I was given to understand by Burnside, that the signature dimensions currently denoted in the guidelines, are relative to the 500 maximum. So that a signature 200 x 300 is fitting , even though the hight of 200 is above the posted 150 limit, it is in keeping with the 500 maximum over all.

The size limit is 500x150, that is, it cannot exceed 500 pixels in width or 150 pixels in height. 200x300 exceeds 150 pixels in height and therefore exceeds the limit.

Your signature image (at the time of this posting) is currently too large.

Remember, a signature is meant as a short endpiece to your posts, it shouldn't contain huge pictures or large blocks of text.

Full details of our signature guidelines can be found: Here.

Saruman has a point with this mainly because you just know some wise butt would do this:



1 pixel width, 499 pixel length

Wow, I guess then the Moderators are going to be quite busy deleting every signature over those restrictions. Those that must be no more than 150 high or 500 in length, exactly.

Sympa Sheri ,Yelekiah, Irish, Bosanchero, starlitkate,JayRob303, amybutts, BDV, Leliel, frogfish, Lion of Judah , etc...

And these are just from browsing a few threads. If the signature restrictions are exact, so to then should the editing across the board, when signatures exceed the permitted size. However, as has been witnessed on board, that is not the case. Some members signatures are edited regularly, while some members are left unattended.

The moderators have a lot of things to deal with on the forum, and signature sizes are quite low on the priority list. We're not going to quibble over every signature that is a couple of pixels over the size limit, nor are we going to go around every day actively scouring the board for such signatures. These are guidelines that we ask our members to follow, even if we don't constantly patrol around looking for people who don't.


Trimming a few pixels off your signature is not that important, however we do get frustrated when we ask someone to reduce the size of their signature and they refuse to co-operate. If a member keeps refusing to reduce their signature size, then they are likely to be having their signature removed on a regular basis until they do.

As for those people you have listed, one is 4 pixels over, one has no signature at all, one is 10 pixels over, one isn't over the limit and another has an error in their signature which is making some images stack vertically instead of horizontally.

Yes some of these do exceed the limit, and we'll get to them in due course.

The point is, please check to ensure that your signature is within the size guidelines, as it saves us having to remind you to make sure that it is.

I had to change my sig to meet the 50 KB limit, so I get it.
What can ya do?
They just do not like us all that much I suppose so we should just be glad they let us post at all perhaps.


--------------------------------------

Im-Fried 6 KB

Sy-Sheri 82 KB

Yelekiah 11 KB

Bosan 53 KB

starlite 3 KB

JayRob 230 KB

amy 93 KB

Leliel 56 KB

Frog 45 KB

Lion 17 KB

I can't speak for the mods, but the sig in question (which I liked) would have immediately drawn attention to it's filesize because of the animation, which always increases filesize because it is, in essence, 5 or more pictures stored into one, as frames. I don't think it was singling you out in any way.

Resize, change formats, compress and use options in your photo program to lessen the size.

My current image sig took me over an hour and a half to get right because I had to keep resizing it and working with my program to get it just right.

I have DSL upgraded and I still notice page lag when someone goes over board with a sig or avatar. It effects surfing and posting. I can't even think what those poor dial-up users are thinking when they click on a page with member's going nuts on sigs and avatar size.

As SaRuMaN said the moderators on this site are busy.

As a forum leader I get to see just a little bit of how much they have to do. This site has more than 37,000 members and there have been in excess of 1.2 million posts. The moderators have to police all this. They have to deal with the huge number of spam messages that get posted on here. They have to deal with the flame wars that break out, with the offensive language that is used, with the accidental double posts that we all make from time to time and with people that hit the "REPORT" button every time this disagree with someone elses point of view. They have to check that offensive image aren't posted or that links aren't to inappropriate sites.

They do all this voluntarily. They usually do so without any thanks and often at the end of a load of abuse. They give up their time to do it and on the whole I think they do it exceptionally well.

This website has rules. They are not particularly restrictive and, in my opinion they are fair. Is it too much to ask people to try and follow them? And if you do break them and are caught doing so, I'm sorry but whinging that "he does it too but you haven't caught him," just does not cut it as a defence.

Yes, well, that is all well and good but sometimes we all need just a tad of whine and sympathy once a month or so.

Ask the guys in the siggy workshop to help you out. That's what I did when I was having trouble resizing my pic to look decent. Took them no time at all and they were very nice and helpful.

I asked them a long time ago on the old sig I had, but got no response.
I liked that pic better because it was funnier to me with Six holding Baltar's face in a vise grip to force him to focus on looking at something.
I ended up going through images on Google to find a sig and found the one I have now.
Little too mucn emphasis on the boobs for me, but it is the Capria Six cylon so I am happy with it.

Yes we should be grateful we can post at all. And so to should UM be grateful we do. It's a mutual relationship you see. Without the members UM (any site) is nothing.



You misunderstood me. I wasn't making excuses at all. I was relating an observation that, thanks to your reply, is made valid in it's claim of "favorites" on board.

If Moderators are as busy monitoring post content, it's a simple matter to take the time to mouse over the signature contained therein. A click on properties is a simple matter as it is when those Mod's, per your statement, check links in posts , etc....

And while I do appreciate Mod's responsibilities being enormous on a board this size, I also appreciate fair measure of oversight and editorial critique, from those that can take the time to edit posts for content and all the other reasons Waspie outlines, but claim taking the same amount of time to include scrolling over the signature contained in that same thread under scrutiny, isn't realistic. It can be said that doesn't cut it as a defense either.

And that Burnside earlier communication about the 500 overall dimension limit is not the case, is unfortunate. Because a signature 200 X 300 takes up less room than the 150 X 500, but none the less is against the rule for size.

Why is it that people are always fighting the rules?

Regardless, check the member list, see how many THOUSANDS of members there are, then counter in the amount of posts that would be made each day, by every member, does that not give an indication as to the magnitude of the job that moderators have to do, without counting the fact that they would then have to remove signatures all the time? The purpose of the signature rule is to stop the need for the removal of signatures, if its kept under or sitting just at the said dimensions and size, then the page runs faster, everybody can do what they want on UM and not wait for chuggy page hoggers with too big signatures to load (i unknowingly was the cause for this once myself)

If people have a problem with their signature then ask us in the gallery, we can resize it in two seconds, we cant always promise a fast response, re: Bella-Angelique, because there is a "queue" system, whereby if someone asks for something first, their request will be processed first, and please dont whine about not getting things done, we all have personal lives too, and may not be able to handle all the requests at one time.

It's not a simple matter at all, and in fact you have demonstrated quite nicely yourself why this is not the case.

When your first signature image was removed, a picture which was both over the limit and inapropriate, you complained bitterly about it, arguing with the moderator who removed it that she had no cause to do so instead of acknowledging why it has been removed.

Then you went on to replace it with another image that was over the size limit. When that was removed, you started this thread to ask confirmation for the size limits, which in itself is fair enough, but when I confirmed what they were, you started complaining about the fact that now according to you we are not removing other people's oversized signatures fast enough.

Imagine how difficult it would be to moderate signature sizes if everyone reacted like this to having their signature removed. You're saying that checking a signature size is a two second job, but how much time have we all wasted dealing with you after your signature was removed ?

The bottom line is, this is a free forum service, and as such is provided as is. If you are not happy about our signature size limitations or if you believe we are not removing oversized signatures fast enough then please by all means go elsewhere.

50036 bytes.





Saruman, I'm sure there are some codes that can be used to automatically restrict or resize any images that exceed the dimensions you set. It's probably not worth your while trying to figure out how to do it, but if someone on the forum knows how, it could be helpful.

Here's a link to a program which compresses animated .gif signatures, which reduces their size. Click

And your point is? 1kb = 1024b. Therefore 50kb = 51200b

That signature is only 48.86kb.

Touché.

I'm currently looking into improved ways of checking signature sizes, a system that could automatically detect whether a signature was too large when it was submitted would be ideal if it could be done, i'm currently checking into this to see how viable it is.

Ideally we need a system which is automatic and non-confusing, so that everyone is aware that there is a size limit, but which will disallow oversized signatures without us having to manually intervene each time.

Why don't you appoint a siggy moderator. Just some random person everyone hates anyway to go around and bitterly remove siggies? Just kidding. Although a sig nazi would be a pretty funny title to run around UM with....

I can't imagine anyone would want that job, its extremely boring, tedious and time consuming, and I doubt that person would be very popular if all they did was remove signatures.

An automated system is a much better solution.

True. But it would be funny. I have my vote for who should have to do it. Hey that's it, it should be more of a punishment.

In that case I can think of a few people for the job.

WHy not ask Imaginary Friend if he wants the job? He seems pretty rearing to keep to the guidelines

Ha! So funny. Given you PA are already a Mod. perhaps it's your calling.

Actually I'm not raring to keep to the guidelines. I'm just tired of having my signature removed when in the same thread just a scroll away someone is boldly in violation and yet their signature remains untouched. (And especially when my signature is 200X 200 and is deleted because the 200 is 50 over the 150 limit but the entire siggy. is well under 500 max) If the guidelines were followed, there would be more people PO'd, because their free ride would suddenly disappear like my signature does.

Don't think I don't appreciate the obsession btw. Editing signatures might suck as the only job a mod. would have on board, however that's not to say some don't get their jollies for the duty they subscribe to in that regard amid all their many other responsibilities. Browse 5 threads in Spirit/Skeptic or Religion forum, and I promise you'll find at least one that is either over the bytes maximum for animation siggy. or otherwise!

That's why I posted the SN's in my initial statement. I found those browsing 3 threads in Spirit/Skeptic forum. And that was just during a follow-up to threads of interest.

God's how I expected so much more than the weak; If you don't like it you can leave, retort!
For sure you may have noticed many members are doing just that. Leaving.
However what you may not be aware of is, even if they go elsewhere the issue remains on board as an example that while the rules may be posted, compliance and censure of violations, is not consistent. Which does little to allude to any notion that the rules are worthy of respect when they only apply to some, not to all. (the disrespect is evident in those that continue unabated, posting huge signatures) We can leave by the hundreds from this site, as long as that little discrepancy in Moderator oversight remains as an example on board it broadcasts an image of the policies and policing discrepancy that lends an indelible impression as it stands, of UM.

I like this site, that's why I mentioned the issue at all. If one does not like people bringing up their issues, perhaps one shouldn't have Moderators that lend cause to make them by their ....predisposition to "power" rather than fair policy.

I would do it. You go through name while you're browsing the forums, whats so difficult about that?

A group of members (27+) could easily do it. Each person take a letter and scan through it to make sure that there's no violation. The only problem is having 27+ people who can be responsible enough to do it.

What you need to remember is that signature size limitations are necessary, not because we feel like implementing a rule just for the sake of it, but because the alternative is a lot worse. People will soon get fed up of trying to browse threads where there are wallpaper sized pictures plastered underneath every post, or enough signature text to fill a small web site. Almost all forums these days have similar limits, in fact our limit 500x150 is one of the most commonly used, which is why I chose it.

We've done our best to remove signatures that exceed this limit, a lot of signatures do get removed, but on a forum this size it is nearly impossible to get them all. I'm aware that some people's signatures get removed while others are missed, and that is a problem, we encourage users to report oversized signatures to us and we do remove an oversized signature that we see if we get a chance.


I think Kratos' explanation covers the best how this is a problem, a 1x149 signature image for example takes up a huge amount of space vertically, despite it's small dimensions. It's not about the total area of the image, it's about the amount of space it takes up either horizontally or vertically. For example a 600x50 signature would distort the page design, and a very tall image would stretch out the length of a person's posts meaning it will take longer to scroll through them in a thread.


Nobody leaves a forum because of it's signature size policies, or because the moderators haven't caught ever single person who is exceeding the limit. People still drive on roads, despite the fact that not every speeder is caught.

The signature size limits apply to everyone, if you see someone who's signature exceeds those limits then let us know, but be sure that we will get to them in due course. We might not have the manpower to remove them all straight away, but we do look out for them and we will remove them when we see them.


I welcome problems being brought to our attention, as I said above I have been spending a lot of time over the last two days looking into implementing an automated system which would disallow signatures that were too large from even being submitted. Until now I believed our handling of signatures to be adequate, however it appears this is not the case. Since I can't ask our moderators to spend all of their time browsing people's signature images, I am opting for an alternative approach instead.

Update
I've incorporated a rudimentary signature size limitation system to the user CP. If you try to add an image to your signature which exceeds the limit you will get an error message and will be asked to use a smaller image.

The system is going to need considerable testing, however it does appear to be working correctly. Note that this will only catch oversized signatures which are submitted from now onwards, existing signatures which exceed the size limits will not be affected and will have to be removed manually as usual.

It is also now only possible to add 1 image to your signature. Using several stacked images to get around the size limit will no longer work.

If anyone discovers any bugs with the signature submission system or if you find you can still use an image which exceeds the limit, please let me know.

Thanks.

So is the limit still 500x150? Good job getting it done quickly.

Yes the limit is still the same, 500x150, 50k.

I just had to test it. Found a bug of some sorts.



When I put back in my sig before I tested it:

Just because I don't care doesn't mean I don't understand. -Homer Simpson

I don't have a problem with anger; I have a problem with idiots. -Hank Hill

The image and text makes up 241 characters, well below the limit and the image is all within range. But then even after that error, it seems to stay up or something? I don't know.

Oh...that's why I was having those problems with my sig No more stacked images? Oh man

And what is it with people pointing out my sig? Its under guidelines! Even my old ones!

That's it fixed, try re-adding your signature now and see if you still get an error.


The sig I mentioned earlier that wasn't over the limit was actually yours.

Just tried it. Working great.

Thanks for working on this, Saruman.

Thankyee!

Good job SaRu for your work.

Excellent! Now it's fair all around and we don't have to log on to find we've been selectively deleted of our signatures. Thank you for your efforts in this respect.

Question. Dynamic Images?!

I just tried to change my signature and received that message; we do not allow dynamic images in the URL tags.

What is that exactly!? It wasn't animated it was a small image, not even close to the image restriction sizes.

Thanks for reading me.

I don't know for sure, but I think dynamic images are ones that are hosted alongside other images, i.e. they have the same url as other images. So you could go to the url and see one image, and someone else could go to the same url and see another. Something like that, anyway, I never did figure them out.

Anyway, I'm sure the problem could be solved by simply rehosting the image; try putting it on Photobucket if you didn't already. If you still get a problem, check that the image is in .jpg format.

Thank you for the advice.
I uploaded the image that gave me the error message, to another file @ photobucket, and it worked. *crossing all things cross-able* I also have no clue as to what that "dynamic" error is, but at least I thwarted the IMGremlin once more. lol

That's the problem I'm having with mine now.

Is your signature animated? If it is, right click it and go to properties to make sure that the size is below 51200 bytes.

If that's what the problem is, you can compress the file using this.

A dynamic image is a an image which is accessed from a URL with a script, for example:
http://www.examplesite.com/imagegenerator.php?image=456

An image has to have a valid image extension in order to work on here, such as:
http://www.examplesite.com/image5.jpg


Make sure you aren't trying to use a huge block of text, try splitting the text onto seperate lines instead of having a long continuous string.

Nope, it's not animated and it's well under that amount of bytes. I had the image in my old signature, so I know it worked before.



Tried that. Says it's too long. It's only at 419 characters. I even shortened it down to about 300 something and tried that, but even then it said it was too long.

UM doesn't like me anymore...

This issue has now been sorted out via private messanger.

Essentially it turned out that the limit for the length of one line of text was set too low, it is now 200 characters.