# Does this sig make me look fat?



## barsoomcore (Jul 13, 2004)

Is my sig obnoxious? I worry about that. But then I worry about a lot of things.

Like that baggage retrieval system they've got at Heathrow.

If you think it's obnoxious (sig, not bag), let me know. Cause I don't (know, not think).


----------



## Michael Morris (Jul 13, 2004)

It's alright.  Besides, it won't display more than once per page anyway.


----------



## Hand of Evil (Jul 13, 2004)

Not at all.


----------



## barsoomcore (Jul 13, 2004)

Really?


----------



## Michael Morris (Jul 13, 2004)

Yep, one of the modifications I made in the last week or so prohibits 'sigs from displaying more than once per page.


----------



## Zappo (Jul 13, 2004)

Looks good to me.


----------



## barsoomcore (Jul 13, 2004)

Hey, look at that!


----------



## BrooklynKnight (Jul 14, 2004)

Spoony Bard said:
			
		

> Yep, one of the modifications I made in the last week or so prohibits 'sigs from displaying more than once per page.



For the record i cant stand that.


----------



## BSF (Jul 14, 2004)

Personally, I think it is a great change!  

Barsoomcore - No, your sig isn't too obnoxious.


----------



## Dinkeldog (Jul 14, 2004)

My personal favorite answer is, "No, your sig doesn't make you look fat--your fat makes you look fat."    But that would be rude, so I'd never say that.  And mean it.


----------



## Macbeth (Jul 14, 2004)

no problem with your sig, and I really like only having sigs display once. Cleans up so much clutter, and they're still there if I want to see them. Nice little hack, Spoony.


----------



## Nifft (Jul 14, 2004)

I'm not a huge fan of font size changes in sigs, but the volume of content is just fine.

 -- N


----------



## Dimwhit (Jul 14, 2004)

Dinkeldog said:
			
		

> My personal favorite answer is, "No, your sig doesn't make you look fat--your fat makes you look fat."    But that would be rude, so I'd never say that.  And mean it.




I got a Tommy Boy flash when I saw the title.

Tommy: Richard, does this suit make me look fat?
Richard: No. Your face does.



			
				BrooklynKnight said:
			
		

> For the record i cant stand that.




No offense, BK, but it's honestly sigs like yours that make me very grateful for that change. Not that there's anything wrong with your sig, but when I scroll down a thread and see more than half the text on the page taken up with sigs...well, it gets a little old. I think barsoomcore's sig is just fine too. But not 10 times on one page.


----------



## ASH (Jul 14, 2004)

I have to agree with the last poster. I really like the concept of 1 sig per page. It seems to make the page less difficult to read. 

Oh, and your sig looks fine!


----------



## doghead (Jul 14, 2004)

The links wrap around on my screen, making it look a little confused (832 X 624). As does the mix of caps and lower case. But you've avoided the color spray approach which is appreciated.

I read somewhere that sig shouldn't take up more space than the body of the post. Words to live by I thought, but not everyone agrees. So I would have to say the new one sig per page works for me in that regard.


----------



## Cthulhu's Librarian (Jul 14, 2004)

BrooklynKnight said:
			
		

> For the record i cant stand that.



 I've got to agree with the others above, BK, that your sig is one of the ones that makes me glad for this. Too much text and too much color. You really might want to consider toning one or the other down, if not both.


----------



## Michael Morris (Jul 14, 2004)

BrooklynKnight said:
			
		

> For the record i cant stand that.




Sorry,


----------



## BSF (Jul 14, 2004)

Nifft said:
			
		

> I'm not a huge fan of font size changes in sigs, but the volume of content is just fine.
> 
> -- N




Nifft, I have been operating under the thought that making my .sig smaller text makes it less obnoxious, though it might be a little harder to read.  Is there a problem with my .sig in general?


----------



## Brother Shatterstone (Jul 14, 2004)

Nifft said:
			
		

> I'm not a huge fan of font size changes in sigs, but the volume of content is just fine.




What about the font size in my signature? 

barsoomcore, your sig looks good to me also...  (I worry about the same thing also and my signature is like 2 lines...)


----------



## Altamont Ravenard (Jul 14, 2004)

If you need a negative comment, I think the bold makes it a little too flashy. But other than that, I don't mind the sig.

AR


----------



## DaveStebbins (Jul 14, 2004)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> *Does this sig make me look fat?*



Man, you're spending way too much time with those airline hostesses. You're beginning to sound like one!

 

-Dave


----------



## Fester (Jul 15, 2004)

Spoony Bard said:
			
		

> It's alright.  Besides, it won't display more than once per page anyway.




I bet this has no effect on my sig!


----------



## Fester (Jul 15, 2004)

See


----------



## Brother Shatterstone (Jul 15, 2004)

DaveStebbins said:
			
		

> Man, you're spending way too much time with those airline hostesses. You're beginning to sound like one!




 Well put!  I couldn't have done it better myself!


----------



## Nifft (Jul 15, 2004)

Oooo, I should clairify -- I'm a huge fan of _smaller_ fonts in sigs!  (I should probably spend a few minutes working out how to make mine smaller...)

 -- N


----------



## BrooklynKnight (Jul 15, 2004)

I've toned it down and reduced the size of the sig by a bit following suggestions i've gotten.

I didnt use all the suggestions, because my sig is that way for a reason but I feel its a modest middle ground.

Plus, when I have no chats scheduled the sig automatically becomes smaller as well.

Hope its a bit better.


----------



## Cthulhu's Librarian (Jul 15, 2004)

BrooklynKnight said:
			
		

> I've toned it down and reduced the size of the sig by a bit following suggestions i've gotten.
> 
> I didnt use all the suggestions, because my sig is that way for a reason but I feel its a modest middle ground.
> 
> ...



