Maximum signature dimensions
 

A number of overly large signatures have been reported of late. The rules regarding sig limits are in the FAQ. However, since we all know nobody ever reads the FAQ, even when prompted, the rules will be posted here:

Is there a limit to how much text can be within a signature? It would seem to me that the amount of text one can have in a signature should be determined by how many lines long it is. This way, a text signature could be compared to an image one and follow similar limitations. And then there's the whole issue of text and image in the same signature...

In clarification of...

...NYRSkate once stated the following: When in doubt if your signature is too vertically large, just make a single line post*. If the postbit stretches with signature enabled as opposed to disabled, then it needs to be cut down.

By the way, the "postbit" is the table that contains all of the text in a single post, as well as the poster's avatar and edit/quote buttons.

*Preferably in the Testing Forum.

LOL at Styphon's big text.

By the way, the rules are also displayed in the UserCP page where you edit your signature, so there's really no way anyone could miss it. We'll be coming down hard on repeat violations.

Excuse me. I must have been either tired or ignorant when I posted. I clearly see now that my post was stupid. I'm sorry for wasting your time.

That's funny, when I originally joined my GITS:SAC 2nd GIG image was 83ish KB in size. When I noticed that I just found the 256 color version and used that instead. Were signatures that were submitted early on not subject to the 50KB size limit.

Why WOULDN'T they be subject to the limit?

Your sig should be subject to the "Fucking ugly" limit.

Like I said when I joined my image was over 80000 Bytes in size (now it's below 26000 due to my observations of the filesize), that was before (at least as I can recall) the restrictions were posted. I wasn't given any messages telling me that my signature wasn't allowed, but now that I know it was too large, I submitted a sig within the compliance of the rules.
Last time I tried using a signature over 50KB (in the old forums) the sig was replaced with massive text telling me (and everyone else) that the signature was too large.
EDIT: Wait, is the deletion of large signatures not an automated porcess? I noticed this sniplet in your Thread opening:

Signature dimensions are part of the board rules, not part of any specific technical requirement. They are enforced by moderators individually rather than by the board automatically.

Also, these restrictions have been in place for years, and countless signatures have been replaced. You have no excuse for not knowing about them. Unless, of course, you were too busy upping your postcount to notice them.

I have a question.

I just ripped off Shin's signature because I thought it was super cute.

However, it is 36x592

Is it technically a smilie? Can I TECHNICALLY use it?

I was hoping for leniency as it's pretty thin and like you say, far too cute for words.

Yea, thats what I was hoping for too. I didn't mean to call attention to it, sir. I'm sorry. I just thought it was the cutest little thing, and I stole it. And then I saw this thread, and realized "the cat is running pretty fucking far. Maybe I should check."

Please say yes, guys. KAWAII~

Well technically it is wider than the limit allows for images, and it depends how hard and fast they're going to stick to that. Easily cropped to fit the allowed dimensions though if need be.

Well if someone could crop it for me I'd happily wear a thinner version. As it is it fucks up my photobucket display page anyway. ^_^

Ta da:
http://www.opimage.co.uk/u/OmagnusPr...unning_500.gif

Click and save. If you want it thinner still let me know.

Cheers matey!

I'm running off my photobucket account now so you can delete that if you want. Sass, feel free to direct link to it if you still want to use it.

Awesome, Maggie. Thank you so much. I was going to say, if I had to crop it down, it would be a few hours until I got back home to do it.

APPRECIATED ++ <3

EDit: Thanks Shin. Will do! (I love you guys)

Sorry Sass, the URL changed slightly...

edit: I was wondering why yours looked longer till I realised you had it centred. My eyes have gone funny now. ^_^

Hey guys chocosig supports up to 75 kb now. So does that mean the rules have changed to let up to 75 kb? That'd be swell.

I've never found a problem with Shin's kitty. It may be technically wider but not enough so that anything is disrupted. I say it's just fine.

It's only if some ass-mango wants to split hairs after being accused himself that the kitty could ever really become an issue.

Besides.....awwwwww.

Well it's not wider anymore, it's actually 50 pixels less than the maximum width allowed for a sig. But true, I can't see any reason why someone would have been bothered by the 592 wide version, but you get some funny people out there.

We've gotten a number of reports about a certain signature because it's an advertisement. This isn't a rule violation; in fact, when closing advertising threads, moderators will normally inform them a person's sig is one of the places (along with their Chocojournal) where advertising is allowed.

I hope this clears things up.

I tried looking through the threads down here to see if I could find out whether or not the rumor of this sig size being upped to 75kb.

I couldn't find any concrete posts on the truth of the rumor.

Could someone confirm the actual allowed size? I am sorry if I missed the post.

It would be nice if it stayed(or became) 75kb. People donated for the forums to come back up, and everything's being restored but nothing's being additionally added. There might be a few board upgrades, but nothing actually beneficial directly to the user.

This would also help signature makers since they've been forced under the 50kb rule for quite some time now.

Yes I'd like to see this addressed as 50kb really does suck. 200kb limit is what I think is reasonable. Seriously what's the big deal? 56k has learned to deal with bandwidth sucking sites for years now. Why make the majority suffer for them?

So I take it that it ISN'T true?? Acer, you're on staff - can you confirm? ;_;

I don't think it is. I heard that chocosig allows you to store 75kb, so some people thought that the overall restrictions were the same.

Why would you be allowed to store a 50~ kb signature if you're not allowed to use it?

Pointless.

The signature filesize limit is still 50 KB, despite the size allowance for ChocoSig. You can ask bobo why he set that limit.

Nobody has actually discussed it yet. Bobo was acting on his own when he specified a 75kb limit.

Personally I wouldn't mind a 75kb limit, but nothing bigger than that. Optimize your images =/

I still optomize my images, Blah. But sometimes there isn't much you can do.

Take this beauty here.

http://img97.imageshack.us/img97/6571/guuround1c8ds.gif

It barely fits on imageshack at 1022.5 KB and I pulled a bunch of tricks for that. It's well within sigpic dimensions but I can't make it anywhere near the 50 kb or 70 kb without it looking like shit and/or being really fucking small like my current guu sigpic. And when I do that I lose more detail and you can hardly tell what it comes from.

So while I can do low-frame count gif in the 50 kb limit okay it's one bitch in and a half to do it with larger-frame count gifs. I often have to find opportune gif opportunities where I can clear out most of the gif and have mostly one background and have new frames for just mouth movements. I barely squeezed by with the bears in my sigs by pulling off a lot of tricks and believe me it takes hours of fucking irritating time.

