Signature Kb Limit Is Ridiculous - Topic

Member

Posts: 1,043

Joined: Aug 26 2010

Gold: 9.00

Aug 31 2010 01:08am

Quote (VileDoom @ Aug 31 2010 03:07am)

I've already taken the time, about 30 seconds, to fix your sig. Save and rehost it because I will most likely remove it from my photobucket account tomorrow.

Thanks, but I wasn't raging about my signature.

Nia

Member

Posts: 64,282

Joined: Jul 17 2009

Gold: 111,131.11

#32

Aug 31 2010 04:18am

When you think of the sheer number of users, the sheer numbers of sigs, and how much even increasing the sig kb limit by 1kb would do... I'd have to vote no.

No offence to you or your work, but I have seen some good quality graphics from some very skilled artists, and they don't even come close to hitting the limit. For example, my sig: some people might not like, fair enough, but I love it and I think it looks fantastic... and you know what? It's only 13.03 kB, that's less than a fifth of the limit.

There are plenty of techniques used to lower this number without really reducing the quality - you should perhaps ask around and do a bit of research. I can't really tell you anything personally, because I'm not skilled in computer graphics, but think about it.

tl;dr -->

The limit is high enough, and regardless, this will never happen.

[x] No.

SCXiao

Member

Posts: 92,235

Joined: Dec 8 2005

Gold: 443.21

#33

Aug 31 2010 04:51am

[x] No, you just need to get better @ photoshop.

or use ms paint, like I do.

This post was edited by SCXiao on Aug 31 2010 04:52am

TzL

Member

Posts: 7,580

Joined: Jun 23 2008

Gold: 430.90

#34

Aug 31 2010 05:06am

The size limit is worse.

AzN-Gosu

Member

Posts: 22,930

Joined: Jul 28 2005

Gold: 12,016.00

Trader: Trusted

#35

Aug 31 2010 05:08am

There are plenty of ways to downsize your signature/avatar in kb size without losing quality if you know what you're doing

Personally I have never had an issue with the limit and it's highly doubtful that it will ever change, there really is no reason for it to.

nel

Member

Posts: 35,060

Joined: Mar 30 2006

Gold: 2,063.47

#36

Aug 31 2010 05:08am

no - learn the web basics

in my job i have to do wallpaper-banners (800x600px in size) with only 30kb limit.

70kb is fairly eneugh for a forum

KrzaQ2

Member

Posts: 9,803

Joined: Jun 28 2005

Gold: 6.67

#37

Sep 17 2010 11:33am

I know I'm a little late with this post, but I really can't stand what some of you write as facts.

First of all, change in signature sizes will not change site speed at all. For the web server there's no difference between these signatures:

Code

[img]http://host.ip/10kb_sig.png[/img]

Code

[img]http://host.ip/1000kb_sig.png[/img]

So, calculations like this one:

Quote (Juggalo_Mole @ 31 Aug 2010 08:41)

We have 590,812 registered members

40kbs x 590,812 = 32,632,480

It adds up.

only deserve words that could earn warnings for excessive flaming.

Again, from site's point of view, there's no difference at all.

Now, about users with so-called slow computers. Do you even know how much cpu time does it take to load a single image with size of 150kB? No? It's because you don't notice it. Slow computers 10 years ago would have no problems with showing 25 (max. posts/page) 150kB signatures at once.

The only legitimate argument here is bandwidth saving for users with slow connections. But guess what!

PS: I don't argue that it's impossible to contain most, if not all, graphics within current limits, but that it may prove too tedious or ugly for most users, like it has for me.

NiggaPete

Member

Posts: 1,043

Joined: Aug 26 2010

Gold: 9.00

#38

Sep 20 2010 01:00pm

Quote (KrzaQ2 @ Sep 17 2010 01:33pm)

Code

http://host.ip/10kb_sig.png

Code

http://host.ip/1000kb_sig.png

So, calculations like this one:
only deserve words that could earn warnings for excessive flaming.

Again, from site's point of view, there's no difference at all.

Now, about users with so-called slow computers. Do you even know how much cpu time does it take to load a single image with size of 150kB? No? It's because you don't notice it. Slow computers 10 years ago would have no problems with showing 25 (max. posts/page) 150kB signatures at once.

The only legitimate argument here is bandwidth saving for users with slow connections. But guess what!
http://img15.imageshack.us/img15/3894/000gl.png

PS: I don't argue that it's impossible to contain most, if not all, graphics within current limits, but that it may prove too tedious or ugly for most users, like it has for me.

This is my new argument.

Thank you for making such an epic post.

njaguar

Admin

Posts: 24,307

Joined: Sep 24 2002

Gold: 24,976.00

Trader: Trusted

#39

Sep 20 2010 01:03pm

You forget that people (and lots of them) browse d2jsp on cell phones now, which makes the limit even more applicable and valid than ever.

Not to mention the thousands of people that still use dialup in some countries (including Germany).

Go Back To Site Suggestions Archive Topic List