Okay, I've NEVER liked images in signatures as they tended to be hideously ugly and usually ended up being out of control in size and distracting. (Kinda like really long text signatures )

Ever since we switched to UBB Threads in October I've been removing any signature images I've seen because only a bug has allowed them to be used despite my turning the feature off. (This will be fixed with the next update in a few weeks)

I just noticed U talkin' da me ??'s signature - he uses a "Userbar" from userbars.org that I did not totally hate. Most importantly, it's SMALL. And small is good.

Before automatically removing it, I wanted to get yooz's opinion on this....

First off, I would NEVER allow big-ass images, or grossly animated images, or multiple images, in signatures. I might not even allow Userbar images. But I'm wondering if we should allow people to have 1 or maybe 2 Userbar image(s) (or another of the same/similar (short!) dimensions (350x20)

This is a "Userbar":


What do you think?

Images in Sigs? single choice
	Sure - But only 1-2 short Userbars
	No! No images in sigs at all
	I don't care either way...
Votes accepted starting: 01/28/07 04:21 PM
View Results

I voted "NO". IMO we shouldn't have signatures period. Nobody ever reads them anyway. Don't mind me, though, I said the same thing about Post Counts.

If it ain't broke...

Another way to look at it is -- if a picture is worth 1000 words, maybe we could get rid of a lot of those words!

I voted "I don't care." It don't make no never mind to me. I'll abide to whatever.



TIS

I'm with SC and Mig here. Oh, wait, I have a signature....

Is your thought process here that if you keep saying this - woman will begin to believe you ???

I voted no.

Sure,who cares,i don't know,why not.Good idea

I hate sites with pictures in the signatures. If possible I always disable the feature.

I said sure as long as they were kept within a certain length. I don't see the harm in them

Geoff, let me ask you this ; If a large amount of people on these boards began using these Userbar Images in their signatures, could that affect the speed of the boards, slow it down when when loading, etc.?


Don Cardi

I voted for the third option.

But DC posed a good question, if we do allow 1 or maybe even 2, will that slow the board up or cause any other problems?

Cause if so then my vote would be no.

This is also a concern of mine. In threads where there are a lot of photos posted, everything slows down to a snail-like crawl for me. Very annoying.

I am not a big fan of images in signatures (and userbars really are, to me, little more than adverstising), but I don't totally agree with what SC posted earlier in this thread - that people do not read signatures. I, for one, do. I have found many interesting (and sometimes funny) things in signatures. JG's, for one. Turnbull's, as well - if only I could figure out what it meant! I have no problem with text signatures.

My problem with signatures goes beyond images: I just wish that when you change your signature, it did not become retroactive and affect all your prior posts.

But that's another story...

Signor V.

The Userbar image in the first post, for instance, is about the same size as a user's avatar in terms of file size and load time. That's always been a concern of mine, for those poor souls who still struggle with dial-up connections.

For the record, I'm not a fan of even text signatures that span so many lines (you film raters ) that don't show the courtesy of turning them off when, say, not reviewing a film. But even worse, on other boards that allow any image in sigs, they're just God-awfully distracting and ugly. Too much screen real estate and distraction is my biggest pet peeve. The Userbars aren't guilty of either, IMHO.

But again, I'm not for or against them. Just want to get a general opinion before I make a decision...

FWIW - I hadn't used a sig myself in years 'til we switched to Threads. Not sure why. Guess I just thought the quote funny.

Sig images are a great way of self-expression, an extension of a text sig or a quote, like another avatar.

As long as the feature can be turned off for those who either a.) dislike them or b.) still use dial-up or c.) all of the above, I can't see any reason why they SHOULDN'T be allowed.

I vote yea.

Regards,
Double-J

Oh c'mon DJ, self expression? Isn't your name, avatar, signature, and more importantly - what you actually say, enough to express yourself?

I'm actually, finally, in a position where my computer is not an ancient fossil. Some people aren't as lucky. Even now with my computer I don't need the eyesores from the one place I'd least expect it, well except for the photo album thread you ugly fuckers.

JG, don't make me sad!!!

Once again, the fact remains - they can be turned off.

As long as that option exists, I see no reason why those who wish to have them turned on are denied that privilege.

Pretty funny... I totally forgot that there is this option in My Preferences:

Do you want to view other user's signatures with their posts?

Does this mean we get sig images? Please let me know the image size limits so I can get to work ASAP.

The same goes for me. I actually had to reduce the number of posts per page from the default 35 to four, so that the number of pictures in those photo threads doesn't slow me down.

I also would like a feature to add the content of a signature to a post permanently, so that when one changes signatures, it doesn't affect previous posts.

I'm not a huge fan of using pictures in the signatures, but in the end, I don't really care.

Nah. I like reading the text sigs, but I'm not really feelin the image ones.

And I would turn them off, but then I wouldn't be able to read the text ones either, right?

I think it would be cool to see what images people come up with. Like everyone is saying, as long as we can turn off the images, then it shouldn't matter if those of us who want them still have them.

I do ask that they be kept small like the example you gave at the top J Geoff. And I don't see a reason for more than 1 image.

Yes, JG - wouldn't using the "disable" feature eliminate everything?

Signor V.

Yup.

I voted YES.
it would be AWESOME to have signature images but the images shouldn't be very large
a size that fits to those whom are using dial up.

350x20 pixels isn't going to slow down dial-up users at all. It's pretty teenie. And Geoff, you could probably also establish a file size limit in addition to the actual pixel size.

So, say something like 15 or 20kb (the one in the first post is almost 10k) as the limit. That's about the size of some people's avatars.

I think they should be allowed; people can turn them off if they like. Let us eat cake.

Still thinking about it...

But that example image is less than 5k

It is?

Photoshop optimized it at 9k.

Image Properties

Photoshop doubled its size after "optimizing" it? Maybe you're doing something wrong...