Conquer Club

agentcom wrote:

Woodruff wrote:So are the moderators just hoping this goes away and dies quietly?

STICKIED.

As far as I know, this is still being discussed at levels above my pay grade.

it has been in discussion for at least 8 months. there was a thread made behind the scenes where several mods asked for this. at some point andy said he's talking to lack about it and then months passed and still we have nothing.

agentcom wrote:

Woodruff wrote:So are the moderators just hoping this goes away and dies quietly?

STICKIED.

Thank you, agentcom. I do sincerely appreciate it.

agentcom wrote:As far as I know, this is still being discussed at levels above my pay grade.

Very good to know.

Just as an aside, there's nothing to stop people hiding a big image in spoiler tags. A half-way-house between having an image as big as you like and not annoying people! Implementing that, you could have it that images greater than, say, 100k will aitomatically snuggle into spoiler tags?

if it were a post, i would have no problems with it(if its being relevant), but as a sig , even in spoilers? no thank you..

SirSebstar wrote:if it were a post, i would have no problems with it(if its being relevant), but as a sig , even in spoilers? no thank you..

My question would be...does the system still have to load the signature if it's in spoilers? Because the problem I'm seeing (and I'm definitely still seeing it, and it pisses me off) is that when I click to read a message, it takes a fair bit for the page to load because it's loading up all of the blasted signatures. If that would alleviate the problem, then I'm good with it. But if it would still take just as long to load, then it doesn't really help.

In fact, if I use the suggested "hit escape" button to stop the loading of them, I also lose the "post last read" marker. Not an acceptable solution.

thehippo8 wrote:Just as an aside, there's nothing to stop people hiding a big image in spoiler tags. A half-way-house between having an image as big as you like and not annoying people! Implementing that, you could have it that images greater than, say, 100k will aitomatically snuggle into spoiler tags?

Hmmm ... I believe that this was discussed, the page still loads the image inside the spoiler, it just doesn't show it. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

Also, I'm moving this to SUBMITTED. It's one of the few suggestions that has actually been talked about among the moderators and (at least at one point) there was some serious consideration given to it. Furthermore, this one isn't going to fall off the radar for those that are negatively affected.

agentcom wrote:

thehippo8 wrote:Just as an aside, there's nothing to stop people hiding a big image in spoiler tags. A half-way-house between having an image as big as you like and not annoying people! Implementing that, you could have it that images greater than, say, 100k will aitomatically snuggle into spoiler tags?

Hmmm ... I believe that this was discussed, the page still loads the image inside the spoiler, it just doesn't show it. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

That is correct. This wasn't just about viewing an annoying image. It's about having to wait for said image to load because it's so big (byte-wise, not pixel count).

chapcrap wrote:

agentcom wrote:

thehippo8 wrote:Just as an aside, there's nothing to stop people hiding a big image in spoiler tags. A half-way-house between having an image as big as you like and not annoying people! Implementing that, you could have it that images greater than, say, 100k will aitomatically snuggle into spoiler tags?

Hmmm ... I believe that this was discussed, the page still loads the image inside the spoiler, it just doesn't show it. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

That is correct. This wasn't just about viewing an annoying image. It's about having to wait for said image to load because it's so big (byte-wise, not pixel count).

Okay, well the issues are separate. If the complaints are about the signatures being annoying/distracting then that is one thing (and easily cured by spoiler tags) but if the issue is the load on the website then that is a practical matter which is always at Lack's control. Sure, we can have an input, but I suspect we will be dictated to by reality. As such, I agree that if Lack wants to limit file size then go ahead if it helps keep costs down for CC as a whole and thereby allowing resources to be employed in better places (like bigger XML files). It would be *nice* if any limitations were advised first but that again is a website owner's prerogative!

thehippo8 wrote:

chapcrap wrote:

agentcom wrote:

thehippo8 wrote:Just as an aside, there's nothing to stop people hiding a big image in spoiler tags. A half-way-house between having an image as big as you like and not annoying people! Implementing that, you could have it that images greater than, say, 100k will aitomatically snuggle into spoiler tags?

Hmmm ... I believe that this was discussed, the page still loads the image inside the spoiler, it just doesn't show it. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

That is correct. This wasn't just about viewing an annoying image. It's about having to wait for said image to load because it's so big (byte-wise, not pixel count).

Okay, well the issues are separate. If the complaints are about the signatures being annoying/distracting then that is one thing (and easily cured by spoiler tags) but if the issue is the load on the website then that is a practical matter which is always at Lack's control. Sure, we can have an input, but I suspect we will be dictated to by reality. As such, I agree that if Lack wants to limit file size then go ahead if it helps keep costs down for CC as a whole and thereby allowing resources to be employed in better places (like bigger XML files). It would be *nice* if any limitations were advised first but that again is a website owner's prerogative!

That's just it...lackattack doesn't need to do anything technical-wise for this suggestion to be implemented (yet, it has not been implemented). All he has to do is give his approval for it. So either he's not been approached with it yet (which is disappointing, if true) or he has not bothered to approve it (which is even more disappointing, but certainly less surprising).

