Maximum signature dimensions

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.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

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 =/

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by Elixir

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Elixir

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.

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.

Most amazing jew boots

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.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Originally Posted by Elixir

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.

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 was speaking idiomatically.

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

(promise)

Most amazing jew boots

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

FELIPE NO

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.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Originally Posted by Kaleb.G

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

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

Merv: seek them out.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

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.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

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

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.