Images in signatures

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**legoburner**

With the large number of offtopic images in signatures appearing now, do you think it is time to disable images in signatures? Lurkers please vote too (you are allowed) as I'm curious how everyone feels. This would not include the dakka army icons as they have always been a staple of dakka and will continue to be so. I'm not planning to change anything but I was curious how the rest of dakka feels about signature images.

**BrookM**

I seem to get a LOT of flak and comments on my current signature for some odd reason. Well, the option to disable signatures is always nice, but not that needed in my opinion. The boards already prevent people from posting page stretching anus gapers in their sig-lines, so no real harm is done.

**Mattlov**

I would be okay with keeping them, but limiting their size by number of lines they can take up.

I am not a fan of a signature that is 10 times the size of the post it is attached to. It can actually be difficult to find what someone is posting if it is squashed between two gigantic signatures.

**Techboss**

I have them turned off as is because it interferes with reading the content. Most people sig pics are obnoxious anyway.

**Grokin**

I turn them off for every board I visit.

**Polonius**

Can you currently just disable signature images? I don't want to lose sigs entirely, but most images are of negative net value to me, particularly after multiple posts.

I voted no, mostly because I'm more interested in what other posters have to say, not what image they find amusing.

**Alpharius**

I vote off too, mostly because some are so ridiculously oversized.

**Wehrkind**

I would like the option to turn them off, either pics, text or both.
On the one hand, you do get some good sigs and the like, but on the other giant stupid pictures that mess with the width of your browser window (I am looking at YOU Shuma) are irksome. Even if they are kind of funny too (still looking at Shuma).

**Hellfury**

Well users having the option of turning it off themselves is always good. But that is already there so no need to change that.

As far as disabling them completely...It gets a bit sticky I think. One of the benefits of the forum style we have enjoyed for the past decade is that it is more graphically involved than the days of Usenet. It can get a bit boring just reading a wall of tecxt broken only by...more text.
But then again you have people who make a huge wall of images including text with snide quips about how it is seven lines high and that is pretty contemptible to the rules issued by the admins here to be perfectly honest and frank. No need to name names, they know who they are and their flagrant condescension is visible to all.

Looking at Wehrkinds sig above me makes me sad to think that images would be turned off. He won a paint comp and was rewarded with a very cool looking, hard earned sig.

I just feel that a blanket removal of all images in isgs would be a shame.

I think how the B&C handles images in their sigs is a good way to make a compromise.

Here is a recent announcement they made regarding this issue:

Brother Tyler wrote:
Okay, I've been forced to edit a lot of signatures lately because they did not conform to the B&C forum rules. I'm posting this here as a reminder to everyone (and also to hopefully save myself and the other Administrators the work of having to edit signatures).

Members are allowed to post images in their signatures. In fact, members are allowed to post multiple images in their signatures. However, all images in a signature must display within a single space no wider than 350 pixels and no taller than 100 pixels. 1 or more pixels beyond either of those dimensions will get images removed (actually, we usually just turn them into hyperlinks so that members can still take a look at your images).

Also, images may not be hot-linked from third-party sites except for image sharing sites such as Imageshack and Photobucket. We recommend that members create their own free B&C galleries.

There have been a lot of Magic the Gathering "What Color Are You" banners that I've been removing. These are both larger than the maximum allowed dimensions (they're too wide) and hot-linked from a third-party site (Wizards of the Coast).

Also, we allow up to ten lines of normal sized text in signatures. The line count includes blank lines, quote tags, etc. If you use a larger sized font, the maximum line count will decrease based on the size of the font. A very important consideration here is screen resolution. Members whose screens are set to a larger size (such as mine - I use 1680x1050) can get more text than those whose screens are set smaller. For our purposes, we use 1024x768 as a standard size for gauging line count.

And as with all other things, signatures may not include objectionable material (adult content, profanity, politics, etc.).

The reason we have these restrictions on signatures is because the goal is to keep the focus of discussions on the actual discussion, not the signatures. Too many sites have much more relaxed rules governing the signatures of members, and as a result, signatures often overshadow the actual discussions. We want to keep everyone focused and limit the noise.

Now this isn't a warning to anyone, and we generally don't count signature edits as being hard-line violations of the rules. We tend to edit them, and then notify the members in order to explain why the signature was edited and the corrective action. Only when a member is a repeat offender and/or crosses the line in a signature is a warning issued.

Please take this as a heads up and look at your own signatures. If your signature isn't compliant with the forum rules as outlined above, please edit the signature yourself.

As always, if you have any questions or problems (or if I've said something above that contradicts the posted forum rules), feel free to contact me or any other administrator and we'll be happy to provide clarification and/or assistance.

So images over 350px long by 100 px tall is verboten. Perhaps a way to automatically resize sig images to fit within the confines of whatever size you think is best to save the mods trouble and time by going around and modifying a users prfile to remove the offending image size? I have no clue how difficult that would be to do so take that suggestion for what it is worth.

[EDIT]
s for my own personal opinion, I spend a fair amount of time making image sigs in photshop and try to make them as minimal as possible while still being able to convey the point. I think my current sig linking to the space hulk blog is the largest I have ever had in recent memory. But then again its just stylized text, so if it gets turned off I wont be too offended, but a bit sad.

