The return of the [img] tag and shortening the sigs

Vicsun · Post by **Vicsun** » Sat Oct 30, 2004 1:24 pm

Has the time not come for [img] posting to be reinstated? I think that the storm is over and ... has cooled off by now. I'd hate to see this feature gone for ever.

My second request is the following: seeing how there seem to be a lot of signatures that are significantly longer than the average post, would it be unreasonable to ask for some sort of limitations on the maximum lengh a signature can have? I realize there's a character limit, but a line limit would be a lot more useful as my mouse scroll-wheel is starting to show signs of wearing out.
I don't know if it can be implemented, but a limit on the maximum text size in sigs would also make me an extremely happy poster. What's the use of posting point-25 text in your sig apart from making it extremely annoying?
I hope I'm not coming off as some sort of a minimalist-nazi, but it really does bug me when a signature is both 5x larger than a post and written in 25 point, bolded, red, impact font.. It distracts from the rest of the thread, it is aesthetically unpleasent, it is annoying, and it is kind of hard on the eyes.

Aegis · Post by **Aegis** » Sat Oct 30, 2004 2:00 pm

Vic has a point. A lot of signatures seem to overshadow the post (though, in the pure spam posts, that's not always an issue). Some sort of line limit, or a cap on the size of the fonts could go a long way to reduce the size of sig's.

Even on my monitor, and resolution, a lot of time is spent scrolling because of some of the more excessive sig's out there. (remember a while back some members having the entire lyrics to songs and poems. That's extreme excess).

Ideal Maxima · Post by **Ideal Maxima** » Sat Oct 30, 2004 2:07 pm

hmm... i know my siggy was big before, vic, but is it still big now? i could make even smaller at anyone's request

Stilgar · Post by **Stilgar** » Sat Oct 30, 2004 2:50 pm

I totally agree with you Vicsun.
@Darc_Elv_Nyte, i think it is. Why not drop the blanklines and the large fonts.

Post by **BuckGB** » Sat Oct 30, 2004 3:33 pm

How often was the [IMG] code used before? Is it a big deal to have to post pictures via an attachment instead of being able to post them directly into a thread? We have certainly seen the mischief that can be caused with the [IMG] tag, and unless it's a serious detriment, I'd rather not reinstate it.

However, the signature suggestion I agree with. I went ahead and reduced the total number of characters allowed in a signature from 500 to 300. I can also disallow the usage of VB coding in signatures, which might help for the excessive colors and font size. Before I do so, though, I'd like to at least get some feedback about whether or not this is a good idea from some of you. I imagine that disallowing the use of VB code in signatures will have a negative effect on some people.

Xandax · Post by **Xandax** » Sat Oct 30, 2004 3:52 pm

Personally - I have never seen much usage of the img tag, other then what people use it to insert smiles not native to the GB board.

IMO as we saw over a periode of time the tag can be seriously misused to post extreemly offensive material that can harm GB a lot.
However - I also recognize that the problem only existed due immature actions of one individual and we haven't had any misuse of it prior to this individual.

So it is very much the flip of a coin in my view.
Should we penalize the people that actually use the tag (although for minor elements after what I've seen over the last few years) in the name of keeping the board "safe".

Personally - at the moment - I lean mostly towards haveing it disabled for at least a while still.

As for the sig - then I wholehardedly (spelling?) agree. It is extreemly annoying to see huuuuge coloured letters in a signature. So I think it was a good decision to limit that capacity - as long as it doesn't hurt to many peoples "normal" styled sigs. (not me - I'm to unimaginative to colour in stuff).

Gwalchmai · Post by **Gwalchmai** » Sat Oct 30, 2004 6:58 pm

Remember, people have the option of turning off their ability to see signatures (and avatars as well) if they are disturbed by too-large signatures.

Xandax · Post by **Xandax** » Sun Oct 31, 2004 1:53 am

[QUOTE=Gwalchmai]Remember, people have the option of turning off their ability to see signatures (and avatars as well) if they are disturbed by too-large signatures.[/QUOTE]

But that would make it all or none.

In my view it is better to limit posting such letters as Vicsun illustrated, then having to turn of all signatures.

