Signature size

[T.Dooley]

Hi

First of all, this is not a very critical issue (), but if you puzzle with putting links and images in your signature using all kind of BB coding, your very quickly use up the 1000 characters allowed:

Your signature cannot be longer than 1000 characters including BB code markup.

Would you consider allowing much more space for BB code, say 4000-5000 characters?

Best regards
Tom

[Mickey]

Would you consider allowing much more space for BB code, say 4000-5000 characters?

I'll certainly considerate. I've kept it fairly low because I hate sites where everyone has huge, obnoxious sigs. I'd prefer that people keep them short and simple.

That being said, I'm willing to listen. What do others think about this?

[Captain Hornblower]

I've kept it fairly low because I hate sites where everyone has huge, obnoxious sigs.

I am absolutely with you! The signature is just a signature and shouldn't dominate the post.

[T.Dooley]

I'll certainly considerate. I've kept it fairly low because I hate sites where everyone has huge, obnoxious sigs. I'd prefer that people keep them short and simple.

That being said, I'm willing to listen. What do others think about this?

Thanks :-) please note that as an example my current (2009-02-25 17:33 GMT+1) 1 line signature is bigger in bytes than my previous 10 line version...

I too do not like mega multi line and overfilled signatures, but on the other hand, why not let people "get it" over time. I dont think that they (Me, I , You) will "get the idea" by being told 1000 bytes or any limit is max!

[T.Dooley]

Well, this thread discussion may have turned a bit over in another direction than was my initially question.

More to what's in and how the signature looks, rather than how many bytes you technically can use.
As demonstrated with my own signature, you easily can use more bytes making a one line signature than a 10 line one.
No, problem, I make my signature within the current limit of 1000 bytes.

I personally have no problem reading what people write in postings.
No matter Whatever they have as signature or picture or titel etc.

I don't care if people have a signature of 10 images, 100 lines of text, or whatever, after every post! Or for that sake have all kind of sidebar distractions of statistics, various more or less descriptive titels and prizes, not to mention strange member pictures. :-) Just like it doesnt either distract me that all the remaining spots have advertising. But...

I am deeply against any sort of censorship dictating how my, or any others, presence in any forum should be, as long as I, like everyone else, join and accept the rules and terms.
Who can, objectively, say if my or anybody else's signature is too huge, obnoxious or dominating?

Best regards
Tom

[araT]

I too (do not like ) mega multi line and overfilled signatures

I don't care if people have a signature of 10 images, 100 lines of text, or whatever, after every post!

You say in your second-last post that you don't like over-the-top signatures either, and then go on to add in your last post that they do not bother you.. make up your mind

Frankly, they bother me and a lot of the other staff around here - we've had some prior bad experiences - and in the 4 or 5 years this site has been around, you're the first to complain about it.. even now after the topic has been brought up, no other users have jumped up and said "me too".. one against the masses?

I am deeply against any sort of censorship dictating how my, or any others, presence in any forum should be, as long as I, like everyone else, join and accept the rules and terms.
Who can, objectively, say if my or anybody else's signature is too huge, obnoxious or dominating?

One could argue our signature restrictions are part of our terms and conditions.. Also, I believe (read: hope) you have misunderstood the meaning of censorship, otherwise I resent you insinuating that we have censored you in any way by limiting the length/size/bytes of signatures for all members on this board. Censorship would mean that we restrict & control the content of your singature, not it's length.

I don't have a problems with small text signatures, especially yours in it's current incarnation, it looks great - I just know there are people out there that will abuse the higher limits in no time at all.

That said, ultimately, it's not up to you or me to decide, though we welcome suggestions ..it's up to Mickey.. it's his site and he'll set it up and run it as he pleases.

[T.Dooley]

Sorry!! tough answer, I must admit. I'll try never ever again post a controversial issue as a new member of this well established forum. Although I have several ideas on how this forum could be improved. Sorry, for any offending.

I don't have a problems with small text signatures, especially yours in it's current incarnation, it looks great - I just know there are people out there that will abuse the higher limits in no time at all.

And I sorry to tell, they most likely nowadays will hack you no matter how long your signature is. If this is a member signature issue I'm sure our great server master Mick will tell.

Frankly, they bother me and a lot of the other staff around here - we've had some prior bad experiences - and in the 4 or 5 years this site has been around, you're the first to complain about it.. even now after the topic has been brought up, no other users have jumped up and said "me too".. one against the masses?

araT, I won't comment on all your comments, just take to the record, I have not complained about anything, I just pointed out a minor forum thing. And note: that I will never allow the "masses" to be an major infuence in my life. They are not family or friend!

Well, I just knew I should'nt have arsked and posted this... I really dont care about my signature, in this forum. I just ran into a technical limit. No problem, sig removed, done! Over and out!

[Appletom]

LOL!

I would hardly consider Mr. Dooley a new member, and I wouldn't really classify this as a controversial topic.

Thoughts and comments and ideas for improvement are always welcome. Remember, the mods sometimes can't see the forest for the trees and need members to point out things that might be obvious to you, but glossed over by the mods.

Last but not least, what if we changed one word of araT's second paragraph in post #6? If we change "complain" to "comment" then araT's post takes on a new dimension and Mr. Dooley's reply would also change accordingly.

[Appletom]

One more thought about sigs - the mods can edit them very easily. So if there is ever a sig that is offensive or annoying, we can change or remove it with just a few mouseclicks.

I'm guessing I delete about one sig a month; usually to remove a spammy link.

[SpiderX22]

To be perfectly honest, I'd forgotten sigs even existed...I just habitually ignore them.

[araT]

Good point Appletom, that word should be 'comment' and not 'complain'..

I think T.Dooley generally is a great member and a good guy, he has some great uploads. I just don't like how he's approached asking us - he's attempting to guilt us into it by using big scary words like 'censorship', I'm all for an agument on the pros & cons of a change, but I don't like being guilted into anything.

Maybe this is all a grand misunderstanding, it's hard to construe ones tone of voice on a forum, I'm just wondering why he chose *THOSE* examples.

[T.Dooley]

Please (re) read post #5. The last 3 paragraphs are (tried to be) precisely formulated with great care (perhaps not enough) so that it describes my overall position on censorship and in no way any accusation of the current situation or this forum. I'm very sorry that this has been perceived as an accusation of this forum to exercise censorship. This was in no way the intention.

Paragraph 1 and 2 of that post #5 points out, that I just thought that the thread was moving away from the topic. Looking back, I should not have described my general attitude to censorship in this context. Sorry.

/Tom