Sig sizes

[jdbnsn]

Hi Folks,

Things are getting out of hand on the sigs, I'm asking everyone who has not been given the OK by admins to reduce the size of their sigs to 400*150. I'll wait a day or two and then start swapping out larger sigs with our ugly "oops, my sig is too big...." banner. Exceptions to the rule include modder's challenge winners, staff who are adding TBCS related ads (like mine and Rankenphile's but actual sig graphic will be limited to standard), and anyone who has cleared it with us. Thanks everyone.

http://www.thebestcasescenario.com/jdbnsn/example%20sig2.jpg

[DaveW]

Bumpity Bumpity Bump!

Pay attention people! :p

-Dave

[jdbnsn]

Hold off on changing your sigs until further notice, we may decide on a new size. I'll keep you posted.

[Scotty]

New size.... hmm thinking most people are gonna have 1024 pixels wide then 5500x150 should be ok, i like that size looks nice.

[DaveW]

most people are gonna have 1024 pixels wide then 5500x150 should be ok,

Methinks there be a typo. Or you suck at maths. ;)

-Dave

[Zephik]

Can I have a sig a page long? Please? PRETTY PLEASE?

haha, only kidding. That would just be ridiculous. I'm happy with my sig, its small, its neat AND its helpful! ...kind of. Its kind of like a crap shoot, you might be looking for plexi, but unless you are lucky, you'll probably click into a site dealing modders mesh. lol

[Omega]

I'll be honest -- On my 1024*768 rig, any sig over 450px wide is freaking huge.

And, for instance, Jon's takes up two lines for images.

It's not a huge deal, I'm just saying.

[jdbnsn]

hmmm....maybe we should consider something even smaller. I use a widescreen with 1680*1050 so I never noticed.

[Jim Beam]

Accually I agree with smaller just because it seems to generate nicer sigs.

[Luke122]

Can I have a sig a page long? Please? PRETTY PLEASE?

haha, only kidding. That would just be ridiculous. I'm happy with my sig, its small, its neat AND its helpful! ...kind of. Its kind of like a crap shoot, you might be looking for plexi, but unless you are lucky, you'll probably click into a site dealing modders mesh. lol

I was thinking , "who the hell is Zephik? look at that post count, how come I've never heard of them?"

Then I smart'd. :)

[Omega]

hmmm....maybe we should consider something even smaller. I use a widescreen with 1680*1050 so I never noticed.

It's only your sig that does it.

The 400px width isn't that big of a problem. It's the height. That, and the fact that I like thin but wide sigs (Hence, 400*75).

[Zephik]

The 400px width isn't that big of a problem. It's the height. That, and the fact that I like thin but wide sigs (Hence, 400*75).

I agree, I definitely like thin but wide sigs much more. Its so much cleaner and neater looking. It also cuts down on load time, even though I'm on DSL. Hey, I'm an impatient person, .08 seconds is like an eternity to me!

[Spawn-Inc]

is mine fine?

[Cymae]

is mine fine?

It will be far too high. Mine's 400x100. I'm untouchable ;)

[jdbnsn]

Don't worry about the sigs quite yet, when we have reached a decision I'll let you know.

[Crazy Buddhist]

Jon

Glad to see this issue raised. :up:

Would I be right in thinking these sig sizes were set when more users will have had screens running at 800 x 600 and on dial-up?

I'm running at 1024 x 768 and I find any sig up to 550px wide is fine. I don't suppose there are many members left running smaller screens and fewer still on dial-up.

How about a slighty more flexible policy? you can go a bit wider if you have less hieght? I'm with Omega with the view that wider and thinner looks great. Mine used to be 550 x 80px and it looked good until I was asked to change it. It used less bandwidth ad looked better on the page than the one I use now. I did change it despite being aware I was one of many people who had pushed the envelope a little.

Some threads with lots of short posts have 80% of their length taken by fat sig pics lol. How about something like:

Up to:

450 x 150

OR

550 x 100

CrazyB

(actually I think 550 x 100 would be the best all round bet - get more posts on a page and they look very slick - 150 is too fat imho)

[DaveW]

We're discussing it in the Staff forums, so you might as well all throw your opinion in here before we make a decision.

-Dave

[Crazy Buddhist]

Another option to remember, people, is to change the amount of posts per page in your preferences (User CP)
...

-Jeremy


Plus rep. thanks for pointing that out man.

[DaveW]

Haha...a lot of people changed that, but at the same time people tend to refer to things by their page. Remember to quote page numbers-I had mine set to 100 but changed it back to 10. :) Got confused by the 'see page 3' style comments.

-Dave

[Redundant]

Previous sig was actually 625x120 (the one with the text).

I just changed mine. This sig was originally 30 pixels wider but downsized it in PS when I viewed this thread.

