[EoA] [Rules] Limit Signature Image File Size!

[BGtheBrain]

*****

[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]

*****

[BGtheBrain]

*****

[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.

[DiM]

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"

nope you suggested to stop eating yogurt completely.
if you wanted to tell him to stop eating the strawberries only you could have said:

use firefox in combination with adblockplus (or similar) and block all annoying images while keeping the ones you like.

this is a smart and customizable solution, but unfortunately one that's not easily available to everybody.

[BGtheBrain]

*****

[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.

@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).

You're right, I wasn't thinking. It's pixel size that's restricted not file size. I'm still not sure about this though. How many people have this problem. I don't have any trouble loading pages, but I can see that there are some seriously huge sigs out there that might cause others problems.

[Woodruff]

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"

It's far more than one person. He's just the one who has initiated the discussion. I agree wholeheartedly with him. While it doesn't keep me from eventually seeing a thread, it does slow things down enormously. This seems like a bandwidth-impacting issue to me, much like the reason why signatures are limited in height/width.

[Haggis_McMutton]

Yep, it's silly not to have some limit. How large the limit should be is another discussion.

@ people saying "it's not a problem for me". Well, it'd be easy enough for someone to put up a sig that WOULD be a problem even for you.

Also, it's not like this is difficult to implement.

[ManBungalow]

Press ESC and it stops trying to load/play the .gif animations.

[chapcrap]

This seems like a bandwidth-impacting issue to me, much like the reason why signatures are limited in height/width.

The pixel limitation was put in place to stop people from being annoying with the signatures, not really a bandwidth issue.

[Pedronicus]

Press ESC and it stops trying to load/play the .gif animations.

Not everyone is a computer nerd.
If lack wants the site to be user friendly to people with no broadband, then the huge sig files are no good.

[Woodruff]

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.

If what sherkaner says here is true, then that's incorrect (I don't know if it is or not):
http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=57&t=174447&view=unread#unread

This seems like a bandwidth-impacting issue to me, much like the reason why signatures are limited in height/width.

The pixel limitation was put in place to stop people from being annoying with the signatures, not really a bandwidth issue.

Ah, I can see that. Not that anyone would ever be intentionally annoying here, of course...

[jimboston]

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"

It's far more than one person. He's just the one who has initiated the discussion. I agree wholeheartedly with him. While it doesn't keep me from eventually seeing a thread, it does slow things down enormously. This seems like a bandwidth-impacting issue to me, much like the reason why signatures are limited in height/width.

Ditto.

I agree.

I have turned off signatures... but only cause my slow downs are too annoying. I would rather them stay on... I like seeing some of the creative signatures, but the videos kinda ruin it for me. There is no harm done by limiting sigs a bit... People can still be creative.

[jimboston]

Press ESC and it stops trying to load/play the .gif animations.

Where is that pesky escape button on my iPad?

[agentcom]

Good point

[Woodruff]

Press ESC and it stops trying to load/play the .gif animations.

Where is that pesky escape button on my iPad?

Not only that, but to have to hit escape EVERY TIME I GO TO A NEW PAGE? I just spent one day doing it, and I'm already ready to quit the fora...what a pain in the ass.

[Maugena]

Well anyways, Maugena.
Let me know if you need help turning off signatures or something.

I'm only vaguely familiar with a few of the moderators here on CC.
Are you the authority on defeating/passing suggestions? - If you are, does this mean you've dismissed this suggestion, officially?

[rdsrds2120]

Well anyways, Maugena.
Let me know if you need help turning off signatures or something.

I'm only vaguely familiar with a few of the moderators here on CC.
Are you the authority on defeating/passing suggestions? - If you are, does this mean you've dismissed this suggestion, officially?

Nawh. Globals and Suggers can do that, he's a C&A man. This suggestion has my full support, and is still pulling forth and prospering it looks like.

-rd

[codierose]

lol this guys never played on the site yet your agree to his suggestions
sigs are used mainly by clans as banners why would want to limit it

[Woodruff]

lol this guys never played on the site yet your agree to his suggestions
sigs are used mainly by clans as banners why would want to limit it

I believe the original post states why pretty clearly.

[codierose]

didn't realize there was sigs visible whilst your playing games or not his his case

[nietzsche]

hahahaah, why do people keep posting here? nothing of is ever implemented.

lack has his own goals, he doesn't care what we post here.. I don't know whats after Battle Royale or teammate spoils, but it's most likely something useless, not useful.

Also, it's a phpbb thing, do you really think he'd want to save the signatures in the server? naaah that's too expensive man, impossible. 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.

And stop posting suggestions.

[DiM]

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.