# Those "which (blank) are you" sigs are huge!



## Kraedin (Feb 2, 2003)

Is there any limit on these boards for signature size?  A lot of posts are dwarfed by the size of the signature attached to them.


----------



## Shalimar (Feb 2, 2003)

I personally think having a sig that is the same size or larger then your post is incredibly rude.  If you are gonna make a short post, let it be seen as that without trying to pad it out.  Is it so hard to click off that one little box?


----------



## Kaiyosama (Feb 4, 2003)

They are very big.  Kingpaul has one that fills my entire screen.  I don't mind one, but more is excessive.


----------



## Mark (Feb 4, 2003)

Kraedin said:
			
		

> *Those "which (blank) are you" sigs are huge!*




They would be less annoying, from what I understand, if the people viewing them were allowed to fill in the blank at their discretion...


----------



## Eternalknight (Feb 4, 2003)

*Re: Re: Those "which (blank) are you" sigs are huge!*



			
				Mark said:
			
		

> *
> 
> They would be less annoying, from what I understand, if the people viewing them were allowed to fill in the blank at their discretion... *




LOL, but I thought swearing was not allowed on the boards...


----------



## Mark (Feb 4, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: Those "which (blank) are you" sigs are huge!*



			
				Eternalknight said:
			
		

> *LOL, but I thought swearing was not allowed on the boards...  *




Sometimes the suggestion of swearing, by way of the "blank" is far more effective...


----------



## Piratecat (Feb 4, 2003)

I've addressed it.


----------



## tleilaxu (Feb 4, 2003)

there was another thread on the same topic (huge sigs) a week or two ago in here.

but i agree, big sigs are highly annoying  

tleilaxu has had the same signature for three years now! _ thats dedication... ...or laziness and apathy...._


----------



## Gez (Feb 4, 2003)

I don't have sig, and I'm proud of it !

Actually, what would be extranice, except for the serverload I guess, would be to allow only one sig per page (i.e., show the signature of someone only in that person's first post on a thread page).


----------



## Dragongirl (Feb 5, 2003)

[joke]
I still think one day Crothian is going to start blackmailing Morrus. 
_Gimme X amount of money or I make a big sig_ 

Imagine a huge sig appearing on over 17,000 posts at once?
Oh the horror!!!!
[/joke]


----------



## Morrus (Feb 5, 2003)

Dragongirl said:
			
		

> *[joke]
> I still think one day Crothian is going to start blackmailing Morrus.
> Gimme X amount of money or I make a big sig
> 
> ...




That's OK... it's a problem which can be "removed" with a couple of swfit mouseclicks.


----------



## Airwolf (Feb 5, 2003)

Morrus said:
			
		

> *
> 
> That's OK... it's a problem which can be "removed" with a couple of swfit mouseclicks.  *




That's kind of scary.  The man who touches the heart, of the message boards that is.  He can just tighten his fingers a bit and it all fades to black.  

Morrus, you are starting to creep me out.


----------



## Usurper (Feb 23, 2003)

These giant sigs are driving me nuts too.  I finally went in to my cp to totally disable the inline images via the img tag.  However, since html is enabled in sigs for some reason, you still can't disable all of them.  I really don't want to disable sigs entirely, since a lot of them have turned out to have useful links in them.


----------



## Psionicist (Feb 25, 2003)

Most larger signature images are badly optimized too, and some are downright awful... I can remember someone with a rather large "I am xxxxxxxx" Dragonball Z image that's incredibly ugly.


----------



## Azure Trance (Feb 25, 2003)

An alternative remedy could be to up your screen resolution so enormous sigs are no longer a problem? I here 1600x1200 is quite comfortable in that regard ...


----------



## Alzrius (Feb 25, 2003)

I don't think the large sigs are so bad. Honestly, there are a lot of better things to get worked up over. I'm so desensitized to sigs that my eyes just roll over them without seeing them anymore. We can have sigs, so there's no problem with having a pic in there thats larger than a thumbnail. Just live and let post people.  

Also, Psionicist, I have no idea who that person could be.


----------



## Piratecat (Feb 25, 2003)

Heh - Alzrius, yours is at the upper end of what's appropriate (but okay). The problems come when someone has 2 or 3 of those as a sig.

Remember, if your sig is large, it's good manners just to show it once per thread instead of on every post.


----------



## Psionicist (Feb 25, 2003)

Azure Trance said:
			
		

> *An alternative remedy could be to up your screen resolution so enormous sigs are no longer a problem? I here 1600x1200 is quite comfortable in that regard ... *




1600x1200? Same here.


----------



## krunchyfrogg (Feb 25, 2003)

Gez said:
			
		

> *Actually, what would be extranice, except for the serverload I guess, would be to allow only one sig per page (i.e., show the signature of someone only in that person's first post on a thread page). *




I agree.  Heck, I try to do that, just out of courtesy.

Why not just do away with IMG's in signatures?  Those of us without a high speed connection would really appreciate it!


NOTE:  Just don't remove Airwolf's ability to post images in signatures.


----------



## Usurper (Feb 26, 2003)

The problem would be solved imo if html were disabled for sigs.  No need for it when url and img tags work perfectly well.  Then people could just block in-line images that use the img tag.

And, honestly, Alzrius's sig bugs me the most.  I'm about to add the server it's on to my blocked list, but that's tedious to do for all the large sigs, or the ones that are hosted on sites I might visit.  (No offence, Al, you're a swell guy and all.)

1280x960 res.  Still bugs me.  ::shrugs::


----------



## Blacksway (Feb 26, 2003)

Err... completely OT but..

Alzrius, you don't happen to still have a larger copy of that kitten do you as I had it a while back and have lost it...

email me. cheers.


----------



## Mark CMG (Feb 26, 2003)

Blacksway said:
			
		

> *Err... completely OT but..
> 
> Alzrius, you don't happen to still have a larger copy of that kitten do you as I had it a while back and have lost it...
> 
> email me. cheers. *




Found this here-

http://www.io.com/~mvb/cats/


----------



## Azure Trance (Feb 26, 2003)

Usurper said:
			
		

> *
> 1280x960 res.  Still bugs me.  ::shrugs:: *




Too small. 

1600x1200! 1600x1200! 

(One time, about three years ago I was fiddling around in Display on my old 17" moniter. It was on 1280x1024, and I wondered what 1600x1200 would be like. Amazed afterwards, I never went back (and since upgraded to a 19")


----------



## Usurper (Feb 27, 2003)

You'll find the refresh rates drop as you raise your res though.  If I go that high, my refresh rate will be stuck at 60hz.  As is, I can have it up to 85hz.  Better for you eyes.


----------