Now let me show you what 200 kb will let you pull off with the gif I showed you above.

http://img146.imageshack.us/img146/5525/bleh017ou.gif at 64 colors and no dither

http://img146.imageshack.us/img146/7389/bleh025fv.gif and even smaller, no dither but 256 colors.

Do you see the small range in those sizes and how much I was able to get out of that while being in just the 200 kb limit? I don't think I'm being unreasonable here. So now reduce that 150 kb more and see that "oh boy it's not fun times at all."

Hell it might be that Adobe ImageReady is a sucky program for making optimized gifs in. If you could recommend one that is better and that'll let me crack in decent size gifs without looking like shit while allowing for the current limits then fine but I'm not seeing it right now.

If keeping the filesize limits at 50k stops people using things like that for a sig, I'm all for it.

=/

I fail to see how it's any worse than your cat which scurries off into an invisible wall halfway across your sig space. But I digress it was merely an example and to get upset over it would be ima- FUCK YOU SHIN! >=U

To be honest, that Guu sig is way better than that cat shit any day.

Can we get some real .gifs in Shins sig that don't suck or what.

What about the people who can't optimize worth shit. :\/

Take Elixir here. He likes to make signatures, but isn't entirely experienced in the department of saving in a specific format. Then there's the amount of colors to use. Then there's things like dithering, diffusion, selective, adaptive, and oh god I'm already lost. They're all minor differences but they add up and make a big difference in the end. It's like saying a dollar isn't much, but it all adds up.

Point is, 75kb sounds plausable. Most of the signatures I've made(or tried making, heh) range between 50~100kb. If you're really that worried about the size(wait, what did donations go towards again.) then decrease the dimensions and increase the size. A maximum of 400x300 sounds fine. I've checked in photoshop just now and it seems pretty reasonable.

I also like how a certain person's signature was 49kb, but displayed as 51kb in properties and was signature police'd, yet another certain person's Ace Combat signature was well over 550x in dimensions and it took 2 weeks before I saw any change.

Probably because it was an Ace Combat sig.

Why is there a limit on the number of images?

In the past I had a zero signature that looked like one image but was actually one image split into 13 parts and carefully assembled with vbcode. I wasn't caught for having it, but I did not understand why 13 images which, when assembled, was under the maximum signature pic filesize and visible size, was technically unallowed.

Yeah I loved that one Eleo. I wanted to do something like that too but oh no more files equals more cry time for 56k or some crap.

Also, no Elixir. The dimensions are fine as is.

Remove filesize limits entirely. Just add a feature which allows a user to block whatever he or she doesn't like.

Of course no one would block mine.

::Ace Combat Zero intro movie::

Double Post:
Uh, what is the point of multiple images. Ever heard of Photoshop layers.

Yeah seriously, it would be awesome if people could just block sigs that were a certain size and higher if they wanted to. This would be nice for 56kers. How hard would that be to implement?

http://img455.imageshack.us/img455/9...led49hj.th.png

Seems kind of stupid to have dimensions which slightly stretch people's signatures yet the filesize is still so low. That's the equivalent of having a 1600x resolution wallpaper in 16bit.

Also, isn't Megalith's signature stretching the signaturepostbit length? Whatever.

Dude, you don't like megabyte-sized signatures with dancing anime characters? What the fuck is wrong with you?

I don't see how layers prevents one from requiring multiple images.

In my cases I actually needed multiple links. Since vbcode doesn't have any kind of imagemap code, the only way to achieve the same ends is to split the image into smaller images and have different links for each image.

Behold, punk:
http://img122.imageshack.us/img122/412/zerosig3vv.gif

The intention was that people could click the various pieces of text at the bottom to rate me or reach my FTP thread.

Why are you using my sig space as an example? I told you my sigpic was ridiculously smaller than normal. I've had no issues with the width and height limits of sigpics they have here although it would be nice if they got rid of that stupid 2 picture limit. I could see that getting out of hand but in the case of Eleo there's a good reason for more than 2 images. Besides he still followed dimension and size rules so I don't see why that shouldn't be allowed.

I would imagine 13 small images on 56k would be slower on 56k than a typical image, because it has to download the individual files as oppose to a whole image.

But yeah, nobody has 56k anymore. Not even Infernal. I've had the pleasure of being on a 64k rate and browsing gamingforce at the same time - it isn't enjoyable at all. Still, what is all the donating for if we can't even have a 25kb increase in sigs.

Shall we lower the dimensions, then?

I recall that Aardark made a thread about this a while ago, and people were generally in favour of reducing the image dimensions.

There is a report button, use it.


By the way, the 2 image rule was mainly to prevent people from circumventing the total combined filesize limit (which Megalith did repeatedly). And most of the time we don't care if your signature is 1 or 2 KB over the limit unless someone complains about it.

You know I don't remember it being that way. I remember most people thought the dimensions were fine as is.

What did we donate for exactly again? If we reduce the dimensions, it's only fair that the filesize is increased. I think alot of people get sick of seeing the same huge images over and over.

Past tense. Does that mean the 2 image rule is going to change in the future? Actually, what Megalith did was perfectly fine though, considering it was a single image with transparency which appeared as multiple ones. Just because they appear as individual images doesn't mean they are. It's good use of 550x300.

I don't see how that would be slower. As long as the total size of all the images is less than 50KB, I imagine the difference in time it takes to download the signature for 56k modems would be negligible.

Like I said, individual files. 56k users would automatically start trying to multitask, and download the files, and not as a whole. When you have an image(take your current signature, for example) and it's downloading slowly, typically it'll download from top to bottom, or appear invisible until it has loaded.

If the files were in pieces, they would start downloading from top to bottom, as individual files. What this means is that a signature broken up into pieces will only be partially visible, and will appear malformed on a 56k user's page, until it's downloaded fully, resulting in it being much slower than a full image.

Now if the signature-in-pieces was downloaded and their IE didn't display the images until they're downloaded entirely, that would mean parts of the signature wouldn't display at once, as other parts are being concentrated on for download.

Example:

http://img157.imageshack.us/img157/7992/16ht.png

It's all about multitasking for a slow modem.

Whereas, if you have a single image, your 56k connection is only concentrating on a single image, and therefor will download faster. This way is better, because your modem doesn't have to cope and deal with multiple images. And it'll look something along the lines of this:

http://img20.imageshack.us/img20/6541/27fa.png

2 images still sounds fine. The miniature images of 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, all being clickable just to rate you in your signature(which I bet half of the users with the intention of giving you a serious rating would never use) really isn't necessary, Eleo.

