I know of from another board that also uses vB. Maybe they're features of the software; maybe they're easy "hacks;" maybe they're a pain in the ass. Whatever - I'm really just tossing out things that are possible.

Understood. And we appreciate the ideas. My understanding, when it comes to technical issues, is that we rarely implement poster suggestions because posters do not fully understand all the behind-the-scenes implications. But on occasion, it's a poster's good suggestion that leads to a change in how we do things. So you are being heard, even if the number of suggestions taken is incredibly small. So suggest away.

[Catch]

So suggest away.

A suggestion: (edit) How about a cessation of complaints?

At the risk of sounding awfully jaded (and perhaps a trifle caustic) I'd like to put my ballot slip into the box marked "No More Whining."

I can concede that some signatures are rather long. As a matter of fact, I could say that a select few of them are garish, bloated, visually-affronting remoras, latching onto posts half their size and polluting the screen with frivolous fluff.

However, the majority of signatures are fine. Spoiler tags reduce screen consumption and if bandwidth is an issue, the character limit can be reduced. In reality (this is where the caustic part comes in), the complaints come from a small number of individuals who've become self-styled champions of signature-banishment, attempting rout signatures that don't meet their personal expectations.

I find this to be absolutely asinine. The matter is incredibly subjective, and practically impossible to come to a true sense of unanimity on the issue short of an executive decision from the staff. As it stands, it's 1000 characters. What people do with that space is generally up to them, and if a particular signature is enough of a problem, enough people with report it to be, and then it will be a matter of the staff.

Until then, I'd hope to see less public finger-pointing. Someone else's opinion on signatures is an opinion and frankly, I don't give a damn if my signature is "OK" in their eyes or not.

Personally, I love proper grammar, punctuation and spelling, but you don't see me calling others down for the wrong "to" or a misplaced comma. I suck it up and move on because it's not that big of a deal, and I'll bet there are plenty of people that don't give two cents about what I think of their spelling. When the Playground starts mandating proper literary conventions, then it will be somewhat of a deal. Until then, I'm keeping my mouth shut. See the analogy here?

It's pretty straightforward, I think.

[Amotis]

That, um, wasn't a suggestion.

[Catch]

That, um, wasn't a suggestion.

No. No, it wasn't.

I think it started that way, but I went with what was really on my mind.