A friendly request for boobless

[fish]

I think a few other users and I would like to request that you either shrink your sig size and/or get a new one. I personally like the image, but it greatly slows the loading time of the pages.


Phisherman

[Xerxes]

Seriously...

in the beginning of the boards, we had images on in
signatures, and people who posted large animated images ruined it for everyone as they removed images for a long time...

so please be a good chap and reduce the size ... it will doing everyone a courteous favor...

[sgtfuzzbubble011]

Yes, it's just a little bit too big. I made a few of the images for some of the people here on the boards for thier sigs... But all of them are very small. So, I humbly ask all that wish to put images in their sigs to make sure that the images are less than 9 kilobytes... All of the images I have made are less than 9. Is everyone cool with that? I would hate to see the image tags in the sigs turned off...

[iomegajaz]

I just asked this very question of Boobless in another thread, and I think we should draw up some guidelines:

x. Maximum filesize of 15kb.
x. Maximum dimensions of 50 pixels in height, and 300 pixels in width.

Sound good?

[Xerxes]

how about upping that to 17.5 KB? wait a minute.. thats the size of mine... ... how convienient....

[sgtfuzzbubble011]

Ok... 15 sounds reasonable. I'd still much rather have it less than 9, though...

[e144539]

Ah man, I just spent 3 minutes getting mine under 9

[boobless]

6.7k

[sgtfuzzbubble011]

Much better. Thanks.

[Ice]

i say 5kb. optimize your graphics.

[boobless]

Originally posted by iomegajaz


x. Maximum filesize of 15kb.


Sound good?

ahem ahem.

[Ice]

i'm working on making a pic for my sig. this is my trial one. prolly wont use it:


this is only 9kb. if this huge thing is 9kb, the small ones should be under 5kb....

it will be small like this one (same image)

[John M]

Remember this, guys. A dialup user can get around 3 or 4 k/sec. Thats a 2-3 second load for larger sigs. For times sake, lets compare to DSL. I get 80k, thats like a .1 second load for a larger sig. Mine runs a little over 3kb. It would be great if sigs would be a second or less each for dialup users. just my 2/100ths of a dollar.

[WalrusSP]

Well, as load time goes, once the sig is in the thread once, so am i right in thinking that for most people they will have it in their browser cache, so load time isn't really affected all that much? I do agree that large sigs can be distracting when trying to browse through messages.

[Mr. Ice]

i agree with walrus. once you've got the image, it's cached. you don't have to get it each and every time. although waiting for new huge sigs tends to suck, so i support the size limit.

[John M]

U R right. I was thinking from the perspective of if 5 users had 6k sigs, thats 30 k to load, which is another 7-10 seconds for dialup users.

[sgtfuzzbubble011]

although waiting for new huge sigs tends to suck, so i support the size limit.

Same here. As long as the image is small in pixel-size and byte-size, then I think it's ok... Jaz's specs sound pretty decent: Max of 300x50 @ 15k

[Kaboon]

You guys have cool sigs. I like the ones that you've made Sarge. Esspesialy the nice little kitten for SLK. But damnit, now I have to think of something too. Think that's a nice way to spend my day. Going to create nice a sig now.

[fish]

Originally posted by iomegajaz
x. Maximum dimensions of 50 pixels in height, and 300 pixels in width.

Sound good?

how bout you make this a bit smaller, because if the sig is bigger than the message itself, it gets sort of redundant and it hides the actual text even more along with these useless buttons on the bottom and the colors

[boobless]

o fine fine i'll make it even smaller when i get home, how bout 250x50, 5k or less, sound good?

[fish]

Originally posted by Ice
i'm working on making a pic for my sig. this is my trial one. prolly wont use it:

[snip]

this is only 9kb. if this huge thing is 9kb, the small ones should be under 5kb....

it will be small like this one (same image)

I like that one. It reminds me of MTV's graphics

[monocle]

personally, I think all the animated shit rots. The only thing more anoying that seeing a page full of bouncing and rolling and scrolling shit is if you just waited 3 min for all that shit to load. But since I'm on T1, time is nothing, so that brings me back to this: I think all the animated shit rots.

[iomegajaz]

Xerxes, I think there has got to be a way for you to get that file size down. Want to try handing it over to Sarge and seeing what he can do? Maybe he knows some optimisation tricks we don't.

Watadoo: Yeah, I stick by my "One sig per page" for the bigger sigs. I think ones such as mine, Sarge's, SLK's, John M's etc. are fine to be repeated, but Boobless' for example (sorry to harp on your sig Boobguy) could be restricted to once per page. Actually, I really want to just get everyone's dimensions down to, say, 30 x 200 so we can have them on every post. In an ideal world, maybe....

Boobless: I think the pic you started with, with the skull-spider swaying, was one coolass picture. It just doesn't fit the signature mould.

I think sigs should be simple (actually, I think everything should be simple, as we all know), include your name, and something revealing a little about yourself. Sarge has his Terminator-style cursor and font going on, SLK's got that little heart and the kitty, i've got my name and a smilie. I think having too much detail in our sigs detracts/distracts from the actual message posted.

Basically, I'd love to see everyone have their own little signature pic (not necessarily animated) at the bottom of each post. Bigger, banner-style pics such as Boobless' and Sorcerer13's really aren't what I consider suitable. Keep 'em simple kids.

Comments? Suggestions? Shoutdowns?

[Winsane]

Gotta agree with Monocle. Especially since I've got a slow CPU, a crap graphics card, and, for a couple weeks, a dial-up connection.

[fish]

If the amination's small like sarge's than I like it, but boobless' has got to go.