I guess we've got different ideas about modesty, BK. The biggest problem with it is the colors. Please, can you loose a few of them? The links are already underlined, do they really need to be bright blue? Come on, be realistic. Your sig alone draws more attention than most posts in this thread.


----------



## Crothian (Jul 15, 2004)

I'd say most of the stuff in the sig doesn't need to be there.  I mean the after ENnies party is well known and jusging by the names in the thread a lot of people have already seen it.  THe chat listing make for better news items then sig material.  Only the mini trading threads is what I would keep.

But at the very least I'd loose the colors.  It makes it hard to read at a glance.


----------



## Krieg (Jul 15, 2004)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> Does this sig make me look fat?



Let me put it this way...

Is that a mumu you're wearing?


----------



## Ashwyn (Jul 15, 2004)

BrooklynKnight said:
			
		

> For the record i cant stand that.



Why would you possibly need it to show more than once per page?


----------



## BSF (Jul 15, 2004)

Part of it is my steadily worsening eyesight, but I do have a hard time reading the blue in BrooklynKnight's sig.  Most times, I have to avoid looking too closely and if I do want to read it, I have to mark it with a mouse to read it easier.


----------



## DaveStebbins (Jul 15, 2004)

BrooklynKnight said:
			
		

> I've toned it down and reduced the size of the sig by a bit following suggestions i've gotten.
> 
> Hope its a bit better.



It doesn't bother me. Thanks for trying to follow some suggestions when you didn't have to.

-Dave
"Manners are a sensitive awareness of the feelings of others. If you have that awareness, you have good manners, no matter what fork you use."  --Emily Post (1873-1960) etiquette expert


----------



## Nifft (Jul 18, 2004)

BrooklynKnight said:
			
		

> I've toned it down and reduced the size of the sig by a bit following suggestions i've gotten.




Thank you! 

 -- N


----------



## mythusmage (Jul 18, 2004)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> Is my sig obnoxious? I worry about that. But then I worry about a lot of things.
> 
> Like that baggage retrieval system they've got at Heathrow.
> 
> If you think it's obnoxious (sig, not bag), let me know. Cause I don't (know, not think).




Actually, old bean, I'd say it makes you look positively obese. Were it adipose you'd be able to survive a two year famine.  

(I'll go sit in the corner now.)


----------



## Heretic Apostate (Jul 18, 2004)

I've got to say, I see no problem with any of the sigs showing in this thread.  Not a one.  None of them look to be too big or too small, too flashy or to tame.

I can't see what everyone is complaining about.

Yessir, I can't see any problems at all.



Spoiler



Of course, I have sigs and avatars turned off, so I really DON'T see what all the fuss is about...


----------



## barsoomcore (Jul 18, 2004)

DaveStebbins said:
			
		

> Man, you're spending way too much time with those airline hostesses.



"Too much time with" + "airline hostesses"

Am I the only one who sees something wrong with this logic?


----------



## barsoomcore (Jul 18, 2004)

Okay, I took out the bold and shrank a couple of the longer lines. I think it looks better that way, anyhoo.

Heretic Apostate, what do YOU think?


----------



## Heretic Apostate (Jul 18, 2004)

That is the most brilliant sig line that I've 



Spoiler



n


ever seen!


----------



## DaveStebbins (Jul 19, 2004)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> "Too much time with" + "airline hostesses"
> 
> Am I the only one who sees something wrong with this logic?



I would have agreed with you up to a couple of days ago, when I read for myself how it's been affecting you. Since then, I've been torn between sorrow for your plight and the wish to be put through that kind of ordeal myself.


----------



## MerakSpielman (Jul 19, 2004)

BrooklynKnight said:
			
		

> I've toned it down and reduced the size of the sig by a bit following suggestions i've gotten.
> 
> I didnt use all the suggestions, because my sig is that way for a reason but I feel its a modest middle ground.
> 
> ...



The only problem I have with your sig is that it looks too much like an advertisement. Frankly, looking the way it does, I'm dreadfully glad I don't have to look at it more than once in any given thread.

A lot of sigs show off things the user is involved in, but don't jump out at you on the screen like yours does. No doubt you _want_ it to jump out, to get the reader's attention, in order to to make them more likely to visit the chats you have painstakingly arranged.

However, it comes across, to me, as being somewhat tacky. A more appropriate sig would, to me, simply read:

"Upcoming chats with Eric Boyd and Phillip J Reed. For further details, click here."

In plain, uncolored text, where "here" is a link to a more detailed page.

The "after ENnies" and "mini trading" bits are ok as is, though.


----------



## barsoomcore (Jul 20, 2004)

DaveStebbins said:
			
		

> I've been torn between sorrow for your plight and the wish to be put through that kind of ordeal myself.



Hey, I'm always happy to take one for the team. Whatever the cost, you know I've got your back.


----------



## haiiro (Jul 20, 2004)

MerakSpielman said:
			
		

> Upcoming chats with Eric Boyd and Phillip J Reed. For further details, click here."
> 
> In plain, uncolored text, where "here" is a link to a more detailed page.




I actually find the "here=link" approach more distracting than having more of the text be underlined as part of the link. "Here" and "click here" are dead terms -- the eye is drawn to them because they're underlined/in a different color, but they have no direct context.

After jumping to the "here," I have to scan _back_ to find out what "here" is all about. Not that you asked , Merak, but I think your sig would look a lot better with a few more words underlined in each link, rather than just "here."


----------



## MerakSpielman (Jul 20, 2004)

You dare suggest that you are allowed to have an opinion different from my own? Foolish heretic!

I just don't like links, and prefer them to be as short as possible. 

Not that anything in my sig is of interest to anybody anyway. It's been over a year since some of those threads were at all active.


----------

