PDA

View Full Version : Aren't the signatures kinda getting out of hand?



XyZspineZyX
09-18-2003, 02:10 AM
Not everyone is running DSL or cable, and some of these signatures are way too big. It makes opening up a large thread not worth it at all. Don't even start about all the double signature posts that keep happening. A quarter of the sigs aren't even really IL-2/FB related.

Is there a switch where I can disable signatures?


Oh, and leadspitter, I know I am gonna catch hell for pointing this one out, but aces FREQUENTLY came back with ammo. Alot of them fired only 4 or 6 barrels worth of their .50 cals to leave 2 barrels with for the trip home, just in case they ran into trouble. Gabreski told me he used to do that.

Oh well, flames commence.

XyZspineZyX
09-18-2003, 02:10 AM
Not everyone is running DSL or cable, and some of these signatures are way too big. It makes opening up a large thread not worth it at all. Don't even start about all the double signature posts that keep happening. A quarter of the sigs aren't even really IL-2/FB related.

Is there a switch where I can disable signatures?


Oh, and leadspitter, I know I am gonna catch hell for pointing this one out, but aces FREQUENTLY came back with ammo. Alot of them fired only 4 or 6 barrels worth of their .50 cals to leave 2 barrels with for the trip home, just in case they ran into trouble. Gabreski told me he used to do that.

Oh well, flames commence.

XyZspineZyX
09-18-2003, 02:21 AM
I can't remember what the guidelines are for sigs, but I'm sure mine (my first attempt) isn't going to cause people problems (especially the 56k'ers).
Its only 16K.
I'm on dsl so they all load pretty quick for me, but that being said it is a pain having to scroll on and on through the massive sigs...

<center>http://www.appy55.dsl.pipex.com/FB/squigsig.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-18-2003, 02:24 AM
hey well my sig is ok i think.


well i don't think it has to be related to this game because ubi shares all their forums of their games together. Not that I play them any/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

but i think most people should be on DSL or cable by now so for you 56kers. I'am sorry/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

________________________________________
http://www.anorexia.sk/starve.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-18-2003, 09:29 AM
If you are using internet explorer go to :Tools/Internet Options/Advanced/Multimedia and uncheck "show pictures"

This should make the thread load faster.



<center>
http://blankgiro.freewebspace.com/IL2/soapy112th.jpg
</center>

XyZspineZyX
09-18-2003, 10:14 AM
I think the size of the sig says something. If it's bigger than the message, it's more important than the message. If the message is less important than the sig, it's probably not worth posting. Many will not like this view.
_
/Bjorn.

fluke39
09-18-2003, 11:05 AM
ViperRaGe wrote:

- but i think most people should be on DSL or cable by
- now so for you 56kers. I'am sorry /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif


well i'm sorry - but this statement is totally wide of the mark.

there are many places that cannot receive anything other than a connection with 56k modem.
and i am not just talking about remote areas of africa.

i cannot recieve broadband or similar and i live in england.

also alot of people cannot simply afford faster connections.

the only option for me other than a 56k'r is a satellite connection and that is WAY out of my price range.

don't assume just that you have a fast connection, everyone else in the world must have.

p.s the Forum Rules for signature sizes is under 30k and no larger than 200 by 400 pixels.

as far as i am aware it is not up to individuals to decide that larger sigs are OK because everyone must have broadband or similar.

p.s and yes some sigs are getting WAY out of hand, again.




<center><img src=http://mysite.freeserve.com/Angel_one_five/flukelogo.jpg>

XyZspineZyX
09-18-2003, 11:36 AM
Well said fluke!

I too am in the UK and unable to get broadband in any shape or form.

Closest I can manage is ISDN, satellite would be useless due to latency and, unless uber rich and daft, is asynchronous - 56K up only via modem.

Yes turning pics of does work in IE/Navigator/whatever but is a fiddle!

XyZspineZyX
09-18-2003, 11:59 AM
Bring back scripts.

Fneb the fnebbing language filter, fneb it.

No scripts sUx0rS!!!/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

<center>http://homepage.ntlworld.com/steve.gorman/mortimer3.jpg

Nevermore!</center>

XyZspineZyX
09-18-2003, 12:17 PM
Just remember, 16k times 25 posts is a lot for dial up. I wish people would go back to using just text. Even on cable, it's a pain to have to load all these images.

Beta tester for;
C&C Generals,Independance War 2, Starfleet Command 2,Settlers IV, Tzar, Allegiance, Starfleet Command,MAX 2, Defiance

XyZspineZyX
09-18-2003, 02:05 PM
i don't care about sigs from a bandwith point of view, but from a readability point of view. I think it interrupts the flow of the thread to have this giant sig at the end of every post. Who cares about the picture besides the person who posted it? Or it would be nice to maybe only see each persons sig once per thread. even that i dont like, but would be a compromise.
in a lot of forums, they have an option where you can turn off sigs, or at the very least, disable the displaying of the pictures and have it display a link to it instead.

XyZspineZyX
09-18-2003, 02:19 PM
I think its kind of fun to show a bit of artistry (and thus personality) at the end of your posts. What I do not like is the giant uncropped pictures that take up most of the screen. A small and unobtrusive signature can be fun...dial up users don't have to wait for the image to load to read the text provided here so is there an issue that I have forgotten pertaining to image loading on 56k?

http://freespace.volitionwatch.com/icefire/icefire_tempest.jpg
"Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few." - Winston Churchill

XyZspineZyX
09-18-2003, 02:44 PM
I never would have had the moral courage to bring it up myself, but I am on 56k and many times I have aborted the long dreary wait in looking at a thread because of the unreasonable excess. This seems entirely to depend upon what forum members have responded, as the very next thread might open with no real delay.

