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: Wed Aug 08, 2007 10:10 am

Ah, you've changed your original message!

I was so terrified of TSnerd's neurosis about quoting that I didn't bother quoting the original text, and now look what happens, any last trace of laconic urbanity in my message has vanished. Let me join you in a "BAH!"

Posted: Wed Aug 08, 2007 10:14 am

We can both proof read our posts over and over, as not to upset any mods or other members!

Posted: Wed Aug 08, 2007 10:53 am

Random example of why siggie pics are a Bad Idea Laughing

(Warning: Not suitable for people prone to seizures or with a delicate gag reflex)

http://forum.tonyferguson.com/Topic152100-12-1.aspx

Posted: Wed Aug 08, 2007 10:57 am

Thanks, Gnasher. Now you owe me some new eyes.

Also, I love the third post down... "That post is not too long at all." The irony is beautiful.

Posted: Wed Aug 08, 2007 10:57 am

Ahhhh the pain!!

Posted: Wed Aug 08, 2007 11:21 am

That just is...

Now who joins me to sign up there and start posting pictures of cream tarts and chocolate? Hm? Laughing

Posted: Wed Aug 08, 2007 12:30 pm

The thing you guys don't realise is that you're lucky just to only get that.... Gnasher sends me that stuff all day long... last week he was boasting that he managed to stare down an �clair and not eat it. Doesn't negate the dozen krispy kremes he had 30 minutes before, but still, progress is progress!

Posted: Wed Aug 08, 2007 1:05 pm

Hi Rentacow, just to add a different perspective: newby status is a tricky thing. Loads of forums I know ignore new members until they reached a certain maturity on the forum. The fact that you were the only one stating a different opinion and people reacted to that by clarifying their point, is in fact more a sign of respect than noob bashing. People were simply discussing their own point of view and since you were the only one stating a different opinion it is interesting to react to that.

I do not see a single person who reacted to your first post with a condescending attitude. Things turned condescending when you reacted in a defensive manner, which is a bit childish. Simply post your opinion and tell us your point of view and we will share our points of view. We do not need to agree all the time.

As for avatars being the same as pictures in the siggy, let me respectfully disagree. To me there is a difference. Avatars help me to recognize the poster quicker. By a quick glance to the sideline I know if this is a person I have not come across before, or someone that posted before. It is a way of being a bit more familiar with each other. It gives members a face so to speak. Pictures in signatures to me will be a distraction. They are in between posts. Avatars are only on the sideline and as long as they are not animated they are not distracting to me. The signatures we have now are also in between posts but since they do not distract me from reading posts this is cool with me. If you would like to see this feature and would enjoy it being implemented on Eater, by all means, tell us. Simply state why you would like to see this. Some people may disagree with you, but there really is no harm in that, is there?

Posted: Wed Aug 08, 2007 5:48 pm

I've already voted "no", but can't resist the "opinions" sub-thread here. Smile

In the song Strawberry Fields Forever, John Lennon wrote...

Quote:

It's getting hard to be someone...

That was way back in, what, 1967?

IMO Rolling Eyes

, Lennon was simply commenting on the difficulty of achieving notoriety in an overcrowded world, city, room, forum, whatever. I think the desire for pic siggys is a symptom of that frustration. It reflects a basic urge to shout, "Look! Here I am, please acknowledge and validate my existence!" I certainly don't condemn that sentiment. Hell, just look at my obnoxious-assed avatar! Very Happy

However, even I know that the loudest voice is often the least heard. If you're going to participate on a forum, bring a thick skin and a big grin.

Posted: Wed Aug 08, 2007 8:32 pm

rentacow wrote:

@TSnerd: TheGreatOok, OxygenDeprived, Rodus Longus, mrsbean, Pastor Frank, Otterfan and yourself have signatures of 120 or MORE pixels!

My objection is not based upon space taken up on the screen as much as bogging down the forum when I'm stuck somewhere with a slower connection. It's mostly based upon the fact that 120 "pixels" of text take a significantly shorter time to download and is a lot less distracting than a 120 pixel graphic. It already takes me a great deal of time to keep up with even a fair portion of the text content here.

From a bandwidth perspective, there isn't even a contest. It takes several hundred lines of text to even come close to a graphic, size-wise. Avatars at least serve some purpose of giving a quick visual cue as to who is posting, when users stick with a particular avatar consistently. Avatars here are reasonably small and do give a touch of "personality" to each poster, while allowing a bit of creative expression.

Since the addition of the "Digg It", etc. links, signatures look artificially large on short posts. I'm not wild about that either.

Posted: Wed Aug 08, 2007 8:59 pm

rentacow wrote:

What do avatars add to the overall appearance of this forum? All the avatars I see are completely meaningless... Rolling Eyes

And yours means....? Wink

mrsbean wrote:

Since the addition of the "Digg It", etc. links, signatures look artificially large on short posts. I'm not wild about that either.

