Maximum signature dimensions

Originally Posted by JUST DECLARED WAR

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

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!"

Originally Posted by Shin

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?

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

Originally Posted by Shin

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.

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

Originally Posted by Shin

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).

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.

Originally Posted by Shin

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Shin

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...

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?

I was speaking idiomatically.

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.)

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

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.

FELIPE NO

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.

Most amazing jew boots

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?

How ya doing, buddy?

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.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by BlueMikey

"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."

CAR ANALOGIES DO NOT WORK ON THE INTERNET

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

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

How ya doing, buddy?

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.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Originally Posted by Bigblah

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.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Originally Posted by Bigblah

Check your user CP, there's options to turn off signatures, avatars and [img] tags completely.

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

FELIPE NO

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).

Most amazing jew boots

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

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by AcerBandit

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).

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

There's nowhere I can't reach.

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.

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

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 >.>

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

Originally Posted by AcerBandit

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.

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).

I was speaking idiomatically.

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

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

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

FELIPE NO

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.

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

Originally Posted by OmagnusPrime

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!

Jam it back in, in the dark.

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.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Like how so again, Merv? =o

Most amazing jew boots

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:

Quote:

[internet] | [blog] | [flash] | [#gfchat stats]

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.

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

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

I was speaking idiomatically.