Dimensions on an acceptable sig image?

captain ahar · Post by **captain ahar** » Mon Apr 17, 2006 5:17 pm

topic plz. i want to make a hella sweet raizing one. :B

SFKhoa · Post by **SFKhoa** » Mon Apr 17, 2006 5:27 pm

Accodring to a PM ghegs sent me years ago regarding the sig image.

"200x50"

captain ahar · Post by **captain ahar** » Mon Apr 17, 2006 5:33 pm

and yet yours is larger?

SteevTee · Post by **SteevTee** » Mon Apr 17, 2006 5:35 pm

captain ahar wrote:and yet yours is larger?

He's got 2 separate images

Ceph · Post by **Ceph** » Mon Apr 17, 2006 5:35 pm

Well, technically he's got 2 sigs, each no larger than 200x50

Post by **Ghegs** » Mon Apr 17, 2006 5:36 pm

Like it says in the forum rules, 200x50 non-animated is the limit.

I only notice now SFKhoa has cleverly gone around the restrictions with two images. Naughty naughty.

captain ahar · Post by **captain ahar** » Mon Apr 17, 2006 5:41 pm

thanks, ghegs. its fun to try and read carefully only to end up skimming... :B on me.

Eps · Post by **Eps** » Tue Apr 18, 2006 1:03 am

Yeah, I fell foul of this with the previous version of this DonPachi boss-alert sig, and Ghegs sent me a PM threatening DEATH*

* - Not really.

Post by **system11** » Wed Apr 19, 2006 8:09 am

Ghegs wrote:I only notice now SFKhoa has cleverly gone around the restrictions with two images. Naughty naughty.

had

Ceph · Post by **Ceph** » Wed Apr 19, 2006 9:53 am

Not that I plan on using a signature, but does it really matter if it's longer than 200 pixels? After all the sigs aren't stored on this server, and even at a length of say, 400 pixels they wouldn't break the forum. 400x50 would even look good at a monitor resolution of 640x480, and I don't think anyone is using such a low resolution this day and age. It's of course important they are small KB-wise.

The way the sigs look now, they seem a little short. Just my two cents.

Ceph · Post by **Ceph** » Wed Apr 19, 2006 10:13 am

For instance, this is how your sig looks for me:

Post by **Ghegs** » Wed Apr 19, 2006 1:15 pm

Ceph wrote:The way the sigs look now, they seem a little short. Just my two cents.

Sig images are pretty much useless in the first place. If it was solely up to me we wouldn't have any.

Neon · Post by **Neon** » Wed Apr 19, 2006 1:21 pm

Ghegs wrote:
Ceph wrote:The way the sigs look now, they seem a little short. Just my two cents.
Sig images are pretty much useless in the first place. If it was solely up to me we wouldn't have any.

"Damn, we really need bigger sigs," is probably the last thing I think when it comes to shmups.com.

Post by **system11** » Wed Apr 19, 2006 1:23 pm

They're supposed to be small, unobtrusive, and non banner-like. Signature tags, after all.

Use wide ones, and they resemble footers or page seperators - we don't need those, they're already drawn by the template. This is also why we only allow small avatars, and forbid animated sigs. The 200x50 allowance was actually a compromise to begin with, we nearly ran with 0x0

If you're running your browser full screen at a high resolution (which is crazy anyway, as it breaks many sites that don't fix a content width), then hey - great for you. I run at 1600x1200. I don't maximise windows, thats /why/ I wanted a large resolution, so I didn't have to...

As for loading times - that's the other reason they nearly weren't allowed at all. We could store them here (there are ways), which is something I'm actually considering. Why? Because when someone elses server starts screwing up, it spoils the integrity of the page - some browsers will simply fail to render entirely depending on how many components are failing to respond, and in what order things are being retrieved. We also have users still on dialup. Doubling a jpg doesn't make it 2x bigger of course, but with a gif it nearly does. 20 replies on a page. 20 7-10k images, now becomes 20 10-15k ones. Suddenly it matters to a poor guy who gets about 7kb per second on a good day. It's never been about server bandwidth.

There are the reasons. 200x50 stays I'm afraid. Go take a look at neogeo.com, or many other web forums. Witness the 800x400 banners next to one line replies, try to make sense of it all, then look at one of our pages again. And feel happy.

Ceph · Post by **Ceph** » Wed Apr 19, 2006 2:55 pm

Thanks for the long explanation

What you say does make sense. I personally hate those huge intrusive sigs you see on some borads; they are just as annoying as banners ads. While a length of more than 200 wouldn't bother me, I would indeed mind if they were higher than 50 pixels on this board.

Eps · Post by **Eps** » Wed Apr 19, 2006 3:47 pm

Neon wrote:"Damn, we really need bigger sigs," is probably the last thing I think when it comes to shmups.com.

Truth. I was mortified to find out that mine was slightly too large at first. On gaming forums, big sig usually equals idiot (rampant generalisations go!

).

Ceph · Post by **Ceph** » Wed Apr 19, 2006 4:56 pm

Eps wrote:On gaming forums, big sig usually equals idiot (rampant generalisations go! ).

Very true. I would go as far as saying that sig size is inversely proportional to IQ. Simple proof of this theory: Check the spelling of people with huge sigs on borads where the size isn't restricted.

Neon: I didn't ask for larger sigs; the current height is perfect - I just meant that I wouldn't mind if slightly wider sigs were allowed. For instance, the one SFKhoa had was not disturbingly large in my opinion.

Post by **Ghegs** » Wed Apr 19, 2006 6:23 pm

Ceph wrote:Very true. I would go as far as saying that sig size is inversely proportional to IQ. Simple proof of this theory: Check the spelling of people with huge sigs on borads where the size isn't restricted.

Oh, cruel irony.