I'm not talking about the graphics Tweil designed for this site's decor; those are quite nice, and comfortable widths for the average page. =)

What I'm referring to are images in signature lines which are far wider than they need to be. |I I'd suppose some of these folks are aspiring graphic artists and amateur web designers who have no other outlet than a message board... or maybe they just don't know any better, or are too inconsiderate to care. Or maybe they ventured into Paintshop 101 once, spent 43 hours futzing around, and are now afraid to edit the graphic cuz they might mess it up. Or maybe they're people who have concluded that everyone else uses the same browser size and screen resolutions as they do.

Look, I might be the minority of those who would actually speak up (again), but I know from chatting with others here that I am not the only one who doesn't keep his browser windows maximized. Not the only one who browses these forums casually while doing work. *looks over shoulder*

Don't want to name names, but it doesn't take a genious to figure out who the offenders are. Just wish they would go make a homepage to express themselves, and spare the rest of us their extravegance at the bottom of every single post.

/rant on
In other words, Attention all you my-sig-is-wider-than-your-sig bastiges: this is a discussion forum, where content is king -- that means posts, text, writing! Make all the double-wide-trailer graphics you want ... just put them on your own site and put a link in your sig. Then if we want to see a bunch of gratuitous frilly graphics we can put on our darkest sunglasses, slide resolutions to max, and risk permanent blindness by visiting your site.
/rant off

Bottom line: if your sig is much bigger than Sobe's, you are in desperate need of counseling. :P

~Firemynd

I'm not talking about the graphics Tweil designed for this site's decor; those are quite nice, and comfortable widths for the average page. =)

Actually, the header graphic is 448 by 76, and Sobe's signature is smaller than that. Yet you said if your signature image were larger than Sobe's, you need counseling, and you also said that this site's graphics, which include the header obviously, have a comfortable width. Which is it? LOL

My signature image is currently 369 by 98, which is narrower than the comfy header graphic yet wider than Sobe's, so I presumably need counseling.


What I'm referring to are images in signature lines which are far wider than they need to be. I'd suppose some of these folks are aspiring graphic artists and amateur web designers who have no other outlet than a message board... or maybe they just don't know any better, or are too inconsiderate to care. Or maybe they ventured into Paintshop 101 once, spent 43 hours futzing around, and are now afraid to edit the graphic cuz they might mess it up. Or maybe they're people who have concluded that everyone else uses the same browser size and screen resolutions as they do.
I actually don't miss the days of having to design and fix feature articles, so I don't wish for any particular outlet other than the sporadic maintenance of my company's site.

Don't want to name names, but it doesn't take a genious to figure out who the offenders are. Just wish they would go make a homepage to express themselves, and spare the rest of us their extravegance at the bottom of every single post.
I find nothing wrong with the file size of my current image or the width.


/rant on
In other words, Attention all you my-sig-is-wider-than-your-sig bastiges: this is a discussion forum, where content is king -- that means posts, text, writing! Make all the double-wide-trailer graphics you want ... just put them on your own site and put a link in your sig. Then if we want to see a bunch of gratuitous frilly graphics we can put on our darkest sunglasses, slide resolutions to max, and risk permanent blindness by visiting your site.
/rant off

Bottom line: if your sig is much bigger than Sobe's, you are in desperate need of counseling. :P

Firemynd, the staff has already limited file sizes to 30K, and we posted this new guideline for everyone to see. We do notice huge-@#%$ sigs that need to be edited out, and we do remove gigantic ones. We also ask regular posters to please modify their file sizes to fit in at the 30K mark or so -- IF we can reach them by email.

I'm all for standardizing a certain width and height, but I also don't like anal regulations that demand images be exactly 200 by 75, for example. We need to strike a balance between self-expression and housing association rules -- hey, I can't just put up a flagpole in my front yard or add crap to my house that violates the community rules -- ROFL!

I think as long as the graphic doesnt make you scroll from side to side with an 800x600 resolution it would probably be fine for most people. That would probably be no more than 450-500 wide or so since the message area only takes up about 2/3 of the screen. I think your sigs are always neat Miss Fox. :)

Any addition of cleavage allows for an additional 50 pixels of width without an issues from me.

This sig ain't going anywhere :)

Been tested on 640x480, so the only problem would be if you were running on a PDA or something :p

Actually, the header graphic is 448 by 76, and Sobe's signature is smaller than that. Yet you said if your signature image were larger than Sobe's, you need counseling, and you also said that this site's graphics, which include the header obviously, have a comfortable width. Which is it? LOL

My signature image is currently 369 by 98, which is narrower than the comfy header graphic yet wider than Sobe's, so I presumably need counseling.

Reading Comprehension 101:
Pay attention to what you're quoting; adjectives should be considered before implying that the person contradicted him/herself.
I said, "~if your sig is much bigger than Sobe's~"

Reading Comprehension 102:
Emoticons like ":P" are often used to indicate the preceeding sentence as a tongue-in-cheek comment.

I find nothing wrong with the file size of my current image or the width.

I didn't name names, and certainly didn't name yours in my original post, MissFoxfyre. As a matter of fact, by simple comparison of your graphic what those I considered a "comfortable width" you didn't have any reason to take my rant personally. :)

My post also didn't mention file size, because there is an existing guideline to cover that sort of inconsideration. If mods weren't enforcing it enough, would have to be someone else's rant anyway, because my connection speed makes image file size nearly irrelevent.

