ok, I was asked recently to adjust the size of my signiture. As you can see, I have complied, but this got me thinking. I went and checked and compared my signiture to the "suggested" signiture and sure enough, mine was one text line longer and 3/4 of an inch wider than the suggested one. Well, I thought this was fine since this was just a suggestion, but it is not.

In taking with the member that brought this to my attention, it seems that a width standard is being decided on, but it got me thinking about the length too. Some members here have novels in their signitures that stretch top to bottom on a page. This is most tiresome when trying to read a post and having to scroll through acres of signitures to get to a single post.

i would like to make a suggestion that was used on another forum I was part of. Signitures could be 100 pixels tall by 400-600 pixels wide, and 1 line of text, or 4-5 lines of text. This seemed to work well.

Just felt kinda singled out when there were still plenty of members out there who were worse offenders than I was.

You have no idea how many people I have asked to trim their sigs today... I've been asking for no more than 10 lines including empty lines of text, as mentioned the the sig guidelines in NOTICE.

Please don't feel singled out. It'* hard to get everyone at once.

I will to

your not the only one...we are all fealing it

Yes, it is a chronic problem, and you certainly are neither the only nor the worst offender. Sorry if you felt singled out.

The ideal solution is something automated, something in the forum code that could check sig size and enforce dimensional restrictions. That'* easier said than done, but it'* being mulled over nonetheless. To be continued, I suppose...


Jeff

gawd just looking at this thread makes me feel like i bumped my res to 3000 x 2xxx....

i squished a fair amount..... am i ok????

Geoff, you need to remember that my signature (that you're comparing to) was designed specifically by me to not exceed the normal non-scrolling width of a 1024x768 format just in case Fred Flinstone logs on at 56k with low screen resolution.

If a Moderator asks you to adjust your signature, adjust it. Their request is set out by the Admins of the site in order to make it a better place for all members and users, not just those with high screen resolutions and broadband.

During my 3 years here, I've adjusted my signature down in size progressively, and the current signature was designed to be efficient based on what I know the lower than average member has to work with.

Nothing frustrates me more than having to scroll left and right, or having someones short reply plus signature filling up most of the vertical space on the page.

We need balance. Color and car pics add character. They're the identity of the poster. But we can't have it distract from the purpose of the Forum, which is to share information.

Brag in your signature, but do it with courtesy for our members.

My gripe was not based on having to change it really. My gripe was that the only concern expressed was width. I can see width being an issue, but with the difference over mine was, it wouldn't have made that large of an issue to the 56k user. The issue I had is that nothing was said about height. A wide image and a tall image are going to have the same issue on a 56k computer. And with length, the 56 k user is going to have longer to wait while the page loads the novel of a signiture that some members have/had on the site. I often browse via VNC on my home computer. The screen size is smaller and the refresh rate is low. The more times I need to scroll down to get to the next post is bothersome and I can see this also being the case with a 56k user as they are waiting for the page to finish loading.

I guess my issue is that nothing was said about height of the signitures, just the width of them. And personally, if I need to brag about my car, I'll do it in the your rides section. It'* not like you guys have never seen a White 93 SSEi before.

Your width didn't have anything to do with 56k.

Set your signature back to where it was for a test. Then change your screen resolution to 1024x768 and view a post with your signature in it.

It exceeds the width of the page. Mine (which you compared to after being asked about yours by a Moderator) is JUST inside the allowable width for that screen resolution (considering the menu bar and width of the page when viewing topcis/posts).

I have to ask then, why was i asked to make mine smaller if the width isnt and issue?
mine was just a little taller then yours but it was also SMALLER then your horizontaly
BTW i have run 800x600 on 56k (at work) and have not needed to scroll from side to side or wait a long time for things to load.