**Hellfury**

Polonius wrote:Can you currently just disable signature images?

Yes, in your profile edit area there is a heading near the bottom that says:
"Disable all signatures when reading the forums:"

So it is indeed possible to disable sigs from the user interface. But it disables all sigs. text, pics, everything.

**Polonius**

Hellfury wrote:
Polonius wrote:Can you currently just disable signature images?

Yes, in your profile edit area there is a heading near the bottom that says:
"Disable all signatures when reading the forums:"

So it is indeed possible to disable sigs from the user interface. But it disables all sigs. text, pics, everything.

Right, that's what I figured. I like reading the sig texts, I guess. I'm just not wild about the images.

I mean, I care very little in either direction, but in terms of personal preference, I'd rather not have the images.

**Teek**

Well if I had a snazzy animated "Dakka Conversion Champ" banner like the painting contest winners, I'd probably argue in favor of pics.

As of right now though, those demon adoptables are getting annoying. And of course, the random Gigantor image sig is an eyesore.

The poll doesn't allow for it, but I'm in favor of the B&C style rule, small size limitations. Compromise, keeps both parties happy.

**whitedragon**

Anything larger that Wehrkind's or Hellfury's sig pics need to GO! If your Sig pic is bigger than what you post...it needs to go.

**Anung Un Rama**

I'm not sure, I guess it depends on more than just the picture.
Take LunaHound for example. She has a rather large pic in her signature, but it doesn't really extend her post, since the stuff under her Avatar (whichever that maybe today

)is longer than her sig as long as she posts more than 2 lines.

I would like to have my XBox gamertag in my sig, but I can't get the link to work.

**Ifurita**

I'd be fine with just putting reasonable limits on the size of avatars and sig graphics

**LunaHound**

I think for the people that dont like seeing Sig or Avatar should have option to leave it off . Rather then restricting others, which is unnecessary imo.

**1hadhq**

The course of the B&C to handle sigs would be fine.
I'm not against pics, if the actual text / pics of the post is still possible to see as primary eyecatcher.

But some upcoming demons/dragons sig-expansions are just enhancing the needed space and loading time.
So maybe keep them in control.

**Anung Un Rama**

Argh! Luna, that's the 3rd Avatar in 2 days

**karmaiko**

BrookM wrote:I seem to get a LOT of flak and comments on my current signature for some odd reason. Well, the option to disable signatures is always nice, but not that needed in my opinion. The boards already prevent people from posting page stretching anus gapers in their sig-lines, so no real harm is done.

Really? You don't know?

**BrookM**

karmaiko wrote:
BrookM wrote:I seem to get a LOT of flak and comments on my current signature for some odd reason. Well, the option to disable signatures is always nice, but not that needed in my opinion. The boards already prevent people from posting page stretching anus gapers in their sig-lines, so no real harm is done.

Really? You don't know?

It's just a sig? I don't hear people rag on about the guy who has n*gger, sp*c and that other bad word in his avatar picture.

**IRPurple**

LunaHound wrote:
I think for the people that dont like seeing Sig or Avatar should have option to leave it off . Rather then restricting others, which is unnecessary imo.

QFT
i totaly agree, people who dont want them, dont need to have them or have them showing.

but if they are realy the bane of all evil then bah, send me to hell...

**stonefox**

All I can say is that if the sig-ban passes, nobody will be able to appreciate some totally awesome dogs with glasses. 2009, year of the d09.

**JohnHwangDD**

LunaHound wrote:I think for the people that dont like seeing Sig or Avatar should have option to leave it off

QFT.

Profile / Edit Your Profile:
- Disable all signatures when reading the forums: Yes / No
- Hide all avatars when reading the forums: Yes / No

Allow the sigs, but keep the sig space small. It's a good compromise that keeps sigs from getting too stupid.

**Chrispy**

I think that if your entire message body is smaller than your signature on that forum post, your entire post should be deleted, and you should be banned from the forums.

**BrookM**

Chrispy wrote:I think that if your entire message body is smaller than your signature on that forum post, your entire post should be deleted, and you should be banned from the forums.

And for good measure one of the mods will visit you and shove something up your personal goatse so you won't do it again?

**JohnHwangDD**

Good one, Brook.

Of course, you giving a 1-line reply against a huge sig means that you're just begging for it.

Are you really asking for it like that?

**BrookM**

JohnHwangDD wrote:Good one, Brook.

Of course, you giving a 1-line reply against a huge sig means that you're just begging for it.

Are you really asking for it like that?

I fear nothing.

in all seriousness I think that some people are overreacting. /

**temprus**

Wow, I am surprised at the number of yes votes at the moment.

**ShumaGorath**

You can have my AWESOME faces when you pry them from my cold dead hands!

Besides, my signature is still smaller then the people with 20 stacked icons and lines of text. If I cared how many points of squats someone had I would ask.

**stonefox**

I'm so tempted to bring back my ~AWESOME~ faces in addition to the year of the dog but that might just be too much awesome for people to handle.