I still say, up the filesize but lower the dimensions.

Okay that's retarded for two reasons. One, if you saw the images broken up like that you'd smack your browser and F5 it until it got it right. Two, you're talking about 56k here. They have been dealing with a broadband internet world for years now. This is a yawn procedure for them by now.

Sorry Elixir, but Eleo is right. Having an image spliced into 4 partitions doesn't increase the load time by all that much because you're still downloading roughly the same amount of data. And if you're going to talk about the increased number of connections that have to be made, don't forget that there's pipelining.

Moreover your modem is constantly "multitasking" anyway -- there's more than fifteen images (not counting sigs and avatars) on a single GFF threadview page to be loaded. And we're disregarding the cache, too.

It is retarded, but that's how it works. I was on 56k for over 5 years, it was a painfully long road of torture but I got used to it. I learned and picked up on these things as thei nternet went along, while everyone else enjoyed DSL and then cable.

Bigblah, if you're going to support Eleo's "let's have 13 small pieces of shit in our sig" theory, do something about it and have the amount of images in signatures increased. Do something.

Edit: "Your file of 31.0 KB bytes exceeds the forum's limit of 30.0 KB for this filetype." Oh brother.

I'd have no problem with the limit. But I can't push the 24bit version of my sig below 83KB. The reason is caused by the fact that when I try to set an exact color for the outside (the part that blends in with GFF's background), it changes color. If there'd be any way to make this not happen when saving to Jpeg, I'll be very greatful.

Oh and if someone nice wants to do the above for me, you can find the image here. Just save it as a Jpeg @ 100% quality.

As for the dimensions, the width is alright at 550, but the height at 300 is really huge. If you want to reduce the size, I'm all for reducing the height. Maybe down to 200 or so.

I just did that, and it was a one-step process.
http://img227.imageshack.us/img227/6356/segasig9st.jpg

I even print-screened the preview, and there is no color difference between the image and the table background. And it is well within the new filesize limit.

It isn't hard, you know, but I use Paint Shop Pro, and it does have some different tweaks in saving files. I'm sure these tweaks exist in some form in Photoshop, though.

http://img69.imageshack.us/img69/680...osig6137gl.jpg

This is when I saved it as JPEG on photoshop. I don't see any color difference here.

EDIT: Is there an obvious difference with this one?
http://img90.imageshack.us/img90/504...osig6137rz.jpg

One is saved from his sig, one is saved from the link.

I think he's just doing it wrong, really.

It is possible, with the correct wrong settings, to have it mess up the dark blue background, for whatever reason.

:itisamystery:

I didn't say I supported it. I only corrected you on the technical details.

Look, some guidelines here take precedence over others. We'll take action on the most obvious ones like filesize and dimensions, but for sigs that breach the image count with a total filesize below the limit, it's more probable that we'll let it slide. If we're going to be absolutely nazi about this rule then any sig with more than two smilies is technically in violation, since smilies ARE images as well.

It's frustrating enough to have to deal with the camp that complains about overly stringent policing, and the camp that makes journal entries when we don't enforce the rules to the letter. Maybe we should install one of those hacks that automatically do it for us. More than 2 [img] tags detected, 1 byte over the combined filesize limit, and vBulletin rejects your sig outright. Absolutely no leeway, and it's fair for everybody. Would anyone be satisfied with that?

I didn't know it was a theory :confused:

Also, "shit" is so condescending. That was one of the best signature images of all time! I prefer, "13 pieces of win and good".

Why not take away signatures altogethor? it's not like anyone cares or reads signatures other than their own.

Let's make avatars smaller too. 90% of posts on GFF don't even take up as much vertical space as the avatar of the poster.

It was about 50/50; at first many people agreed that the limit should be smaller, then it kind of shifted to a group of others saying that it's fine or should be even bigger because gosh, who doesn't have broadband nowadays! So, nothing really came of it in the end.

p.s. rate me 1 2 3 4 5

I have broadband and I still don't care to see 200kb animations in someone's sig no matter how amusing they're supposed to be.

If someone feels having a flailing anime character in their avatar is their only way for distinguishing themselves from other posters, they should work on coming up with a personality instead of more Photoshop.

^ What Q said.

Obviously the solution to our problems is to go and do what Raspberry Heaven does.

No sig restrictions, whatsoever.

A php random image script, grabbing a LARGE image of an anime character.

[said character] is a good [whatever this character is]

or

[series said character is in] fucking [rocks/blows ass]

And a few animated gifs of hilarity for good measure.

::gffs awesome rating goes up 50000000%::

Example:
http://img205.imageshack.us/img205/5...example8yx.jpg

Obviously this is the standard we should all follow. Go forth, spawn more people like OneGreatTurtle, Portable, hannable and shut!

And I suppose we could also just replace "anime" with whatever else. But you get the point.

I think that is an excellent idea and henceforth Serious Business Elitist Forums will have no sig restrictions whatsoever

(promise)

Elxir, I don't know what you're talking about with the donating money for increased sig sizes, since the people who wind up paying for the massive sigs is everyone download. Lots of people use imageshack and other sites to host their images, so it's not like there's tons of bandwidth that's being saved at GFF.

Also, I had remembered the image limit being placed long long ago to stop people from having shitloads of stupid looking pictures in their signatures. Personally, for a sig like eleo's where it combined to make one big one, that's fine. But I don't need 20 little unrelated 25x25 squares telling me about all of your interests.

Actually I use The GIMP for all my intensive painting needs. Of course it could be caused by my other photo program, Irfanview, which I use to convert PNGs to Jpegs. Usually the color ends up being 1-3 shades of blue off the current GFF background.

I think Sigs should be banned or accepted on an individual, stylistic basis. In other words, mods should have the power to remove sigs for being ugly and shit, fuck size restrictions.

That's very subjective. Explain more, Shin. Maybe with examples?

Well anything huge and badly thought out that does nothing but proclaim the name of some anime or a game should be got rid of. Sega's for example is garish, overly large and basically pointless.

I just don't personally see why people feel the need for huge pictures under their posts. I think it detracts from what a person is actually saying. Sigs are fine when they serve a purpose. If they're funny or tell you something about the user then they're fine but it's really not hard to do that without resorting to some fuck off great day-glo picture of some random anime chick or Cloud wanking over Tifa's tits (Actually, that'd make a pretty good sig).

It's just personal preference, mate and I realise I'm in a huge minority. I just dislike large, obnoxious pictures in signatures.

