Images in signature...

By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics and access other forums reserved for members. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today by clicking here.

Posted: Tue Aug 07, 2007 1:47 pm

I'm in favor of less clutter, too. Nothing puts me off a forum faster than having to brave fourteen blinky, sparkly banners and a dozen dancing bunnies, bananas and hamsters to find the "lol" or "me too" that is the entire post...

Baiting Guru Joined: 08 Feb 2005 Posts: 2301

shiver metimbers wrote:

We're thinking about introducing sig images sometime soon, but they will have a width/height limit imposed ruthlessly and only one image per sig! Something like 300x100 pixels will be about the max size. There will be an announcement, along with other stuff soon.

Please don't. Sad

Posted: Tue Aug 07, 2007 2:16 pm

To echo most people here, please no. The sig lines are funny, but pictures would make the forums unreadable.

Posted: Tue Aug 07, 2007 2:20 pm

If we're taking an informal vote, I'm also against it.

Posted: Tue Aug 07, 2007 2:33 pm

I would prefer not to have pictures in the signature line. Reading is already a challenge for me so pictures would be an additional distraction. Very Happy

Posted: Tue Aug 07, 2007 3:26 pm

^^^Good thing baiting does not require reading, well I am pretty sure some lads think scamming doesn't require reading.

I too am going to vote no in this informal pole.

Not quite a Newb Joined: 14 Jul 2005 Posts: 41

I'm against it just as much as I'm against full quotes before replying and successive posts made within minutes of each other.

They just clutter up the board. I can point you to numerous forums where you have to wade through all that crap just to see a reply.

We don't need that here.

Posted: Tue Aug 07, 2007 3:46 pm

I'm pro, providing that the maximum allowed height is the same as what the text

Submit This Thread To:
Digg It
Del.icio.us
Slashdot It!

is using.

Posted: Tue Aug 07, 2007 4:32 pm

IMO, any vote should be left to admins, mods, and preemies. That said, I vote no. Very Happy

Eater's visual discipline is a welcome respite from all the spinning, sparkling, leaping, blinking, etc. crap to found elsewhere on the "innerweb".

Posted: Wed Aug 08, 2007 12:04 am

mrsbean wrote:

Nothing puts me off a forum faster than having to brave fourteen blinky, sparkly banners and a dozen dancing bunnies, bananas and hamsters...

But we do have the daily kd & lotta Tsnerdling For Charity show to contend with Laughing

Not quite a Newb Joined: 14 Jul 2005 Posts: 41

Is that a verb?

Posted: Wed Aug 08, 2007 4:08 am

I think you guys are over reacting! If you restrict the image height to ~100 px, what is the problem!?! SP's signature, for example, is approx. 170 px high! Rolling Eyes

Is anyone complaining about that?

Standard size signature:

Is that too cluttered? Confused

I think a ban on sig images is unnecessary, with the proper restrictions.

[/rant]

Not quite a Newb Joined: 14 Jul 2005 Posts: 41

Wha???

LOLZORS!

Imagine wading through all that just to read what somebody said, or didn't say.

Baiting Guru Joined: 03 May 2007 Posts: 18313

I'm not sure if we're voting or not. . . . but in case we are, I'm with the "no pictures in the sigs" crowd.
It would just litter the threads unnecessarily. I also like seeing the flags, safari hats and quotes in sig lines. (And of course the ponies and other mysterious icons that I still don't know the meaning of).

Posted: Wed Aug 08, 2007 4:26 am

@ rentacow.

Wow my reaction when I saw that was "damn that's huge!"

If it ain't broke... don't fix it.

Posted: Wed Aug 08, 2007 4:33 am

We have ample opportunity to be creative (or not) with our avatars. Give me the link to just ONE forum that doesn't have pics that strobe and sparkle enough to give you a seizure OR pics of fluffy kittens, rainbows and unicorns, OR 'hilarious' chimpanzees dressed up as astonauts OR pics of your kiddies at Disneyworld last year OR something with a political/religious message OR playmate of the month.

Posted: Wed Aug 08, 2007 4:43 am

^^^ Here you go...

'Tis a rare wee beastie indeed!

Laughing

Posted: Wed Aug 08, 2007 4:55 am

Cheeky - I meant a forum that allows pics anyway Rolling Eyes

Posted: Wed Aug 08, 2007 4:59 am

This site is doing just fine...

@TSnerd: TheGreatOok, OxygenDeprived, Rodus Longus, mrsbean, Pastor Frank, Otterfan and yourself have signatures of 120 or MORE pixels! Even Shiver's sig is ~120 pixels high. I cannot understand why you would object to users being allowed to have images in there signature...

Posted: Wed Aug 08, 2007 5:53 am

@ rentacow - images break a thread more than text signatures. A big pic 'interrupts' me in my reading, whereas (even a long) text sig doesn't.

If we do have to have pic sigs, could we have an for option individual users not to see them?

I come down on the 'no' side.

Posted: Wed Aug 08, 2007 5:57 am

I have a lot of random crap in my signature, I'm glad Eater has a limit for that as well. I think signatures are perfect the way they are now.

Posted: Wed Aug 08, 2007 6:09 am

I will never understand...

Posted: Wed Aug 08, 2007 6:27 am

Rentacow, the problem is not the height of siggies, the porblem is PICTURES in the siggies. They are more distracting than the sig lines people use at the moment. I prefer Eater the way it is. To me, some avatars, especially the ones that move, are distracting enough, I would rather not have flashy pictures in the siggies too. What will be the use? So people can put up banners as the one for Scamwarners above? Or to inlduce a trophy picture in their sig? Why not use the avatar space? People can already have a picture and having it as avatar makes sure they are nicely gethered on the left side of the screen and not breaking up the different posts. Oh, and I am against as well.

Posted: Wed Aug 08, 2007 6:31 am

rentacow wrote:

This site is doing just fine...

Took a look. Ugh, cluttered and hard as hell to read. The banner like pics are very distracting, and the pic like quotes are even worse.

You will most likely point out that this is coming from a member with a pretty big signature. Whilst that is a fair point, most of the icons used in sigs here are (a) quite small, and (b) related to the purpose of this site. The (plain text) quotes are almost exclusively from lads or fellow members, and the links are usually to site support, baiting tools, or fellow scam fighting sites.

I think TSnerd's last post illustrated the issue admirably.

Posted: Wed Aug 08, 2007 6:40 am

IMO text only is more distracting, since the signature looks exactly like the text in the post.

EX:

This is a question?
lad speak DEATH THREAT lad speak DEATH THREAT lad speak DEATH THREAT
lad speak DEATH THREAT lad speak DEATH THREAT lad speak DEATH THREAT
lad speak DEATH THREAT lad speak DEATH THREAT lad speak DEATH THREAT
This is a reply!
lad speak DEATH THREAT lad speak DEATH THREAT lad speak DEATH THREAT
lad speak DEATH THREAT lad speak DEATH THREAT lad speak DEATH THREAT
Touch'e!
lad speak DEATH THREAT lad speak DEATH THREAT lad speak DEATH THREAT
lad speak DEATH THREAT lad speak DEATH THREAT lad speak DEATH THREAT
lad speak DEATH THREAT lad speak DEATH THREAT lad speak DEATH THREAT
Horray for forums!
lad speak DEATH THREAT lad speak DEATH THREAT lad speak DEATH THREAT
lad speak DEATH THREAT lad speak DEATH THREAT lad speak DEATH THREAT
lad speak DEATH THREAT lad speak DEATH THREAT lad speak DEATH THREAT

See what I mean?