[Rai]

I got a warning on Sig size exceeding stated sig size maximum. So this must be a forum wide crack down. Which I do understand if sigs are increasing site bandwith needlessly.

I wonder did all the Moderators with sigs exceeding 500x100 get the warning too. I looked at just a couple threads and basicaly many many people apparently violate the sig rule of 500x100 max size, including many moderators and Super Moderators.

I just think it's a little funny, I am sure there is a reason, I'm not complaining or questioning that, but for the sake of propriety next time a crack down like this takes place, maybe get all the Moderators complying before warning the peons.

[JennifARGH]

The rules state a signature image/images cannot go over 25kb. That's all I know. I checked and double-checked to see if mine was fine. I'm just over 5kb.

Any other signature rules I should know about?

[Rai]

Note: The maximum size of your custom image is 500 by 100 pixels or 19.5 KB (whichever is smaller).

I downloaded other Sigs and opened them in Photoshop, some from moberators. One was 580x118 and 40KB.

Here is a question is there any differance between linking to an image offsite in hhtp in the sig and uploading a sig here? Which is prefered?

For the 1st year or more I came to this site I never had an image in my sig, only recently. I don't need one and I sure don't want to waste bandwidth. I was kind of careless because once I added one I linked to my ISP storage space and would update it by replacing it there and forgot to make sure the size was right.

[Kirsteena]

I personally don't upload sigs here, but another site (ls site actually). A lot of people have sigs disabled, so it isn't a huge increase in bandwidth. Other option is to use something like Photobucket to link your sig - I use that for my Livejournal, and get a decent amount of traffic and never gone over my bandwidth yet.

[Sabaron]

I link from Flickr. My signature used to be a lot wider, but another user had complained to me that it was stretching her screen, so I reduced it out of courtesy. I wish Flickr had .png storage instead of just the outdated (IMHO) .jpg format.

[Intensity]

The maximum size quote above only pertains to what you can upload to Dreams' servers, it can be larger than that if you link to it instead.

[Rai]

The maximum size quote above only pertains to what you can upload to Dreams' servers, it can be larger than that if you link to it instead

Well I was linked to my comcast Storage in HTML, I did not upload it here. So explain to me the warning?

here, this is what I had in my sig as text in the body of the sig with the img tag, not uploaded: http://home.comcast.net/~k.gav/Jobs.jpg




So your sig is 540x181 and 96KB mine is 760x49 and 40KB, both linked to external sites, what is the differance? Both exceed with yours exceeds height while mine does not and both are larger than 19.5KB.

[samarium]

I imagine they're doing it purely for aesthetic reasons, at least as far as the image dimensions go, to avoid having enormous vertical gaps between posts. The filesize limitation only applies if you have uploaded the image to ffxionline, as off-site images do not use any bandwidth from this site.

I'm all for having signature images, if they're unobtrusive, but page-stretching panorama that I have to see every time I read a post really does get on my nerves after a while.

-sam

P.S. I'm really interested in whatever code they're using to automatically resize those linked sig images (a la "This image has been resized. Click this bar to view the full image. The original image is sized 760x49.") I've been looking for some way to do this for a while.

[M_X]

Yeah, I tried to shrink my sigs, but they looked like crap. So I just typed something in.

[eticket109]

Originally Posted by Intensity

The maximum size quote above only pertains to what you can upload to Dreams' servers, it can be larger than that if you link to it instead.

That's not true. I got a PM about mine and it was linked, so I made it smaller.

It seems there is a bit of confusion on the matter to say the least.

Also... mine had been shrunk by the forums to begin with and was still too big. Maybe changing the code to meet these parameters would be more efficient.

[Rai]

Ok, so what are you saying, it was because of the 760 dimension? It stretches the page so it is bad even though it is on my own Comcast storage.

[Ameroth]

But what he's saying is that he's confused as to why it's not okay for him to remotely host a sig elsewhere, within the size limits, but it is for the admins?

P.S. I'm really interested in whatever code they're using to automatically resize those linked sig images (a la "This image has been resized. Click this bar to view the full image. The original image is sized 760x49.") I've been looking for some way to do this for a while.

Learn PHP my friend. Here, I'll show you how I'd do it:

[code]
list($width, $height, $type, $attr) = getimagesize("imagename.jpg");

if($width > 760) {
//resizing code
}
if($height > 49) {
//resizing code
}
[/code]

sorry for the off-topic business... Can't resist helping someone in need of programming help.

[neighbortaru]

the sig size limitations are really meant for the ease of use of others. each time you visit a page on this forum, your browser has to go out and fetch all the images and whatnot. imagine what would happen if everyone had 1 meg sigs. at 15 posts per page, that's already 15 megs of sigs alone. if you're on (god forbid) dialup or have restricted bandwidth, that'll be murder.

the other consideration is formatting. excessively large sigs are annoying, especially when they cause people to have to scroll right or down to get a full message. that isn't so much of an issue now that PiNG has implemented the resize feature, but we still would like people to abide by the rule.

As for moderators with larger (than rules) sigs, well, I'm sure they just "forgot." A friendly reminder via PM should be sufficient, no need to make a big fuss ok?

[FranckKnight]

I find it odd that they tap on those linking off site, since it doesn't take their bandwidth.

My sig is held on my own private HTTP server, so normally whoever sees it actually downloads it from my website.

I can understand size issues for the webpage formatting, but if it doesn't take the website's bandwidth, it shouldn't be their problem either :/

[samarium]

Neighbortaru's useability concerns are definitely valid, but 19.5kb might be a little bit small considering the prevalence of high-speed connections.

In any case, distorting the look and feel of the site carries a greater weight to me than a tiny bit of extra load time.

I made a 500x100 image and filled it with as complex an image as I could. Saved at 100% quality as a jpg it came up to about 40k. That still seems reasonable to me, even for a dial-up user, and is a bit less restricting, considering most of the signatures I've seen (well... took the trouble to check the properties of XD) are off-site anyway.

-sam