As for the PPP (posts per page), I set it to max the first time I went to the CP. Nothing new there.

[jdbnsn]

Just a heads up, we are keeping the standard sig image size at 400*150 pixels. Anyone who's sig exceeds this will have it removed so please be sure to check your image's size and resize if needed. Thanks!

Jon

[Crazy Buddhist]

Could we have a 500 x 100 alternative?

[jdbnsn]

Not at this time, sorry.

[xmastree]

Am I the only one who's noticed that jdbsn's sig, with its three images and three lines of text, is absolutely huge compared to the ones (like mine) which are 'too big'?

Just a thought.

[Computer-Geek]

I think tbcs staff get to have any sig size since they keep tbcs running :) Also his sig is advertising for this website and his mod.

[Crazy Buddhist]

Am I the only one who's noticed that jdbsn's sig, with its three images and three lines of text, is absolutely huge compared to the ones (like mine) which are 'too big'?

Just a thought.

xmastree

No you are not, but in Jon's defence his actual sig is within the set size limit and the rest is TBCS advertising, within his role on the site.

Personally I would appreciate an understanding of why a 500 x 100 alternative couldn't be offered rather than a blank no. Aesthetically more pleasing, lower bandwidth and not a problem with todays screen sizes, imo. And the only person who made a complaint against wider sigs has a sig thats wider!

Please understand I am not being difficult: Community means a group that talks: If you want a functioning community without confusion and conflict explaining your logic/decision process is a big help.

When I was asked to reduce my sig by one of the mods I did so immediately. It seemed at the time he was taking out some personal friction on me. It made me feel pretty annoyed and reinfoced that impression as I watched him post all over the shop on pages with other sigs bigger then mine and make no comment.

I haven't said a word about it since but I think it is part of that same dynamic of creating a functional community that people are seen to be treated fairly and equally.

Matthew

PS xmastree I like your sig and will miss it. One of the classier ones around imo.

[xmastree]

No you are not, but in Jon's defence his actual sig is within the set size limit and the rest is TBCS advertising, within his role on the site.So what is a "sig" then?
I thought anything below the line was the sig.
If we followed Jon's example we could have one "sig" and as many pictures and as much text as we like alongside it...


PS xmastree I like your sig and will miss it. One of the classier ones around imo.I can trim it if necessary.

[Crazy Buddhist]

So what is a "sig" then?
I thought anything below the line was the sig.
If we followed Jon's example we could have one "sig" and as many pictures and as much text as we like alongside it...

xmas

John's example as I explained is in no small part TBCS related advertsing and we are not free to follow him as he is a mod and we are not.

We are free to debate and discuss issues and argue for change in a respectful manner. If we aren't free to do that I am sure we will be told.


I can trim it if necessary.

I would love it not to be neccessary. Failing that as I have said I'd like to understand why it is.

Matthew

[jdbnsn]

We want to keep the sig images uniform, 1 size fits all sorta thing. The staff (owner included) discussed and voted on several different sizes and resulted in a 3 way tie. It's easier on everyone if we choose the standard size that the majority of people who read the rules already have rather than have the majority resize theirs. The extra images on my sig are spreading awareness for TBCS community projects. If you wish to add similar images which are TBCS related you just need to clear it with us first, but I don't have any problem with it. I realize that you may have grown attached to your sig images, but you will still be able to express yourself within the regulation size. The reason for this recent action is a growing number of people ignoring the policy and posting sigs well over the limited size.

[SgtM]

IMO.. it's nice that we can even have sigs. Crimson can (at any minute) decide to cut it off. Stop arguing already. 400*150 is plenty of space.

[Crazy Buddhist]

Jon

My last word on the subject. OK it was three way tie amongst staff. The majority of opinions expressed on here by users seemed to be for wider and less tall.

This situation is reminiscent of some obscure history - something I know is close to your heart (lol); Railway guages were set at standards too narrow for human comfort. in the early days of railway there were wider guages in use but then the system got standardised on a narrower one.

To this day we pay the price: if the standardisation had been to the wider guage we would enjoy faster and more comfortable and more spacious trains but there were more narrow lines in existence when the standardisation was agreed so they went with "what is". It was a poor decision in the long run.

I can't see that having a choice of 400 x 150 or 500 x 100 would be any harder to police. Would the staff please reconsider that as an option?

If a choice were given, over time I think people would migrate to wider and less tall. Over time that would add to the visual clarity of the site. It would not mean a blanket instructon for 90% of users to immediately change their existing sigs.

I could have thought a php module or some other filter to automatically replace the sig with a standard "I have a nobby sig" one if it exceeds those limits could be knocked up pretty quick.

Matthew

[Xpirate]

This situation is reminiscent of some obscure history - something I know is close to your heart (lol); Railway guages were set at standards too narrow for human comfort. in the early days of railway there were wider guages in use but then the system got standardised on a narrower one.