You're not? Shocked

I thought I was all alone.... Laughing

Tip - If you want to view the last few posts of a thread without all the sigs and avatars getting in the way, just hit reply and use the Topic Review

I never realised Oliver couldn't get his legs to go out
sideways like Stan before. The things you learn in
General at eater...

Posted: Wed Aug 08, 2007 9:28 pm

My View: I'm "pro sig pics" for a number of reasons: 1) 100% of web forums I have come across has allowed signature pictures. 0% of web forums I have come across have had any problems with allowing them. 2) I find signature pictures "cleaner" and more defined from the rest of the message than text. This makes posts easier to read. 3) Just like avatars, images can personalize someone much better than text. 4) with a few simple restrictions, even someone with a slow connection will not find signature pictures a problem.

Final thought: Countless other web forums allow signature pictures. Why? Because they can't find a reason not to. If you think signature pictures will be a problem, just browse a few web forums that DO allow them.

Quote:

Random example of why siggie pics are a Bad Idea Laughing (Warning: Not suitable for people prone to seizures or with a delicate gag reflex)

That is absolutely inappropriate. That particular forum has no restrictions on signature height. You are being bias. Mad

I think this whole thread has gotten out of hand.

Posted: Wed Aug 08, 2007 9:56 pm

I agree that I used an extreme example, but shows what can happen if sig pics, like this thread, "get out of hand" Very Happy

To me they are an irritant and a distraction but if you could show me an example of the type of pic you'd like to put in your signature then I'm happy to be persuaded otherwise.

Posted: Wed Aug 08, 2007 10:55 pm

Here's a template I slapped together. Any links, for other sites, donate, etc can be put below the pic.

Dimensions: 500w x 100h
Size: 16.42K

Posted: Wed Aug 08, 2007 11:02 pm

I can genuinely see where you're going with this rentacow and you are quite right, your template is fine. Because it is a one off. If loads of people start using that style of template then pretty quickly the forum is going to become very hard to read. It may only be 16.42 K but again, with lots of people using them the bandwidth mounts up and I believe we have members here who are still on 56k dialup, what's painful enough for them at the moment is going to become unusable with the introduction of pictures in sig lines.

Posted: Wed Aug 08, 2007 11:41 pm

That template looks OK to me too but apart from the aesthetics, there are important technical reasons why it's probably not practical. This is a big board with a lot of members and visitors and if everyone used even that template the internets tube wheels would start to grind a lot slower which is frustrating for everyone.

Posted: Thu Aug 09, 2007 12:18 am

When scrolling down the page and visually scanning it, a lot of signature pictures are tough on my eyes especially if bright colors or busy pictures are used. On a page with multiple posts by the same individuals, the signature pictures are repeated numerous times which makes it worse. Even if all of the posters are different, the flickering and flashing of the pictures as they roll by slowly gets annoying. Avatars are off to the side so I do not have to look directly at them while trying to scroll down the page to find the newest thread posts. I'm all for creativity and expressing yourself, but not at the expense of eye fatigue and loading times.

Posted: Thu Aug 09, 2007 12:26 am

I would also like to reiterate (for what it counts) that I am strongly in favour of no images in sigs.

It works wonderfully as it is. It requires people to be more creative in their baits and actually entertain people with words rather than pretty colours.

You take that away from the sigs and they'll start to lose their significance and pride. Also, the fact that they load in seconds is fantastic. I have zero interest in what cute banners other members can make and stick at the bottom of EVERY post. I would much rather read the funny things their lads have done or said or applaud B. A. Ware and SF for the many flags they're acquiring.

If you have a fun image you want to show, by all means show it... there's not need for it on the end of every post.

Posted: Thu Aug 09, 2007 2:08 am

We still here? Wink

Posted: Thu Aug 09, 2007 2:39 am

Don wrote:

Now who joins me to sign up there and start posting pictures of cream tarts and chocolate? Hm? Laughing

*Puts up hand*

You really are cruel Don Razz

Wow that forum is amazing...... you seriously can't find the posts for the signatures.

Posted: Thu Aug 09, 2007 2:39 am

Hmm, what would that line of buns look like at 120px high? Shocked

Posted: Thu Aug 09, 2007 3:17 am

^^^^
Ask a silly question, Callum

I'm all set! Confused

BTW, as one of the members on dial-up, I will say that a page full of sig pics like the above would take forever to load.

Posted: Thu Aug 09, 2007 5:19 am

I�m with SF (and I believe the rest) on that one. It would take like three to four minutes to load. That may not seem that long but it really is for just one page to load. This site is great for those still forced to use a dial up. I think most broadband user have forgotten what it�s like to use a dial up or maybe never had the �pleasure�. A little hint, 56 k doesn�t mean 56 k. More like 3 to 4 k.

That and pictures in the sig line would annoy the hell out of me regardless of my connection. But I�m new here too.

Posted: Thu Aug 09, 2007 7:19 am

Can we also have a ruling on signing posts with your ID name?

Yours superfluously
Gnasher

Posted: Thu Aug 09, 2007 7:27 am

Few do that, but I don�t think it�s too distracting. Pointless it may be but not distracting.

Ghost