Vicsun · Post by **Vicsun** » Sun Oct 31, 2004 3:45 am

[QUOTE=Buck Satan]How often was the [IMG] code used before? Is it a big deal to have to post pictures via an attachment instead of being able to post them directly into a thread? We have certainly seen the mischief that can be caused with the [IMG] tag, and unless it's a serious detriment, I'd rather not reinstate it.[/quote]
I used it occasionally to post non-GB smileys, as well as posting relatively large images which are bigger than what is allowed as an attachment. I know it is possible to both add new smileys and up the size allowed for attachments, but I don't think that would solve anything because the use of non GB smileys is rather marginal and including them would only cause bloat, and upping the allowed attachment size would likely increase the monthly bill.
The potential for mischief is there, of course, but bar the recent incident there have been no problems with the abuse of [img] code in the four (?) years the boards have existed. IMHO disabling some of the board's functionality for ever because of a single instance of abuse is overreacting, but that is just my opinion.
[quote="Buck]
However"]
Frankly, I don't think a blanket ban on all VB code in signatures is an optimal solution, as the problem isn't that big yet (people do exhibit common sense, thankfully). A limit on the maximum number of lines of the signatures would be the best solution, I think.

Stilgar · Post by **Stilgar** » Sun Oct 31, 2004 3:55 am

When disabeling the VBcode doesnt that also disable links in signatures?
So i dont think that would be a good idea.
Why not make a general signature rule, not a maximum numer of characters (cause when i want to create a link, that uses alot of characters while it only displays the name of the link).
But more a rule like: Dont size your signatures, max 10rules long etc.?

Vicsun · Post by **Vicsun** » Sun Oct 31, 2004 5:25 am

[QUOTE=Stilgar]When disabeling the VBcode doesnt that also disable links in signatures?
So i dont think that would be a good idea.
Why not make a general signature rule, not a maximum numer of characters (cause when i want to create a link, that uses alot of characters while it only displays the name of the link).
But more a rule like: Dont size your signatures, max 10rules long etc.?[/QUOTE]
I was actually thinking along those lines as well. It can be enforced on case-by-case basis by the moderators as that would allow the system to be a lot more flexible.

Post by **BuckGB** » Sun Oct 31, 2004 11:50 am

Unfortunately, I cannot limit the number of "lines" a signature is - only the number of characters. However, I do think a new forum rule might work to keep excessive signatures off the boards.

So, what specific guidelines would everyone like to see? Should pictures be allowed? Should there be a maximum font size? How about a maximum number of links? If we can get a general list of guidelines in the rule, it will make it much easier to enforce.

Aegis · Post by **Aegis** » Sun Oct 31, 2004 12:19 pm

No 'wasted' space. you really don't need multiple skipped lines in a sig. One, possibly two to give focus to a quote and link are fine, but having five or six things in the sig, with a space between each is just excessive.

Font's bigger than 12 font. Again, this is excessive. For the most part, you don't need to up the size of the text to garner attention to your sig, as many people will read them as they go through the posts.

The use of the quote boxes. This one is a tricky one, and could work either way in my mind. But, the quote boxes seem to take up a lot of space, especially when their is more to the sig than the single quote. That one would probably probably be more of a judgement call, though.

Rob-hin · Post by **Rob-hin** » Sun Oct 31, 2004 12:32 pm

I'm against pictures in sig's. They make the board look cheap.

I agree with Aegis, a maximum of font 12 in sig's.

As for lines, well that's a bit difficult and I expect the most discussion about this. I'd say 4 lines are good, no more.

Stilgar · Post by **Stilgar** » Sun Oct 31, 2004 1:09 pm

I'm agains images, one of the main reasons i like gamebanshee is because the board looks organized cause there arent any pictures in the signatures.

For a sig, i would say the normal fontsize (dont know what it is), about 6-8 lines long.
People may post as many links in their signatures as they want, i cant think of a reason not to allow this (aslong as the link is to a site that you are allowed to post on the board aswell.)

Vicsun · Post by **Vicsun** » Mon Nov 01, 2004 3:13 pm

My opinions, partly echoing what others have said.

No blank space - using a single blank line to emphasize a link is okay, but more than one blank line is excessive.
Fonts shouldn't be bigger than size 2 in terms of BB code (size 1 is small, size 2 is regular font, and size 3 and above are larger-than-normal fonts)
Sigs shouldn't be written in caps-only or be fully underlined. Writing in caps is ususally taken to be screaming, and underlining should be used to emphasise a certain word or phrase...
There should be no [quote]quotation[/quote] code - it takes up a lot of space and distracts. If you want to quote someone you can use bold/italic text and quotation marks - it's a lot neater when in a sig, especially because many posts begin with quotations and thus a quotation in a sig often tricks me into thinking I'm actually reading a new post (especially when I'm tired and/or just skimming through the thread). That might be the rule I'd personally most like to see enforced.
Definitely no images in signatures. I'm not on a 56K, and I can still imagine how images in sigs would slow GB for me if they became popular, while adding more or less nothing to the content.
No more than 1 (2? 3?) link(s) per sig - I'm kind of split on that one as links are useful, but they are also slightly larger than normal text, underlined and bright yellow - i.e. they are meant to draw attention. A single link in a sig is no problem whatsoever, but more can become unpleasent.
Five lines per signature - this might seem restrictive, but looking at this thread only five out the fifteen replies have more than 8 lines in them (I'm using eight because that's the upper limit Stilgar suggested). A signature should be short. It's not meant to be an autobiography, nor a description of your character. I find it quite absurd that a signature can be longer than most posts.