Basically I consider people with huge crap sigs the same as people with generic anime face avatars and don't bother reading their posts properly.

"Huge minority", oxymoron-tastic. XD

Why do I suddenly feel bad for having a big sig pic. Damn you Shin.

Well, personally, Shin, I think what's really wrong with www.sega.co.jp's ava/sig is that it's two completely different interests. It's fine when someone like Mush does that b/c he changes them a lot but sega always has this huge Ghost in the Shell Stand Alone Complex 2nd Gig sigpic which never matches his avatar. What the hell does metal sonic have to do with GitS SAC 2nd Gig? Nothing, that's what, and neither have any of the other avatars he's had (as far as I know). He's always had that damn sig with no matching GitS avatar.

Unless you're going to pull a Mush, have your ava/sig be around the same topic.


Also, Shin, you're biased against anime and so while I'd love it if it were easy enough for you to just right click on a huge anime sigpic and tell it to not display (unless there is a firefox plugin for that) there's not much we can do about that.

I watch anime often enough, and yet completely agree with Shin.

Also, since when do signatures and avatars have to match? If Sega The Awesome Username had some cyborg girl for avatar, it wouldn't make the sig any less pointless.

Actually my GITS sig was just a placeholder until I find a newer sig (since I had a copy of it. Soon, I'll make a PNG transparency of Metal Sonic.
And Shin, your sig is an expression of what you like/who you are, it's like a T-Shirt. If an old man had a Pokemon T-Shirt, it'd be out of place yes, but that's up to the person who creates it. Considering everything you've said to me has been condescending, I don't respect what you say very much anymore...

I don't like sega's sig because it's dull and blurry. But that's entirely personal taste. Then again, I've never seen Ghost of the Shell or anything relating to it(it's an anime, right?) so I can't complain about it that much.

I think ava/sig combos should be matching, otherwise it's just annoying. Though anybody who hasn't seen Guu probably doesn't know that Acer's avatar matches his signature, and vise versa.

It's awesome that you think novelty T-shirts are a good way to express one's personality, but that's a weird analogy.

They don't. I think the point here though is that something that annoys me isn't true for everyone.

I mean who are you even talking about? Merv? Perhaps there is a reason there's a big-eyed anime character in his ava/sig. Yeah, that would be because he's watching Wandaba Style right now.


Well yeah, if anyone was that curious by now they'd know that they can click somewhere in my sig and find a couple easter eggs that'll tell them what my ava/sig is from or they just PM or IM me which has happened quite a few times. A couple of times I've even provided them with said anime to enjoy. Does your ava/sig give you chances to share your interests? [/braggart]

Well that's super; good thing that image is there, otherwise I wouldn't have known that he is watching it. Ho ho ho. See, I don't really want to complain about any sigs per se, anime or not, but when you start saying that limits should be raised so that you could put larger animated dance sequences in your sig, that just makes me wonder.

What is so terrible about that? I'm only asking for 200kb. That really isn't much. In order to get 200kb for a glorified dance sequence as you'd call it, it most likely couldn't be huge anyway to look half decent.

http://img146.imageshack.us/img146/5525/bleh017ou.gif

or

http://img146.imageshack.us/img146/7389/bleh025fv.gif

Both just under 200kb.

If that's huge to you then maybe you need to up the resolution on your monitor from 800x600 and join the rest of society.

Yeah, because not wanting the board overrun by 200 kb animated gifs like some Dragonball Z fansite definitely has direct relation to my screen resolution.

Actually that'd be nice. For the low bandwidth users, why not give them the option to load the first frame only of the animated GIF? That would turn out to a 10KB Gif at most.

On another note:
I'm trying out a Sonic CD Sig now, it'll have an ugly black background until I make a decent transparency, so live with it.

New sig is looking pretty good sega.co.jp

See, it would be nice if we could just have an option you can set so it doesn't display sigpics over a certain chosen size. That way Aardack could set it to 5kb and get a sigpic every century or so and the rest of us could get on with our lives.

Or even better, submit a thumbnail, or a 16color version of the sig. Imageshack makes a thumbnail, so why not GFF?

Dude, honestly, I didn't realize that not being able to put a movie in your sig literally put your life to a halt. If your situation is honestly so grim, then seriously, go ahead and do it; no more complaints from me.

Actually when making quotes with pictures in them on Something Awful it automatically makes a thumbnail of the picture to make the quote smaller. I think it's pretty nifty.

Look dude, I put a lot of time into my ava/sigs and when I'm about to export it and I find out I have to remove 80 percent of the color or resize it until it's tiny and loses a lot of its detail just so it can meet our tiny 50 kb limitation for sigpics I get a little pissed off. Oh and that's AFTER I do a ton of tricks to optimize it in attempt to shave off a couple kb already. I only wanted my current bear sigpic at 200x150. That's hardly asking much but OH NO it's over 50kb. It's easily under 200kb but man that's just too friggin' much to ask for. Go over 50kb and suddenly you're ruining the Internet ESPECIALLY if that gif you've spent a couple hours on comes from an anime. An anime! For fucking shame! For that atrocity I should be locked in jail with all the pedophiles, rapists, and furries!

Well, these sig rules have been in place for a long time yet you kind of act like they just popped up every time you make a new .gif sig. Not that I don't like the stuff you make, but is it really that necessary? You make some fine static images as well, so I just don't see what's the huge deal.

Then again, in regards to sigs, I am pretty passive. If whatever I make happens to be too big, I just crop/resize. Avatars, on the other hand...

Since when did effort spent on a sig implicitly justify a relaxation of sig restrictions?

I think anyone who rails so much to be able to display these in their sig doesn't have much of a right to complain about what other people display, as you did above.

I don't see why we really give a fuck what people put in there, as long as it's work safe and doesn't distract from having the ability to browse GFF in a timely manner, which is why the sig limit is set low. A signature is a personal expression, so as long as it doesn't ruin someone else's experience (like huge sigs or nudity would), it's fine.

200kb is unnecessary and it has the potential to make 5 MB page downloads based off sigs alone. No, no, no.

No actually, I've been fairly okay with 50kb. I just like overreacting here because people start going crazy when you go over the limits around here because a couple kb is really gonna kill you. I can't remember if I was as vocal the last time around but I remember Aardy wanting filesize and dimensions reduced for some reason or other and I think that was and still is a crap idea and I'm going to tell him it's a crap idea otherwise who knows someone might actually listen to him.

