No images in signatures? Boring!

Reesa Marchetti · #1 (**permalink**) 07-30-2004, 12:34 AM

Hey,

Am I the only one who's peeved that this forum no longer allows images in signatures? I looked forward to seeing the little graphics. It really broke up the look of long, boring text text text...

Please bring back the images :-( sob

ronniethedodger · #2 (**permalink**) 07-30-2004, 04:32 AM

I don't know. I kind of like it that way myself. But that is my preference -- it just looks cleaner and more readable without having varying sized sigline images breaking the flow of the text.

minstrel · #3 (**permalink**) 07-30-2004, 10:46 AM

But think about it, Dodger - this means no more miniatures of your favorite artists in the sigline - no more Van Gogh, Monet, dogs-playing-poker, or Velvet Elvis.

Some rules just go too far...

labrynth_of_fire · #4 (**permalink**) 07-30-2004, 02:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by minstrel

But think about it, Dodger - this means no more miniatures of your favorite artists in the sigline - no more Van Gogh, Monet, dogs-playing-poker, or Velvet Elvis.

Some rules just go too far...

True, and well said.

wenwilder · #5 (**permalink**) 07-30-2004, 07:00 PM

Signatures are alot of fun. I've seen some great quotes placed in the sig lines. I've also seen links to cookies, trojans, BHO's, and more affiliate sites than one would care to count.

Signatures are a plus in the forum. You have forums that do not allow you to have signatures until you have contributed a certain number of posts. WPW could have done that, they could have also decided to not allow signatures at all.

This new rule doesn't just affect you as members, it also affect the moderators and admin. They have to follow their own rules as well :)

Be glad that sig lines are still allowed and that you are allowed more than one line. Any number of things could be worse, but it's not :)

And to be honest, I understand why you don't like the change, but the mods are the one's who have to follow the links to assure you don't go to any site that may damage your computer and to make sure that the content of the site is appropriate for all ages, and many other reasons.

So ya, the change is a tragedy but it really could be worse. ;)

What would you have recommend?

rocky1 · #6 (**permalink**) 07-31-2004, 12:06 AM

Have to agree with the Dodger and those that offered the ruling, the sig lines were getting out of hand. This forum is supposed to represent professionalism in web design, and some of the signature lines were getting pretty carried away.

In that there will always be times when rules have to be made and followed, it should I guess be understood that these things are often done for the sake of everyone involved as Wen points out, although everyone may not agree with the ruling. There are simply times you have to set a limit and live by it, like it or not.

As for other recommendations and the actions of other forums... many forums do allow graphics in signatures, establishing a line height limit, and provide a pixel to line ratio for verification of size, they likewise implement a file size limitation in conjunction with height and width limits, so the pages won't be slowed loading. I could provide you with a link to such rules in example, should you be interested Wen.

Jason Tor · #7 (**permalink**) 07-31-2004, 02:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ronniethedodger

I don't know. I kind of like it that way myself. But that is my preference -- it just looks cleaner and more readable without having varying sized sigline images breaking the flow of the text.

I agree, I cant stand when there is some big honkin(<--- Where did that come from?) image there, it looks to much like an banner advertisement, I like the text, it flow's much better.

-Jason Tor

ldyguique · #8 (**permalink**) 08-01-2004, 06:02 PM

I've been nonposting for a few months as I relocated from PA to AK -- and have been caught somewhere in a lightzone warp (a neverending day). When I bopped in this morning, I was surprised to see the new rule; however, I made the appropriate change.

Perhaps one of the more irritating aspects of images in a sig was when a person had a large animated one and posted multiple times to the same topic -- if several were involved with similar types of sigs -- by the time one sorted through the reiterations and the sigs -- it wasn't worth reading the topic.

However, by the same token, signature images have a jauntiness to them and help to separate out who is who in a long topic that spans multiple pages. I think that a limited size would be a good compromise, such as 100 x 100 pixels (or any variation within that size).

As for the affiliate and/or MLM links, I agree to their dropkick to the curb.

hawkwind dave · #9 (**permalink**) 08-05-2004, 01:06 PM

it was good to see the images in signatures in the logo competition though.

from a design point of view, it's like, this is my entry to the competition and this is my logo, from comparing the design & logo, you/I/one gets a feel for the designer.