Regardless of what rules are adopted, they should be enforced strictly, IMO. Apart from the no-annoying-colors-rule, which I'm not overly sure is necessary anyway, everything else is pretty concrete and can thus be enforced quite easily. As soon as some ambiguity is added to a rule or it is not enforced it will become pointless - i.e. saying about x-to-y number of lines in a sig are allowed would practically make the rule void.

Comments?

dragon wench · Post by **dragon wench** » Tue Nov 02, 2004 9:51 am

Personally, I would like to see the [img] brought back. As others have said, the recent incident was the only one to cause problems in all the time I have been here. Why allow the immaturity of one individual to cause blanket restrictions for the many?

I don't think images should be allowed in signatures though... I mod at a board that does allow them, and while many are quite tasteful.. there are some that do look overly glitzy and tacky.

I have mixed feelings about making judgements on signatures in terms of colours, spaces etc. only because it seems very arbitrary. Yet, I agree in that some I have seen are over the top.
Reminds me though, I know I have four in different colours, and also one blank space. If this seriously annoys people I could probably alter it a little, Though I do try to keep the colours from clashing too much...

Vicsun · Post by **Vicsun** » Tue Nov 02, 2004 1:08 pm

[QUOTE=dragon wench]Personally, I would like to see the [img] brought back. As others have said, the recent incident was the only one to cause problems in all the time I have been here. Why allow the immaturity of one individual to cause blanket restrictions for the many?

I don't think images should be allowed in signatures though... I mod at a board that does allow them, and while many are quite tasteful.. there are some that do look overly glitzy and tacky.

I have mixed feelings about making judgements on signatures in terms of colours, spaces etc. only because it seems very arbitrary. Yet, I agree in that some I have seen are over the top.
Reminds me though, I know I have four in different colours, and also one blank space. If this seriously annoys people I could probably alter it a little, Though I do try to keep the colours from clashing too much...

[/QUOTE]
Firstly, I'm glad someone agrees with me on the [img] tag issue.

I feel the exact same way.

Regarding your signature, I can only speak for myself, but I don't find it at all obtrusive or annoying. Even if the rules I suggested are implemented as they stand (and I believe they are currently a tad too strict), you'd still be in the clear

. I don't find different colors, in themselves, annoying, and I don't find a single blank line distracting or obtrusive either. I don't believe anyone else does either.

I've observed different people's signatures for about a day now, and I'd like to edit my post and revise some ideas, but I'd like to get some more feedback first.

As for arbitrariness, isn't that the case with all rules? Aren't all rules based upon individual judgement or preference, usually the administrator's (not meant as a critique - I happen to like the rules here

)? Why should we not swear? Or post links to porn sites? It's because the administrator has decided to create a board which is enjoyable and friendly, and his idea of enjoyable and friendly includes politeness and a lack of links to porn sites. The community, in general agrees. Now if the same community also agrees that 'enjoyable' also consists of sigs which are not written in 25 point, bolded, red, impact font, would a rule enforcing sensible signatures be a bad thing? Just my 2c worth of thoughts

Xandax · Post by **Xandax** » Wed Nov 03, 2004 12:20 am

Ofte with signature it isn't the colours (or the amount of them).

It is the size that is the factor. Like huge letters, huge filler space, huge quotes etc.
(IMO)

giles337 · Post by **giles337** » Thu Nov 04, 2004 2:44 pm

Personally, though i agree with many of the points, with regards to Images in Signatures I feel it would be better to limit them regarding size, rather than stopping them all together. I have a simple .gif I would like to include in my sig, and at 44kb, I can not see how this could be a problem. Although, I can see how it would add up....

10 posts a page at 50 kb a sig, on 56.6 k modem adds about 10 seconds to load time. This may not seem much, but try counting it!