Sig's

[[CoW]J-Raw]

Is it because I haven't reached so many posts or can no-one add an image to their signature?

I made a new sig and wanna put it up, but the forum just replaces the [img] tag with [*url] tags though.
:confused:

[CyberDrac]

Don't worry ... no-one can.

CD

[GeeDee]

Sorry, no images in signatures on these boards. :)

[Mastacheif]

a few weeks back for a few minutes it was possible but sadly that was it

[[CoW]J-Raw]

Ah shame :(

I'll express myself in with text instead ~ Erm, struggling. damn.

[Jez_Gafys]

When u start seeing long threads with billion replies you start to fell happy that sigs dont contain images.

[RTO]

There's an option in your profile to turn off even seeing people's sigs too - if you're into that sort of thing ;)

[TimmyNoShoes]

There's an option in your profile to turn off even seeing people's sigs too - if you're into that sort of thing ;)

I couldnt live without that.

[[CoW]J-Raw]

Tut, you sigless people. :P

Yeh some sigs are annoying - the big, painful, flashing ones.

[[TrufF]Lazarus]

Yes Cow I miss the sigies also but totaly understand the point about long posts with sigs in being a pain:smile-l:

[Zenith]

It was bad enough when we had a spate of people with flashy animated avatars.
50x50 is nice.

No sig images is so much better. I look over a number of other forums and they are ridiculous with sig images.

[JeRkY]

agreed, keep MPUK a image sig free area!

[[CoW]J-Raw]

I could just resize my (roughly) 600 x 100 sig into a 50 x 50 avatar ;) ~ don't think it would have the same effect. :D

[UberMonkey]

i lose patience with a lot of forums with rediculous sigs... the ones that dont seperate the posts clearly are the worst...

and if happens to be a thread based on images ('show the world your beautiful face' 'i'm in your base killing your dudez!' etc.) its just extreemly annoying going through the pages seeing the same huge pictures over and over... diluting the greatness of the relevant images being posted


-sigs with images = bad

[[CoW]J-Raw]

Roger that.

[Kibit]

On the few message boards I have been admin for in the past rules for signatures are...


Signatures
You may optionally use a signature. Signatures are subject to the same rules as message posts, as described above under "Inappropriate Material". Your signature may only be posted once per thread so as to avoid interupting the flow of conversation.

Signature images must be no larger than 100 pixels in height and 400 pixels width, The file size must be no larger than 50KB.

If you do not use a image in your signature you may have a maximum of four lines of text at text size 1, or two lines at text size 2.

This is looked after by a couple of simple VB hacks saving admins/mods the extra work of policing the rule/s and is seen as a good compromise both allowing people to optionally use a signature image but restricted enough so as not to interrupt the flow of conversation.

[Portia]

J-Raw;561106']Roger that.

I'm in position.

[[CoW]J-Raw]

I'm in position.

Got it.
:icon15: Wanna play UT now! Too late, maybe tomorrow. :love:

___

Sounds some reasonable rules Kibit.

[Afty]

There's an option in your profile to turn off even seeing people's sigs too - if you're into that sort of thing ;)
I've had this enabled since the second it came out. Before that I had all people with unreasonably long signatures on ignore.

Threads with 40 one line replies fit in a couple of screens now... with image based sigs they take up about 20 screens, I don't have time for that crap! :)

[Afty]

but restricted enough so as not to interrupt the flow of conversation.I can read 6/7 short posts on one screen at the moment, add a 100 pixel image + padding to each of those and it will double the amount of page downs/mouse work a user has to do.

Image based sigs are a huge no-no.

[__OpenGL__]

Agreed, image based signatures are bad, some forums are really bad - with people posting megabytes of images in their signatures - its mad!

[wizard1974uk]

J-Raw;561106']Roger that.

I'm in position.

For a rogering? :eek:

[Buffy]

If there is the option to turn them off then people can do that, but at the moment we arent granted the option to turn them on


...YAY ASCI

[[CoW]J-Raw]

lol, I'll try create an asci *opens notepad*

I failed miserably - i made a J in "*" but then the spaces disappeared when I add it on the forums :P

[Neon]

All hail Whitespace!

I agree Afty, its just like people posting two posts one after the other ;)

[Nayr]

LOL!11

[Kibit]

I can read 6/7 short posts on one screen at the moment, add a 100 pixel image + padding to each of those and it will double the amount of page downs/mouse work a user has to do.

Image based sigs are a huge no-no.

What? Some of the text only sigs in this forum are already bigger in height then the rules I quoted would allow. And if you have switched sigs off in your user cp then regardless of if people have images or not you won't see them.

Don't get me wrong I'm not trying to get anyone to allow sig images in MPUK forums, I'm sure you've heard it all before and tbh if MPUK allow or disallow images in sigs matters not a jot to me.

I whole heartedly agree (and have seen on many a forum) huge sig images completely mess up any chance you have of trying to follow a thread but thats not what I was on about.

I was merely talking about sig rules I have used in the past with no problems and in fact because there was a limit on the max sig image dimension size allowed I found that most people made there sig images the max allowed dimensions and added one line of small text. This made everyones sig look totally uniform (as in all the same dimensions) but still allowing a totally unique (custom) image for each member