I'm all for standardizing a certain width and height, but I also don't like anal regulations that demand images be exactly 200 by 75, for example.

I agree. Requiring a minimum doesn't serve any useful purpose, but having a "maximum" width and height allowance is an appropriate guideline for just about any online discussion forum.

~Firemynd

Good idea but unenforcable via EZBoards. You've got these two options only:

Graphics Options
Limit Personal Icon Size
Check this box if you want to limit the size of personal icons to 10X10

Limit Personal Photo Size
Check this box if you want to limit the size of personal photos displayed in your board to 60X60

That's all I could find. If anyone runs an EZboard and knows if there's a "limit signature size" option, let me know and the mods will look at it.

Tongue-in-cheek or not, your comments were about graphics on this forum, and as such, that affects me and everyone on staff and whether or not we should adopt tighter sig rules.

That's all I could find. If anyone runs an EZboard and knows if there's a "limit signature size" option, let me know and the mods will look at it.

Doesn't necessarily have to be a technical thing. Could include mention of signature line width in the existing Posting Guidelines (http://pub13.ezboard.com/fthedruidsgroveboardpostingrulesandpolicy.showMess age?topicID=1.topic) :)

~Firemynd

Tongue-in-cheek or not, your comments were about graphics on this forum, and as such, that affects me and everyone on staff and whether or not we should adopt tighter sig rules.

You replied to the wording of one line, essentially claiming I was contradicting myself -- which anyone could easily interpret as an attempt to make my point seem less valid or less thought out.

I responded to that jab, and even specifically clarified that your sig line width wasn't what I was referring to.

Now you mention how this affects the "staff" as if to infer that my post was targeting you guys. Simply not true.

I wish you'd drop the defensiveness and either support or not support the idea of including signature width in the board's posting guidelines. In your first reply, you seemed in favor (or at least neutral).

~Firemynd

I love sig images.

But if you are going to make changes to the sig guidelines...

PLEASE BAN THE MARQUEE TEXT SIGS!.


Most annoying feature since <blink>.





Speaking of sigs, time for a smoke.

I wish you'd drop the defensiveness and either support or not support the idea of including signature width in the board's posting guidelines. In your first reply, you seemed in favor (or at least neutral).

For crying out loud, Firemynd...if someone posts a concern, the staff takes it seriously -- at least most of the time. LOL.

The rest of my response was a reply to the rantish nature of your post, and if I sounded defensive, it's because you seemed pretty upset but refused to name the offenders. I also deduced that since my sig was wider than Sobe's, you were including me, so I directly responded to that issue by saying I didn't find the width of my image so appalling.

As was discussed in our mod discussion, we feel that no dimensions need to be adopted for now and that the file size limit is our main guideline for removal.

I hate large-@#%$ sigs like you do.

As was discussed in our mod discussion, we feel that no dimensions need to be adopted for now and that the file size limit is our main guideline for removal.

Is there any ezboard feature that would allow one to completely ignore posts from certain other individuals? There are a few who posts here quite frequently with graphics near 600 pixels or wider.

As for 'refusing' to name names, I didn't want my post to be considered a personal attack (flame) in any way. It actually wasn't intended to be so much a rant as simply something for people to think about and possibly talk about (read: discuss).

My message was originally posted on the general board, because that's where it would be seen by most people, and perhaps draw feedback from a broader segment of the community. When a mod moved it to rants, I realized I had probably shot that motivation in the foot with the rantish style. But then, I had posted about this once before, more as a polite request, and people pretty much ignored that ... probably because it lacked enough bite for them to feel it. |I

BTW, since the post was indeed on the rant board when you replied MF, I'm having trouble imaging how its "rantish nature" was such a shock that it merited extra attention. :P

~Firemynd

All the staff can do right now is read threads and remove obnoxious sigs.

To implement a dimension limit would take time. I'm all for artistic expression that doesn't cause disruption. But new rules involve more than just me. I look at the Safehouse mods who have to remove sigs all the time, and it's a headache.

I think our best approach is to remove sigs and remind people of the rule on a per-case basis.

But you could put a little note in your text sig that says, "Down with obnoxious graphical sigs!!!"

But you could put a little note in your text sig that says, "Down with obnoxious graphical sigs!!!"

LOL that'd probably be a good idea, 'cept I don't have a saved sig.. I just type my ezboard name with a squiggly in front of it. Original? Nah, but I'm probably the only one around here who does it, so it's kinda sorta like my own thing. :p

I'm not knocking sig lines or even graphics ... heck, that gyrating hamster never fails to lighten my mood a bit. :)

As for having a sig line myself, though, I've always felt that elaborate signatures had better place on official letters, not at the bottom of notes scribbled between acquaintences in a community... hence the squiggly I always put with my board name; it's sorta like jotting your first name at the bottom of a memo to an officemate or friend.

The ONLY time I loathe sigs is when it causes The Aggrevation that is horizontal scrolling... sucks the fun right out of looking at other people's graphics. Heck, maybe I should just take 10 minutes to copy and edit all the sig graphics that are too wide, and post the shorter versions on every page the wider versions appear... as a hint to their respective owners. Hmm..

~Firemynd (look! it's the squiggly thing!)