Wraith Posted December 10, 2004 Share Posted December 10, 2004 Not entirely sure about the loading times theory - my sig image was never more than about 5kB... well, that was before I had to change the size, and decided that I may as well throw a background image in. I do admit that my sig could get out of hand at certain points - I think I had it around 1500px wide at once point, due to song titles. Silly me.Capped at 300x80 now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drewdatrip Posted December 10, 2004 Share Posted December 10, 2004 I thought my previous post would clarify these issues but by the looks of it, either people are simply not reading what i have stated, dont understand or i myself am not being clear.Once again i wish to explain the situation:Pms were issued to the individuals of those who were in violation of the new rule, IE images shall not exceed a total of 300x100 or 80k in totalThe remander of people that had their sigs removed was due to a dirrect violation of a rule that has been in place for several months.In this i refer directly to many of the people that have posted here.I understand that it may of seem ubrupt, however the policy that enforced a limitation to sig images to 300x100 have been around for a long time, it just so happend that at the time of the sig rule modifcation is when we decided to crack down on the violations.Many of you are saying "Well what gives? its just a few Kbs or a few extra lines on the page!"Well lets just make up a hypothetical situation in which lets say per page ther are roughly 10 posts of 8 unique posters and each of them are in violation of 2lines of extra text and each only 5-15kb per sig.SO with the established of 8unique images a personal would be loading an additional 40-120k on top of the already give 640-760k of assumed data of signatures.Lets assume the user is on a 56k modem and averages 5-10kbs. Just to load the image on page this particualr user could end up waiting an wait roughly 1 to 2 mins.PER PAGEThis is completly negating the loading time of the forums other components.From a users stand point trying to find an answer and having to wait several minuts between page loads, is more then frustrating...to put it int he simplest of terms, it pushes a large portion or our community away.And that is the very last thing I and MSFN wants.WE are a community that relies on the individuals to show up and become avid posters. With more members come more answers and more questions...and we all benifit from it in the end casue we have come out of the situation more educated.IF i have I or MSFN has offended you..appologies all around..just know it was never personal.....rules must be in place to keep the community in order...and with that rules must be enforced.If your sig was removed you know why.Yes we have been very lax about this in the past, but there comes a time where it gets out of control, and as our community expands, WE wish to maintain a professional and freindly look. These modifcations and enforcment of the rules are with the user inmind....noone else. They are to aid in making sure people can find what they are looking for in a timly fashion.I hope this clarifies all that has been discussedThank you for your time.IF you have any further question feel free to PM meTHankx|Drew| Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wraith Posted December 10, 2004 Share Posted December 10, 2004 Just a Q, is there a possibility for turning off sigs on all new accounts by default?If loading such an amount of data (overestimated, in my opinion) is a problem, then switch them off. This page currently with 16 posts comes out at 82kB, cached images from the MSFN site come out at nearly ~100kB, and avatars/sigs end up at ~160kB... so 340kB. Much lower than just the "640-760k of assumed data of signatures". Admittedly there is only 5 unique signatures in this thread, but 8 uniques would still mean ~260kB.In fact, it'd be a much smaller if gamehead200 would move off jpg and onto png I'm not trying to attack you, nor am I trying to get the rule abolished or anything, in fact I think it's quite a valid one. Just making the facts known, and providing a suggestion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drewdatrip Posted December 10, 2004 Share Posted December 10, 2004 Wraith-Keep in mind that the majority of the posts within this thread follow the rules that we have established.I was refering to a situation inwhich sigs were 5-15k larger then what are stated in the rules.Beyond the issue of load time plz do not negate the fact that large and bulky sigs just create cluter and fluff and give a site an unprofessional look. which is the exact oposite were going for here...right?|Drew| Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doggie Posted December 10, 2004 Share Posted December 10, 2004 I'll have a little rant and hopefully it will stay in everybodys memory. Not only does this rule help users on slow connections but reduces loading time on threads. Signatures should be 300 x 100 and not exceed 80kb in size. I'd like to think if found that you have broken this rule, me myself will Private Message you saying can you please making your signature to the current rules or remove all together, and if within 7 days of message and still nothing done then i will have no choice but to remove your signature altogether and send you another private message what and why it happened, all we seem to be doing here is arguing about the rules over and over. So in saying that, this thread is closed and end of issue, understand why we are now enforcing the rules Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts