is it time to review sig rules?

Star Lord

Hi folks!

Just wondering if it is time that sig rules should be reviewed again?
I've been informed that my current one breaks the sig rules. I know it is two images totalling about 35k, but how many people would even notice this amount loading anymore?

The last time the sig rules were reviewed was in August 02, and a lot has changed since then. Most people that would be using boards are now on broadband, and are using screens that are at least 1024x768.

I am not suggesting allowing huge sigs, but reviewing the rules so that there is a little more freedom in them. Hell, I would even help as a "sigpo" because I find the ones that are huge, and stupidly flashing animations annoying as anyone else!

I'd suggest that animated images are still a no-no, as while you can get some subtle, amusing and nice looking ones, the majority are awful looking.
That there is a cap of say 200px on total image height, and 600px total width, with no single image exceeding 300px X 125px. My current sig would be something similar to this.

This would allow a little more artistic freedom in the sigs, while keeping the file sizes down, and keeping the pages readable without ridiculously large sigs, and without annoyingly large vertical page space taken up by the sigs.

What say ye?

And perhaps a filesize limit of 40k total?

aidan_walsh

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=53081210&postcount=21

DeVore wrote:

Well, this is an interesting topic and often people come up with ideas that we include or amend. In fact right now there are two discussions going on about political party advertising in sigs... most of them are mixed sigs too. We have to revamp the sig rules to accomodate them and perhaps rejig them entirely.

I'm waiting to see what the new vB gives me in terms of control as it might be pre-inventing the wheel if we set rules down now.

DeV.

Rabies

From the same thread

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=52940355&postcount=1

Boston

If your signature is bigger then your average post, theres a problem.

6th

Personally, I find your sig a distraction but thats based on just seeing them now. If you posted 4 times on the one page of a thread then it would diffinately be a pain.

I do find some sigs funny and helpful so I keep them on but as they are is fine.

Star Lord

Thanks Aiden.
Funny, under the suggested rules by that guy, yours would be breaking the rules! :eek:

BuffyBot

Frankly, the current sig rules are a bit too generous for my liking as they are.

padser

Have to agree...

Also it took about 5 minutes for this thread to load for me....now I know why - DamoElDiablo posted twice

Citizen_Erased

I would change them - I would bring the max height down from 125 to about 100 , the height of the sigs is the problem more than anything . (Yes my current sig is a contradiction of what I just said)
But I think a mass review of the sig rules would be one of the sign of the apocalypse for boards.ie

muffler

Why does anyone need a sig in the first place?

Unless of course they are advertising something

Star Lord

padser wrote:

Have to agree...

Also it took about 5 minutes for this thread to load for me....now I know why - DamoElDiablo posted twice

:rolleyes: Do you know how things like that work? It doesn't load 2/3 seperate copies of the image. If an image appears more than once, theres still only one copy downloaded to your computer and the Internet browser does the rest.

[edit]
I've just changed mine now anyway, was kinda getting tired of the other pic, it'd been there a while

6th

Well seeing as you are aware of the sig rules you obviously have no excuss for breaking them

Star Lord

True, but I did not think the same rules were enforced, as its just under 5 years ago that they were set.

Yeah, ignorance on my part I know.

oleras

DamoElDiablo wrote:

but how many people would even notice this amount loading anymore?

At least One........

DamoElDiablo wrote:

Most people that would be using boards are now on broadband,

I am not most people........

A sig at most should be that, a sig. How many people sign their name with large pictures ?

Star Lord

oleras wrote:

How many people sign their name with large pictures ?

At least one...

oleras

DamoElDiablo wrote:

At least one...

You won me over............im going to change my mind....do you see what it is yet ? do you ?

Star Lord

So long as we agree never to mention his covers of Bohemian Rhapsody or Stairway to Heaven!


:eek: oops...

oleras

DamoElDiablo wrote:

So long as we agree never to mention his covers of Bohemian Rhapsody or Stairway to Heaven!


:eek: oops...

Now you made me think of "2 little boys"....... wipes a tear away.......

brianthebard

This thread is fantastic, "is it time to review sig rules?"-translation= I like my sig but you think its too big. Please change this. Great stuff.

Blowfish

I'm not quite sure how the four lines of text rule was supposed to work. I'm running at 1600x1200, so four lines is a lot more than someone running at 640x480.

Saying that I find that sigs just get in the way anyway so have turned them off. It makes threads far cleaner, and it also reduces the amount of scrolling (yes I know i'm incredibly lazy).

As far as I understand it anyway, vb3.6 has enforcable sig rules. i.e. its actuallly impossible to upload a sig thats bigger than the set maximum.