[Rules] Limit Signature Image File Size!

[firth4eva]

This thread took ages to load for me.

[firth4eva]

[treefiddy]

I vote Firth's signature image be ok no matter the size.

[Maugena]

Limit Signature Image File Size!

Other forums have it for obvious reasons, yet ConquerClub does not. I'm not entirely shocked, but most definitely not pleased.
viewtopic.php?t=7785#p1759438

How would you like to load 4 * http://i1073.photobucket.com/albums/w38 ... aParty.gif ?

It most certainly lags the hell out of my browser and I do not appreciate it.
Please limit the sizes to something more reasonable.

[Maugena]

Limit Signature Image File Size!

Other forums have it for obvious reasons, yet ConquerClub does not. I'm not entirely shocked, but most definitely not pleased.
viewtopic.php?t=7785#p1759438

How would you like to load 4 * http://i1073.photobucket.com/albums/w38 ... aParty.gif ?

It most certainly lags the hell out of my browser and I do not appreciate it.
Please limit the sizes to something more reasonable.

For example:
d2jsp Site Rules...

Signature Rules and Guidelines (violations may result in loss of rights to have a signature):
The entire size of your signature shall not exceed 400 pixels wide by 150 pixels high.
Text sections of your signature shall not exceed 6 lines of text if you include no images, and 3 lines of text if you have an image.
Total size of the images contained in your signature shall not exceed 70 kilobytes.

Phatscotty's image is 600 by 150, which I honestly have no problem with, however... 10.8 MB is extreme overkill.

[Maugena]

Try loading this page:
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=174383

How does your computer fare?

[Maugena]

Four of them.

show

[agentcom]

Try loading this page:
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=174383

How does your computer fare?

Fine.

But as has been pointed out, the site already has limits (if not technologically enforced) on this. Perhaps you are suggesting such a technological restriction be put in place? Else you are in the wrong forum ... though I'm not sure where to direct you.

[Maugena]

Try loading this page:
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=174383

How does your computer fare?

Fine.

But as has been pointed out, the site already has limits (if not technologically enforced) on this. Perhaps you are suggesting such a technological restriction be put in place? Else you are in the wrong forum ... though I'm not sure where to direct you.

@Bolded - What has been pointed out? And what limits?

Signature images larger than 150 pixels high by 600 pixels wide just scream “I am compensating for something” and should be reduced in size. Note the dimensions size restriction is only in reference to the image. You may also have 2 additional levels of text / spoilers. In the spoiler below are some examples of acceptable signature configurations

There is no file size restriction, only dimensions (height and width).

[mviola]

This needs to happen, because I can't load any thread in which an Imperial Dragoon has posted.

Seriously, no one cares that you guys have a video as a sig.

[BGtheBrain]

Why not turn off avatar signatures?

[DiM]

Why not turn off avatar signatures?

because only a few signatures are absurdly large and all the rest are reasonable.
it's like telling somebody to stay away from all fruit yogurts just because he hates the strawberry ones.

[BGtheBrain]

Why not turn off avatar signatures?

because only a few signatures are absurdly large and all the rest are reasonable.
it's like telling somebody to stay away from all fruit yogurts just because he hates the strawberry ones.

Not really.

The concern (in this case) is over slowing down the browser, why should the entire site have to cater to the users slow broswer/internet?

If the main concern is the slowing, the best solution is to remove them entirely. Which the user has the capability of doing without restricting every other member to accommodate the one.

For the record, i do agree that signature size restrictions would benefit from being limited to a specific file size and not pixel size.

[BGtheBrain]

because only a few signatures are absurdly large and all the rest are reasonable.
it's like telling somebody to stay away from all fruit yogurts just because he hates the strawberry ones.

The more i look at this analogy, the more I disagree with it.

You have one person, who is saying,
"Guys, I dont want 10 strawberries on my yogurt, they make me fat"
I suggested, "Take off the strawberries and youll be fine"

[DiM]

why should the entire site have to cater to the users slow broswer/internet?

because it already does that by limiting the size of maps for example.

my All Your Base Are Belong To Us map is 1Mb. but because lack's policy is to put as little strain as possible on people's bandwidth he compresses the hell out of my 1Mb png and makes it into a crappy 180Kb jpeg filled with visual artefacts and graphical aberrations.

we (the mapmakers) have asked lack to keep our maps at a more decent size to preent such massive losses of quality and each and every time lack has told us that not all users have broadband and CC's policy is to make sure that even people with the slowest internet can enjoy being here.