I don't see what the big deal is. People tolerate 200 kb pictures in posts all the time. So let's just say I decided to get rid of my signature and just post the signature code everytime I post. Would I have to abide by the sigpic rules then? Is it suddenly spam? There are people who sign their posts with their name all the time and they don't get warnings or anything. I see that as almost the same thing.

Really, I don't know who made the 50kb cutoff but they must of had static gifs and jpegs in mind when they made that decision. If you can make an animated gif that looks great, comes out at the size you want, and still makes it under 50kb then that is great, but I don't think if you work that hard that you should have to dumb it down just so it can make that limit if it happens to be over it.

Double Post:
BlueMikey, fuck off. It was just an example of what an animated gif with a decent amount of frames would look like as a 200kb sigpic. I thought one of the big complaints was that people were saying that one of the reasons for not wanting to up it to 200kb was people would just make really huge, long annoying gifs and so I showed that as an example to prove if you wanted a long gif it's going to end up pretty small if you don't want it to look like total shit. I never said I was going to use it as a sigpic. It was just a god damn example. Because really I can make super fucking annoying animated gif avatars and sigpics easily within the limits now if that's what you think I'm aiming for.

I would probably never hit the gif ava/sig scene, even though I'm currently making guu gifs. It's fun, but with the restrictions currently in place and even if I did have a clue on optimizing them, it would still come out as a watered down version of the real thing.

I think people don't want everyone having animated gifs - and that, crappy animated gifs. If this situation changed and SSJ3 wasn't banned I'm sure he would dig up a gigantic 300x width Goku with hair floating around like it's underwater. Of course nobody wants that.

Obviously not everybody is going to have a 200kb sig, animated or not. It just makes animated gifs even more difficult to deal with. It's not like we're incapable of changing the replies per page to what, 25 or something. And if somebody decides to clean their cache it'd be a perfect solution.

Viewing 100+ replies per page isn't really necessary either. Even if 200kb seems steep, 100kb does not. Say everyone had a signature that totalled exactly 100kb. That means 10 users = 1 mb. That means 20 users is 2, 30 is 3. I don't have a problem downloading 3 mb worth of images once, which is then stored in your cache and doesn't require you to download them multiple times to view a page. And it's not like you're never going to see the posters in said thread in other threads, so the ones you've already downloaded will already be there.

"But, see, I made this car. With my own hands. The only problem is that it doesn't go below 50 miles per hour. I hope that's okay, officer. See, you shouldn't get mad at me. Put that ticket book away, I did make the car after all, it was hard! It's not my fault that the car doesn't fit within your laws."

I said something, then deleted it, then typed something completely different, and deleted it again. Too easy, sir.

I will reiterate that I don't really give a shit as long as it doesn't make the download too huge and is something we can all safely view at work. Your plan fails these parameters.

Speeding is a pretty shit example, Mikey. That's like telling me I should be punished for downloading a big file too fast because I'm on a good broadband connection. Uh oh looks like some kilobytes were flying down that information superhighway too quickly and endangered some kilobytes going the good ol' speed limit we set around here. That's complete idiocy.
I'm not quite following what you're saying there.
My sigpics are work-safe and since, unless you have a really shitty webbrower that has no cache what-so-ever, you only have to load them once and whenever you see a post of mine again that image is already there.

If Acer gets his huge fileseize limits because he puts plenty of effort into his gifs, can I claim I put tonnes of effort into biggermiu and have that as a sig? If we can increase file size limits, why not file dimension limits too! I don't like having too trim down my huge as all fuck images just so they fit within your puny standard resolutions!

Comparatively, it's not that much more aggrivating a sig than the inevitable 5 minute DBZ powerup sequences we'd be getting under a limit like is being suggested here either.

Sorry son, biggermiu doesn't fit in the sig dimensions which I think are just perfect at the moment but hey maybe you can get away with it on April 1st or something. ='D

But money was donated! And 56k resolutions less than 5000 x 3500 is lame! People with shit displays had to deal with horizontal scrolling since FOREVER. GET WITH THE TIMES.

Hmmm you might have a point. I mean I haven't experienced some good horizontal scrolling in a good while, what with my 1920x1200 resolution monitor. A few biggermiu sigpics would really enhance my experience. =)

Be careful what you say. I could take this as staff approval of this idea, you know.

Acer. If your problem is having spent a load of time on something and wanting to show it off, isn't that what Creators Cafe is for?

I didn't mean to sound like it's only large anime pics I dislike, it's large pics of anything that I find objectionable. Anime avatars I dislike simply because they all look exactly the bloody same to anyone with only a passing interest in the field.

If people want a huge, animated sigpic, why not make a thumbnail version themselves for their sig and link to the bigger picture so anyone who's interested can go look (As I believe Acer has at the moment).

Alternatively, could the option to not display pictures while browsing be made more specific so as not to show sigs or avs or pictures all together? That way the filesize could be increased, the 56k kiddies could turn them off and Acer could put some longer cartoons under each of his posts.

Personally I don't care about the filesize so much as the dimensions (and gaudiness). I browse GFF in a window a third the height of the screen (I don't want people at work reading over my shoulder) and often the entire window is full of someone's sig. I'd also quite like an option to turn off the banner at the top for the same reasons...

Well you could but I'm not sure how well that would pan out with the higher ups.

"But Acer said!"
"But Acer... fist to your face! Sigpic deleted!"

lol no my problem is I felt like being a bitch in this thread. ='D

Yeah my roommate's friend dislikes anime for that reason too.

Yeah actually that's one of the reasons I started putting links in my sigpics was that since I had the limitation I could at least let people watch a clip or sequence of what I was referencing since I wouldn't be wasting people's bandwidth so much if they weren't interested.

Yeah, I think giving users the option of setting the max amount of kilobytes that can be displayed in a sig is a very good idea. The more options the better.

Yes more options! I'd really like it if we could create our own profile settings. So say Shin is at work; he has it set so that no sigs are displayed and no banner but everything else is enabled and he names that profile @Work. Then at home he just uses the default profile everything enabled. How hard would this be. Hell would it be so hard just to make a new style called @Work like Lite Set?

Maybe I can bribe Miles. (Who will only say no until some other staffer says yes. In which case Miles will then demand his payout.)

Shin: Firefox + Adblock will solve your image problems. Just right-click and select 'Adblock image' and it disappears from the page.

Also, I love that people are throwing around this idea of people having an option that allows them to only show sigs that are a certain size and under. Exactly how do you plan to do that? My sig pic is linked from my image host and therefore there's no real way of vBulletin knowing what size any image is in it. So the easy way around any such restriction would be to host your image externally rather than in ChocoSig.

