It's only your sig that does it.Originally Posted by jdbnsn
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).
Re: Sig sizes
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).
i5-3570k @ 4.40GHz // R9 380X @ 1020MHz // 2x Samsung 850 EVO SSDs // 2x 2TB HDDs
Fractal Design Define R2 XL "Monolith"
Re: Sig sizes
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!
People are stupid; given proper motivation, almost anyone will believe almost anything. Because people are stupid, they will believe a lie because they want to believe it's true, or because they are afraid it might be true. People’s heads are full of knowledge, facts, and beliefs, and most of it is false, yet they think it all true. People are stupid; they can only rarely tell the difference between a lie and the truth, and yet they are confident they can, and so are all the easier to fool.
Re: Sig sizes
is mine fine?
CPU: Q6600 G0 3.5GHz@1.4v (4.2GHz max) / 4790k 4.8ghz @1.265v
GPU: 9800GTX /GTX780 hydrocopper
Ram: Samsung 4GB /gskill 16gb DDR3 1600
Mobo: EVGA-NF68-A1 680i (P32) /AsRock Extreme6
PSU: Enermax Galaxy 850Watt /EVGA 850 G2
HDD: OCZ 120GB Vertex4, Samsung evo 840 250GB
LCD: Samsung 32" LN32A450, Samsung 226BW 22" wide
Sound: Logtiech Z 5500
CPU & GPU: 3x Swiftech MCR320, 2x MCP655, MCW60 R2, Dtek Fuzion V2, 18 high speed yates @ 5v
Re: Sig sizes
It will be far too high. Mine's 400x100. I'm untouchable
Re: Sig sizes
Don't worry about the sigs quite yet, when we have reached a decision I'll let you know.
"At the midpoint on the journey of life, I found myself in a dark forest, for the clear path was lost..." -Dante Alighieri
Re: Sig sizes
Jon
Glad to see this issue raised.
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)
Re: Sig sizes
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
Re: Sig sizes
Plus rep. thanks for pointing that out man.
Re: Sig sizes
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
Re: Sig sizes
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.
Posting Permissions