This suggestion has to do with the standards of what the moderators allow more than it is a technical "programming" issue.

DiM wrote:

nietzsche wrote: I'm sorry, until phpbb comes up with a way to do it without having to save the sigs and it's easy to do it (2-3 minutes) it won't happen.

there is a way to limit sig size with the use of a phpBB add-on.
here it is: http://www.phpbbsmith.com/projects/phpbb3/signature-restrictions.html

i've told the admins about this and it was dismissed because apparently they don't want to get complicated with add-ons and stuff like that.

For the first time I actually clicked that link (yes I'm a lazy Mexican). That add-on, though very useful, wouldn't be able to limit the size of the file, only its width and height. The filesize is important here because it's what we could use to know if a gif animation is heavy or not on the browser.

One option would be to check the file size of gifs when sigs are modified. One could still change the file leaving the same name but that could be punishable, for it would be clear that the intent to cheat was there. The better option would be to save each siggy on CC's server, but you can forget about that.

Seems like the easiest option, a rule determining a file size limit for animations isn't of their liking because if it were it would've been implemented already.

What other options are there?

So doesn't this particular suggestion take only the say-so to implement? No actual code is necessary here, is it? Is there a reason it's not being handled?

Woodruff wrote:So doesn't this particular suggestion take only the say-so to implement? No actual code is necessary here, is it? Is there a reason it's not being handled?

You'd think.

I did follow up on this a bit. Unfortunately (at least for getting things done in Suggestions) there have been some mods who have been away and some mods who are moving around within the team, plus I've been busy. So, we haven't been able to look at looking into what goes into these changes as much as I would like. I believe that we'll be back on track shortly (although I won't venture to define "shortly" here). I would really like to be able to get back to you with solid answers as to when and whether some of these things are going to get looked into further, but I can't do so right now. Sorry.

The only thing required here is to discuss together and set a rule, write it somewhere and have admins/volunteers to enforce it regularily.
No code changes or phpBB modifications are required or necessary.

Ask to a programmer to work on a way to limit sigs just because some users love to put "all their life" into them (when nobody cares), sorry it's just waste the programmer time. We have plenty things more important to work on.

Personally I would not allow animated and flashing sigs at all, but it's just my personal preference. Instead, if I have say a number ... I think that 100 kb could be a good max size for a signature.

Nobodies

Do we have consensus? How about 100kb limit on signature images?

El_Jefe wrote:Do we have consensus? How about 100kb limit on signature images?

no we don't.

i dont know what 100kb would allow to be able to say if i think that is too much, too little or spot on.

could someone post some examples of 100 as well as larger.

El_Jefe wrote:Do we have consensus? How about 100kb limit on signature images?

That seems way too small. My signature is relatively simple and it's still 225kb.

Night Strike wrote:

El_Jefe wrote:Do we have consensus? How about 100kb limit on signature images?

That seems way too small. My signature is relatively simple and it's still 225kb.

One possible solution is that the file size should be determined by your desired dimensions. Create a typical JPEG of the maximum size you want (say, 600 x 400) and see what size it is. Not ideal, but it's a start.

*****

i agree. 100k is WAY too small. if we were to pose a limit like that i'd say 300k. that way we can have an alpha channel (png) to blend w/ any colored background and make it look a touch more sexy.

personally, i don't care about the k weight as my internet connection is dynamite. also, when you see somebody's sig... it's already in your cache so no worries anymore if you see it again because it's already loaded.

if you guys want to get nasty, how about this: word of mouth saying "hey, you can't go over 300k" but limit it to the forums.

that way, when somebody visits your wall, and you want a cool video sig, people can see it. but the tricky 'you have to know' part would be a button you can click when you post in the forum to say "do not attach signature" vs. vice versa as it is now.

that way people that aren't paying attention will get warned to pay attention more in the future.

limiting sigs as a whole i feel is sort of ridiculous, especially w/ all the jabber-jaw freemiums who add nothing to the game-side of the site besides really good chatter.... you know who you are.

also, you guys know that these video sigs aren't 'hosted' on CC but on other sites. therefore, CC is no slower than it always was. the exception being for those who haven't run across a video sig that they haven't seen before. (unless they delete their cache of course.)

EDIT:
many typos.

that's my 1 cent.

do not limit sigs because some freeloaders have a problem with load time.

300kB sounds reasonable.

Thanks and yes, 300k is a reasonable limit w/ sanctions to the forums only as i said in my previous post.

i think a blanket limit wouldn't be the best move here.

baby steps. it's the forums we're concerned about here right? most of the paying people w/ a +300k sig hardly even visit the forums so let's keep them out of this.

Maugena wrote:300kB sounds reasonable.

so does paying $25 for membership

greenoaks wrote:do not limit sigs because some freeloaders have a problem with load time.

cool

EBConquer wrote:that way, when somebody visits your wall, and you want a cool video sig, people can see it. but the tricky 'you have to know' part would be a button you can click when you post in the forum to say "do not attach signature" vs. vice versa as it is now.

You already have the option of not attaching sigs. For example, see the lack of sig below.