The simple solution, though, is as above. Firefox + Adblock.

Well I don't know if it's possible to have a script or not that just checks files before they are displayed or not or if it would have to load those files anyway. Yeah I only suggested it as an idea if it were possible.

I host my sigpics on imageshack anyway, OP, so I already had that in mind to begin with.

It might be possible to do some sort of initial check, but then it depends on how the image is hosted and loaded. If you right-click my images and do 'Properties' you'll most likely see that it says "size unknown". This is because I use some funky scripting to display images from my image host and adds further complication to such an idea.

Don't get me wrong, it's a great idea in terms of "Wouldn't it be nice if...", but it's just not practical, or necessarily feasible either.

As for options for enabling/disabling avatar and signature displays I thought we already had those, or were the lost in the Great Board Reset of 1706?

Controversial topic! Who'd have thunk?

Personally, I'm in favour of increasing the number of allowable images in a signature, so long as the maximum file size limit is still enforced, whatever its size may be.

Analogies on (or off) the internet don't work period, if one pretends to be totally dense.

It is indeed possible to automate sig filesize checking with php, even with multiple images or dynamic images. Heck, there's already a vBulletin hack for this. It's not implemented because (a) we're not nazis, (b) we're lazy. Only one of those statements is true! (don't look at me, I don't have server access)

To allow users to determine their own sig filesize restrictions, however, will place significant load on the server while it parses and checks each image. This can be alleviated by adding a signature filesize field to the user table which is updated whenever the member updates his/her signature. This won't be accurate for dynamically generated images (though it's unlikely that those generated images will differ that wildly in size each time).

And Acer, it's not hard to make a @Work style (and I simply don't understand why you're taking such a whiny tone with something that's an entirely new suggestion), but we're not going to. Check your user CP, there's options to turn off signatures, avatars and [img] tags completely.

Ah good, I wasn't imagining it then, they are still there. Good-o.

Were they always there or did you just add them? Either way, hoorah! I now no longer care what anyone has in their sigs.

What? I thought bobo had agreed to grant server access for all admins and especially you. That sucks. :(

Yeah, I wondered if checking sigs all the time would take a hit on the servers. Personally, if this were ever to be used I'd have a default where the process was disabled so users that didn't want to limit the size of sigpics didn't have to tax the server with that process while those who did want the limiter would be the only ones doing so.

The whiny tone is me probably just being tired for staying up too late too often. Sorry guys. But I think the @Work style would be nice for those at work. I mean, I don't know how it works when you log onto another computer but doesn't it always load up the style set or is it on an individual browser/computer basis? I'm gonna go test this...

Yeah, I just logged onto GFF on IE and set it to Lite Set and then in Firefox when I refreshed the forums it was in Lite Set. Then when I went over to my roommate's computer and logged onto GFF it was also on Lite Set.

It would be nice if you could do it for a per computer basis so that when someone goes to work they don't always have to switch it from default to Lite Set everytime. Just an idea. I'm sure it's not that big of a deal but it would save people the trouble of having to go to Options and switch every time they go to work or come home.

Oh hmmm... just noticed that in Lite Set you still have to disable avatars and sigs and whatnot yourself. I thought it came like that before. Perhaps that was only in the old forum. So yeah change that from Lite Set to having them have to turn on and off avatars, sigs, and what not in addition to maybe switching to Lite Set in Shin's case (remember he doesn't want to see the banner either).

By the way, the option to turn off avatars is broken, as always.

I like the avs and [images] though... :)

Yeah, that's why it would be nice to have profiles that you could just have loaded at specific computers i.e. work and home.

for the fig I doN,t know but maybe you could put someone to check them up, I mean a little like a moderator but for sig only?

it's not really the best idea I know, but anyway is aid this because myself, maybe because i'm a sig maker, when I see a big image ina sig I always check to see if it's not oversize >.>

Actually, we used to have people that would attach random files to their posts, attach an extra signature image before the signature, or post a random picture at the end of every post. In each case, they were warned and told to stop (which they did).

Ah this is good to know. Thanks RR. =)

I just took down four sig perps in a row. God, I love this job.

I thought there was less need to do so now we have automatic checking or something. Or is that only for people submitting sigs from now on (I guess).

Good that you guys are keeping an eye out either way.

Yea, I think the older signatures are grandfathered in., since they were uploaded AFTER the implrementation of the rule was assigned.

Which means that the sig police aren't quite YET obsolete!

Too bad the automatic signature checker is a terrible piece of shit.

You can have signatures that don't break the rules and it'll still say it breaks them.

Like how so again, Merv? =o

OK, I was messing around with it, trying to find it's limitation, and to see if it could be beat.

Let's take a future sig I'll have:
It will tell me "Your signature image(s) are too large. The maximum dimensions are 550w x 300h in pixels and the maximum filesize is 50.0 KB." despite the fact that both images, totalled together, will not be greater than 50 KB (the viralsound image is hard to determine, but I don't think it ever gets too large.) Nor do they total more than 300 pixels in height.

The example signature does NOT break the rules.

However, once I remove one of the images, it's OK. So, apparently to the checker, even though you have a max of two images, you obviously can't.

That sounds like total crap and should be checked into immediately.

"Removed" would be a more adequate term.

I'm sure there's plenty more errors with it that I could come across, if I cared to seek them out.

Must be some missing conditional in the postbit template. I'll look into it someday.

Merv: seek them out.

I'm not going to actively seek them out, mostly because I'm not very good at that kind of stuff. I mostly came across that bug by chance, really. I just wanted to see how a sig I did would look in the space (disregarding the fact that I'm following the 75kb rule with my current sig.)

But if I do come across any more bugs by chance, I'll report them, and I do encourage those that are willing, to find the bugs in this system (mostly because I don't really like it.)

Part of the problem is that there is at least one easy way to circumvent the checker (by the way that Miles explained to me that it worked) that anyone wanting to use a larger signature could do. This checker, assuming it didn't throw out false negatives, would only keep people who don't want to break the rules from breaking them. People who want to break them still can.

Looking around, I found a blatently obvious way to circumvent it (that was so simple I couldn't believe I didn't think about it,) but we might not be thinking the same thing.

And so those people will receive warnings. I think most of the people who break the rules just do so unintentionally. The sig checker is still useful in that regard.

The problem is, how can people know if they're breaking the rules?

We say a 50kb max, which the checker checks, but we have an uploading system that allows for 75kb. The checker thinks we only allow one image, when the rules clearly define that we can have two.