I hate to be the one to say it, but they can be distracting if not outright obnoxious and not always in good taste. I rarely enjoy them, though those of reasonable size are no trouble. Some are quite nice in fact. The one just above this post is a good case in point: quick loading, appropriate, attractive image, the quote is in context and tasteful, even inspiring.

It is gratifying to learn that this minor annoyance is not just true for me, but that some others share this concern. It's not just the long delays in opening but aesthetics as well are at issue.


Also, I have read somewhere that by far most of the world's internet users are on dial-up modem, with high speed connections being very much the minority at present.

hans



Message Edited on 09/18/0306:54AM by Hans_Svetty

XyZspineZyX
09-18-2003, 02:49 PM
Soapy_112th wrote:

- If you are using internet explorer go to
- :Tools/Internet Options/Advanced/Multimedia and
- uncheck "show pictures"
-
- This should make the thread load faster.


LOL, so we should disable all images so that some jerks can recklessly continue ignoring the forum guidelines and post their megalomaniac sigs? That will make most internet surfing useless.

---------------
http://home.arcor.de/rayluck/sturmovik/stulogo-banner.jpg (http://home.arcor.de/rayluck/sturmovik/)

Kampagne für IL-2 1.2: I-16 - Kampf im Kaukasus (Deutsch) (http://home.arcor.de/rayluck/sturmovik/kampagne.html)



Message Edited on 09/18/0302:55PM by plumps_

XyZspineZyX
09-18-2003, 02:57 PM
Great, another jealous ***** who doens't know anything about how browsers work, b|tcing because many people are more creative than he can be. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

This communist sig complaining crap just sucks. Period.

XyZspineZyX
09-18-2003, 03:03 PM
I like seeing other peoples sigs on their posts, shows individuality and some great artwork.I do agree on there being a limit though, some have got out of hand.

-----
In memory of 'The Few'
<img src=http://www.lima1.co.uk/Sharkey/spitfire.jpg>
The Tangmere Pilots - http://www.tangmerepilots-raf.co.uk/
Know your enemy and know yourself; in a hundred battles, you will never be defeated.

XyZspineZyX
09-18-2003, 03:21 PM
I've been using this sig ever since the guidelines came out, so I know it meets the rules.

________________________________________
<FONT COLOR="red">NASCAR Winston Cup, the greatest sport ever</FONT>
<center><img src=http://ritterkreuz.freewebspace.com/images/sig.jpg></center>
<center>
<center>http://www.blitzpigs.com</center>

<center>http://www.il2skins.com</center>

XyZspineZyX
09-18-2003, 04:37 PM
Look at Cartrix's thread "Signature limitations" that it's up here for some reason.
He reports:

- Limited to one image per signature or a short text.
- 400x200 maximum (I guess pixels)
- 30k maximum

Just to give you an idea, mine here is 295x136 pix, 14.6k...



http://www.uploadit.org/files/170903-G55_Firma.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-18-2003, 04:38 PM
Hedus wrote:
- Not everyone is running DSL or cable, and some of
- these signatures are way too big. It makes opening
- up a large thread not worth it at all. Don't even
- start about all the double signature posts that keep
- happening. A quarter of the sigs aren't even really
- IL-2/FB related.
-

I use Opera, and I disable images when I check this forum. Occasionally I enable them when a thread has useful images (such as the FW190 view threads). The bloated sigs are a joke.

XyZspineZyX
09-18-2003, 04:45 PM
I guess this is a good place to "display" my new sig.



http://home.earthlink.net/~aclzkim1/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/il2sig2.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-18-2003, 05:10 PM
plumps_ wrote:
- Soapy_112th wrote:
-
-- If you are using internet explorer go to
-- :Tools/Internet Options/Advanced/Multimedia and
-- uncheck "show pictures"
--
-- This should make the thread load faster.
-
-
- LOL, so we should disable all images so that some
- jerks can recklessly continue ignoring the forum
- guidelines and post their megalomaniac sigs? That
- will make most internet surfing useless.
-
- Message Edited on 09/18/03 02:55PM by plumps_


I offered a solution, You can always then change the settings back when you browse the net.

Besides, it might not actually be the sigs that are causing the slow load of threads here.



<center>
http://blankgiro.freewebspace.com/IL2/soapy112th.jpg
</center>

XyZspineZyX
09-18-2003, 05:14 PM
No



The genuine Hawg-dawg....USA
Proud former member of Kelly Johnson's "SKUNK WORKS"
Fat Boys and.... Props Forever....Baby

Message Edited on 09/18/0305:15PM by Hawg-dawg

XyZspineZyX
09-18-2003, 05:19 PM
I think the real answer is to get UBI to have some sort of server side script that will not allow sigs greater than 30K or larger than 400x200 pixels.

Instead place a warning sig in its place with a warning that the sig is too big and also have it as a link to a thread with the sig limitations.

What do you think about this idea??

<center>http://www.appy55.dsl.pipex.com/FB/squigsig.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-18-2003, 05:22 PM
Sigs are definitely out of hand, both for size and more importantly, because they completely kill the flow and readability of a thread.

In most cases, it seems that the sig is usually much larger than the message itself.

XyZspineZyX
09-21-2003, 08:46 PM
Wow, I didn't expect the reaction that seemed to be a concern. Glad I wasn't alone in thinking the sigs are getting a little out of hand.