It amazes me that trains can be 10 feet wide while they ride on a 4 feet 8 inch track. I never thought about it until I started working with the railroad industry. I'm not certain but I believe that the advantage to a narrower guage is the fact that they are more stable in turns.

Back on the sig size topic: I usually don't use a sig, but I do on this forum because we don't have avatars here.

[Crazy Buddhist]

I'm not certain but I believe that the advantage to a narrower guage is the fact that they are more stable in turns.


That doesn't make sense scientifically at all. The opposite is in fact true. The guage was set narrower in Britain, which lead the world in Railways, because there was more of it when the decision to standardise was made.

(see below - Brunel was right)

From British Railway History (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/johnmoore/rail_history/):

1838 - The pioneering Great Western Railway (GWR) opened its first section from Paddington to Maidenhead in June, using a 7 foot gauge.

Isambard Kingdom Brunel was the first chief engineer of Great Western Railway and thought that a wider gauge would mean that coaches were less cramped and that the railway would run more efficiently.

....

1846 - 'Railway Mania' started when 273 railway proposals received Royal Assent. The Gauge commission met and decided that Stephenson's 4 foot 8.5 inch gauge would become Britain's standard and that Brunel's system would have to be changed.

[Xpirate]

The guage was set narrower in Britain, which lead the world in Railways, because there was more of it when the decision to standardise was made.

I did a little more research and I found that the only advantage to narrower guage is the fact that you can make tighter corners with it. You can not go as fast with narrow guage track and the rail cars can not be as heavy. It is like comparing a sports car to a truck.

The world probably would be better off with wider track. We could have larger rail cars and move more freight.

[Crazy Buddhist]

The world probably would be better off with wider track. We could have larger rail cars and move more freight.

Told ya :lick: looool

[D1337]

Am i the only one who thinks the current sig size is still too big <.<

I wish the userbar fad would come back, that way i dont have to scroll down the page for half an hour.

[.Maleficus.]

IMO.. it's nice that we can even have sigs. Crimson can (at any minute) decide to cut it off. Stop arguing already. 400*150 is plenty of space.
I agree. If you want people to see an image any bigger than that, put it in the Graphic Arts forum. Correct me if I'm wrong, but a sig is a signature. In real life you don't sign your name 4 inches tall and 8 inches wide, and it shouldn't be any different here. IMO, big sigs are tacky and make the entire page look bad. 400x150 is a good size to make whatever statement you're trying to make.

Big sigs are especially bad for people like myself who are still running at resolutions like 1024x768. Because when you get to a size that small, ANY sig looks big.


And, if you like wider and "sleeker" looking sigs, make them 400x75 or 400x85. It gives the same effect and is allowed by the staff.

[Crazy Buddhist]

Am i the only one who thinks the current sig size is still too big

I think it's too high, but not wide enough - if that counts - so then, no.

[Ironcat]

Be happy with what you got people. 400x150 is plenty of room and we have all seen the amazing effects a little bit of effort can produce.

[Crazy Buddhist]

Am I the only one who's noticed that jdbsn's sig, with its three images and three lines of text, is absolutely huge compared to the ones (like mine) which are 'too big'?

No ... am I the only one to notice he's removed the three lines of text since you posted this? :D :D :D

talking of which:

"1. Signature Sizes: Text in signatures should not exceed 4 lines of normal sized text or 8 lines of small sized text. Text signatures should not exceed 500 characters. Font sizes above 2 are not allowed. Blank lines in text signatures count as lines."

At least one of the site staff has seven lines of normal size text in their sig, not particularly promoting TBCS in any sense.

If you want this community to grow and function harmoniously play by the rules you set guys. If you do not do so you will constantly be fighting dumb battles.

[xmastree]

"1. Signature Sizes: Text in signatures should not exceed 4 lines of normal sized text or 8 lines of small sized text.
Hmm, that's not as clear-cut as it appears, since the number of lines of text displayed depends on the width of the viewer's browser window.

But we're getting petty now.

[D1337]

I think it's too high, but not wide enough - if that counts - so then, no.

I dont mind it being wide, except when it causes the post box to stretch.

Also some of these sigs are oh so ugly to look at, but i'd rather not disable my viewing of sigs, because then i miss out on links and being able to look at some of the quality art.

[Crazy Buddhist]

But we're getting petty now.

That's what happens when people have different sets of rules for the ruling class and for the ruled classes. That was my point: Petty dumb arguments take over.

[jdbnsn]

It's very disappointing to see what fuss you folks are making over 100 pixels. End of discussion, fix your sigs.

[DaveW]

For the love of god give it a rest. If this carries on I swear i'll yank sig images altogether, see how you like that.

-Dave