Our rules, and the "main" enforcer of these rules aren't on the same page. This is something we should worry about more than people breaking these rules.

The checker allows 2 images. It is set to allow 2 images. If it doesn't, those 2 images probably break one of the other rules together or something, or the system is buggy. (You should report the bugs in the actual feature thread instead of this one so they have a better chance of being seen).

As for the 75kb thing, that's bobo's mistake. When he created chocosig again he must've forgotten about the 50kb limit. I can try to find a way to make it correct if I can find where this little hack is stored.

In my example, the error it throws says that my images are either larger than 550x300 (which they aren't, they total to 450x216,) or larger than 50kb (they would at most total 25kb, I believe.)

The system is buggy.

I think there's a fair amount of desire amongst the user base to up the limit.

This 50kb shit is ridiculous. I don't honestly see where it can make that much of a difference. To 56k people that's what, a half second increase in loading time per signature image? (This is assuming the image was at 75k.)

Hmm, so my signature was mysteriously deleted. Ok, fine... but I would have liked a PM or something TELLING ME, instead of just "BAM, UR SIG IS LIKE TOTALLY GONE". Also, why was my signature just NOW removed, when these rules have been up for a month?

Clearly if it was against the rules, then it would have been logically removed within a day, but I've had my SOAP extension up for more then a week.
(This thread's Creation Date: March 6th, today is April 4th, close enough)

So, when it says image dimensions, does this go for each individual image, or all together? The latter is the only reason I see mine being removed, because I carefully made sure to have both images LESS then 50k.

So, yeah I'd like an explanation.

I have no idea why your signature was removed. Any mod could have done it. :3 *stealth edits your sig*

Oh, I know it's just a slight increase and it wouldn't really matter much. We just don't wanna change it since we enjoy watching everyone beg for the increase all the time. Our goal is to make your experience here at gamingforce the worst one possible. =D

The explanation is in the first post, which you obviously didn't read.

The wording on here still connotates that each individual image has a max of 500 by 300, not both images combined. THAT IS WHY I ASKED right now.
Also, I DID read it, back when I added the second image, and it came out to around 45-47k IIRC.

My only real complaint is that I was given no warning or message indicating that I had allegedly violated the signature rules.

What part of "550 pixels wide and 300 pixels high. Total." is unclear to you?

I explained what part in my above post.

...but I'll spell it out:
It was unclear to me if "Maximum image dimensions: 550 pixels wide, 300 pixels high (total)"
was meant to indicate both images, or the max dimensions of a single image.

Uh, if it referred to a single image, why would there be the word total?

*sigh*

The signature guidelines are in place to prevent stretching tables on a display 800 pixels wide and 600 pixels high. The total number of images you are allowed to have in your signature. The total filesize the image(s) in your signature are allowed to take up is 50kb, and the total area the image(s) in your signature are allowed to take up is 550 pixels wide and 300 pixels high.

If the limits were meant to allow two images that could each be up to 550 pixels wide and 300 pixels high, it would stretch the tables on a 800x600 display, would it not?

THINK, STUPID!

when I see total for something, it's not for just one thing but for ALL of them >.>

and btw Merv Burger I don,t understand how you're sig is now 73kb when you come here and evryone is telling you that the maximum (and TOTAL which mean all images in the sig, just in case Dark nation didn't understand again) is 50kb ...

I sometime so have the urge to pm some mod, because I look often at the sig and everytime I see something suspicious(sp?) I check to see if the sig is in the limits... but most of the time when it isn't I don't really tell anyone, mainly because I don't know who XD and I doN,t think that is worth pointing every single sig that is out of limit...

Inhert, the "Report Post" button is there for a reason. See the little red triangle icon under a poster's information? Hit that on a post where someone has a bad sig and you can report it to staff so it'd be dealt with as appropriate. If you're using the Lite Set, this'd simply be a "Report" text link under the poster's avatar.

Someone knows how to right-click!

I'm using a sig that's over 50kb because I'm making a statement that I support the Chocosig guideline of 75kb.

I'll ask you a question, did it take any more time to download than my 50kb version?

Chances are, it didn't.

I was about to change it, but since you decided to just go and point it out, I'm going to keep it for longer, now.

And nobody was tell me to change my signature. In fact, I've said at least once that my signature was following 75kb.

Actually, I've been using it since Chocosig was put back in. Although, I'm serious when I say that it's retardedly simple to bypass.

>.> now I feel stupid... I never notice this or even know what it was doing >.<

and yeah I did say I look often if sig are under limit XD

What's this "our goal" bullshit, Miles? I'm all for 75kb. I support Merv on this all the way.

Because your sig was up for an entire month. That's a major infraction!

I'd like to know just how many people on Gamingforce download under 1mbps. I think this thread indicates that there are little members who have 56k or a slow connection speed. This means that 75k per signature wouldn't be a pain for most people, or the majority.

Even if it were set at 70kb. That's pretty reasonable, and that's 100kb per user when you total their avatar with their signature. If people have problems loading lengthy threads, they can shorten their posts per page.

The fact that it was up for a month with no warning or anything, would logically be assumed (By me at least) that "Ok, my signature is fine, no rule violation, sunshine and a day at the beach!". If there was an infraction, it should have been addressed much sooner then an entire month. That is the problem I have.

OH SHI--

LOGIC!

...Well no denying the truth. I shall shut up about that then >_>
Curiously, how many users here still have 800x600 sized monitors? I figured the average would be 1024x768 or 1280x1024. ...but whatever: I had a HUEG signature, and now I don't :tpg:

It's not that we were picking on you or anything. It's just that you flew under the radar for a very long while until recently.

I have a quite fast connection, however that doesn't mean I want to download gigabytes of shitty animated signatures per year. In principle.

That said, 75 kilobytes would be okay. It's not too much of an increase, and would be reasonable, considering that the 50 kb limit was set many years ago.

I thought the 50kB limit was mostly a safeguard so we don't end up with thousands of annoying animated GIFs in signatures all over the place.

Like that annoying kirby sig acer had a long time ago. =p

Anyways, if Aardu-chan is ok with an increase to 75kb then so am I.

I bet if it was Tails instead of Kirby then you wouldn't have any problem with it. =p

So that's a yes for 75kb sigs from Miles, Aardy, and myself. Who else on staff says "Aye!"?

The rest of the staff sayz: "lol it's pretty damn easy to reduce 25kb off your image and still keep it in good quality."

