Sig restrictions??? maybe??? no???

[Guidance (Steven)]

Nothing big just maybe 200 by 500

Just when i surf these forums it seems awful cluttered.
Some forums i got to are 31-500 an di think that is perfect but you guys probley dont want to go that far.

I say you can fit anything in that small of space as a larger one.

But just a suggestion cleans forums up.

[Peace-=Of-God=-]

I've thought of that myself -- and so far, we haven't restricted the sizes any -- but it definitely would make it work a lot better if the sizes were regulated and a bit more uniform.

[lotrsam0711]

Yea, it would also make it a lot easier on dial-up users. I guess the LC will have to make the call on this one....

[Gravity (Mike)]

Anything longer than the length of the page should be allowed!

[shadowhunter]

I have a suggestion:

1.) To give people a little more freedom in size, instead of 200x500 max demensions, an image should have a 100,000 pixel limit. (width times hight) (for example: 200x500, 250x400, 125x800)

2. If you have more than one image, this limit would apply to the total of all images in your sig. (for example: two 100x500 pics would be OK, but a 200x250pic and a 200,300 pic would not)

3.) To keep images from taking up a huge amount of page space in terms of scrolling past the image. (which from my experience at least is what the main cause of slowdown is with a slow connection) the max dimensions should be (for the entire image section of your sig if you have more than one image) :

max height: 400
max width: 800

4. AAO tracker stats would be exempt from rules #1 and #2 and instead be a max size of 500x60 but would be counted as normal in rule #3

5. After the rule is official, all new sig pics should be made acording to these rules.

6. However, people with sigs larger than these at the time this is made official should not be forced to abandon their sigs immediately. There should be a 1 month transisiton period for members to aquire new sigs in compliance with the rules.

These numbers would, of course, be up for debate but I think that would be a pretty good general layout to start with. Just my .02.

[lotrsam0711]

I like that a lot!

[=FLer=FireFox (Josh)]

I've also thought about this, but never said anything...some sigs are just too big, and take up atleast half the page.....No offense to anyone, but my poor mouse's scroll wheel is starting to get worn out.....

[lotrsam0711]

Yea I need to make mine a lot smaller....

[Fortress-=Of-God=-]

*whistles* OK WHO HERE HAS A BIG SIG PIC ;D they MUST be punished *relizes what he said* no no limits at all ;D

[Gz^-Forge-]

At one point there was talk of requiring clan members to include their tracker stats in their sigs, so maybe that is what might be the determining factor in regards to the width of sigs(AAOTracker only allows a width of 500). Don't know is this is still being contemplated as a requirement of clan members though(haven't heard much about it as of late).

[Ashes (Dean)]

i dont really mind what you do as long as it doesnt affect me ;D

[Herdsman (Dave)]

shadowhunter said:

I have a suggestion:

1.) To give people a little more freedom in size, instead of 200x500 max demensions, an image should have a 100,000 pixel limit. (width times hight) (for example: 200x500, 250x400, 125x800)

2. If you have more than one image, this limit would apply to the total of all images in your sig. (for example: two 100x500 pics would be OK, but a 200x250pic and a 200,300 pic would not)

3.) To keep images from taking up a huge amount of page space in terms of scrolling past the image. (which from my experience at least is what the main cause of slowdown is with a slow connection) the max dimensions should be (for the entire image section of your sig if you have more than one image) :

max height: 400
max width: 800

4. AAO tracker stats would be exempt from rules #1 and #2 and instead be a max size of 500x60 but would be counted as normal in rule #3

5. After the rule is official, all new sig pics should be made acording to these rules.

6. However, people with sigs larger than these at the time this is made official should not be forced to abandon their sigs immediately. There should be a 1 month transisiton period for members to aquire new sigs in compliance with the rules.

These numbers would, of course, be up for debate but I think that would be a pretty good general layout to start with. Just my .02.

That's good except it's really more important for the sig's height to be limited; as long as the width doesn't affect the width of the page it doesn't really cause a problem. But when the height is too much, it gets in the way.

[Princess-=Of-God=-]

I think there should be a restriction. I have to have the sigs turned off because they are so big. I don't mind the height so much, but when it goes off the screen, it drives me crazy. Anyway that's my 2 cents.

[Herdsman (Dave)]

kspil said:

I think there should be a restriction. I have to have the sigs turned off because they are so big. I don't mind the height so much, but when it goes off the screen, it drives me crazy. Anyway that's my 2 cents.

If you have Firefox and Adblock, you can just block the big avatars .

[charlie]

my 2 cent is that if the width shouldnt be over 600 because some ppl screens arent longer in width than that, then the text gets moved over and they have to scroll over to read it

[=M.i.x.=]

600....thats kinda low resolution....I feel bad for those that have that setting...I mean...why not make it big....so all of Yahoo.com is on one page....like I do

[Jedi-=Of-God=- (Michael)]

I think that a restriction would be nice because some of the members have a big sig but some of the clan members did create them so the sig artists should be a little more careful so this will not happen again.

[lotrsam0711]

I just think we should be mindful of our sig size. I made mine a lot smaler than it was a while back...