And anything animated in a signature is annoying period. Including something with Tails. =p

It could be worse. HTML could be enabled allowing for the use of Flash sigs. You think animated GIFs are annoying? ^_^;;

VG, there are plenty of other reasons for not allowing flash and html than that but that's beside the point which is FUCK YOU MILES! =D

I've had animated gifs in my sig before which weren't annoying and you know it. Just because it's an animated gif and well by nature it's moving doesn't mean it's always annoying.

As I've said, I'd be fine with an increase to 75kb.

To clarify Styphon's statement of the rules, the total image dimension limit is to not stretch the tables vertically for a single-line post.

Which means if your two images exceed the table width for a 800x600 display, the second image will wrap to the next line, which will then stretch the table vertically instead.

I'm quite aware of all the HTML flaws in vBulletin, plus there's idea that somebody could say "Hey my sig is only 4kb!" when it's streaming content that could be easily in the MB and undetectable other than how long it takes to load.

And the fact that you hate me.

I don,t see why evryone wat and increase in the sig limit... look I made planty of sig here and never had any problem with the 50kb and every time my sig still are in very good quality... sure its not a lot of difference to up it to 75kb, but this will change almost nothing if you can have a very good quality in 50kb...

75kb will more easily allow you to use PNGs as your signature rather than JPGs. PNGs allow alpha transparency, so you don't have to make a background layer that is the same color as the table background. Sometimes JPGs save wrong, so the background color is off, making it noticeable when used.

I'd rather prefer 100kb for PNG signatures with alpha transparency, but I'm not going to push this.

Ok, I'm assuimg 75KB is the new limit. *Makes large PNG sig for no reason*

And either update that sig checker or remove it entirely. It's annoying to have to use that circumvention technique.

*go check the limit in the sig setting*

nop they haven't change >.>


oh and come on, how many more time (or sec should I said) that it take to put a blue background on your sig... all you have to do is when your sig is finish, make a new layer, take the paint bucket tool and voilà! (omg I took 5 more sec to make a sig that look exactly like a .png that take twice filesize!)

I know that. Hence the "I made it for no reason" comment.

If we're allowed to make huge as hell sigs I might as well abuse the priviledge.

Hell I could make it a GIF if I felt like it and it would look fine(ish). That's not the point though. =o

Did you even read what I said.

JPGs are prone to sometimes saving wrong, making it off-color to the background.

Using alpha transparent PNGs, you save yourself the trouble. And they're also lossless.

I bet you even use Internet Explorer, huh.

I use firefox duh >.>

and I never had problem with .jpg if you put the background at the end and save it with the "save for the web" ...

I've managed to find two different ways of evading the "Your signature is too big. Max dimensions are 550w by 300h blah blah blurrrrrrrrgh" message.

So I'm not entirely sure of what's happening here. Since the majority of people/staff have said 75k, is 75k allowed or is it uncertain? I've seen a couple of people with signatures the size of 50~75k, so I only assume it's been changed.

Bumping so people might get to work getting rid of that sig checker. >_>

The limit is still 50k :/

I was trying to change my signature recently and was having a hell of a time implementing it using the same (if not less than) dimensions of the set I am currently using. For whatever reason, I would have to take this signature to 119x100 in order to be displayed with my Last.FM signature. As you can see, with my current set total length is more than with this new configuration yet VB is saying my total dimensions are over the limit. File size is not the problem as it is well below the max. I don't know if the PHP generated sig is getting penalized or I am just overlooking something obvious? I have tried an old GW signature that uses roughly the same dimensions and it also said it was too big when used along with the scrobbler sig (keep in mind I had used this before in the same setup.) So obviously something is up, as the combined dimensions are 385x259 and about 13KB total. Now I would prefer not to make any changes, for fear of being unable to go back to the existing configuration after doing the headphone chain avatar/sig witout drastacly reducing the image size.

Bump.

And the point of bumping a sticky is? =[

I don't think anyone cares anymore about the signature checker or dimensions.

A lot of people care about the signature checker, myself included. It is highly retarded.

Quote for truth.

And for good measure:

Just adding to the "Hey can you fucking nix it already" crowd.

Seriously, it can't be that difficult to remove, or at the very least, alter to reflect the new sig rules.

I'd like to know whether or not the sig limit is still a maximum of 50k, because Skills has a 73kb sig.

Elixir. Buddy. You just responded to a month-old post to tell Acer his concerns are outdated.

Think about that.


IN OTHER NEWS: Still no justice for avatar size queens

It depends on what you follow.

I say it's 75k. Some will say 50k.

The opening post in the thread says 50kb.

I also like how pang totally missed the timestamp on Elixir's post while making fun of him for replying to an old post.

The consensus reached in this thread on the previous pages, if you bothered to read it Lix, is that the new limit is 75k.

Since that conclusion was reached, I've had at least 3 sigs that are over 50k in size, as have plenty of others. It's not hard to conclude based on this that the new limit is 75k.

I'm just complaining because the damn checker hasn't been updated with this yet.

Edit: RR, reading over the last few pages leads me to believe that the new upperbound is 75. Is this or isn't this true? Now I don't even know.

It's not true, as far as I remember it was just people wishing the limit had been increased so that's what they all decided to assume.

I haven't been killing sigs recently because for some reason firefox doesn't report image sizes properly when I look at their properties. =/

Miles said 75k was fine over the phone.

So it's back.

(For now...)

*dramatic chord*

I was modded today. So it's fine to put all the text in spoiler tag, right?

That looks fine to me now. It was just incredibly long before.

The rules aren't as clear as they should be, but it means that all images and text combined should be no larger than 300px high. The line about not stretching the postbit is what really matters here.

Anyway, since font tags can be used to fit more text in with smaller sizes, I think it should be the same with spoiler tags.

there's a lot of sig recently that doesn't follow the sig rules(GoW and Secret of Mana) and apparently it doesn't seem to bother anyone (well anyone but me)

I doN,t really car that they are bigger or are over the kb limit, it's just that I know if me I would have done it, it would have probably been moded...

so all I'm saying is if you want to make some signature rules, at least mods should apply them for everyone...

They sought special permission, and it was granted. Next.

Hey, just wanted to ask, is this sig alright? I know it's technically three images, but between them they make up far less than a normal sig would. Just wanted to check and be sure. I respect the rules, I do.

I think it should be fine.

Yeah, looks alright to me.

The three images are consistent and match, the original two image limit was mostly set because people kept using a dozens of smilies and numerous random images of varying sizes and quality in their sig, when a single image would look much nicer.

Hah! Blah went all Quentin Tarantino on us there for a second. "Because you're a fucking chode, that's why. Next."