Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Text signatures, one or two lines high, tops.  No images.

60 (15.3%)

Text signatures, 3-6 lines tall.  No images.

100 (25.5%)

Text signatures, 7-15 lines tall.  No images.

19 (4.8%)

Unrestricted text signatures.  No images.

15 (3.8%)

Text signatures, one or two lines high, tops.  Cap image height at ~60 pixels.

13 (3.3%)

Text signatures, 3-6 lines tall.  Cap image height at ~60 pixels.

67 (17.1%)

Text signatures, 7-15 lines tall.  Cap image height at ~60 pixels.

9 (2.3%)

Unrestricted text signatures.  Cap image height at ~60 pixels.

3 (0.8%)

Text signatures, one or two lines high, tops.  Cap image height at ~100 pixels.

3 (0.8%)

Text signatures, 3-6 lines tall.  Cap image height at ~100 pixels.

49 (12.5%)

Text signatures, 7-15 lines tall.  Cap image height at ~100 pixels.

18 (4.6%)

Unrestricted text signatures.  Cap image height at ~100 pixels.

3 (0.8%)

Text signatures, one or two lines high, tops.  Cap image height at ~150 pixels.

0 (0%)

Text signatures, 3-6 lines tall.  Cap image height at ~150 pixels.

7 (1.8%)

Text signatures, 7-15 lines tall.  Cap image height at ~150 pixels.

4 (1%)

Unrestricted text signatures.  Cap image height at ~150 pixels.

8 (2%)

Text signatures, one or two lines high, tops.  Images as big as the sky.

1 (0.3%)

Text signatures, 3-6 lines tall.  Images as big as the sky.

0 (0%)

Text signatures, 7-15 lines tall.  Images as big as the sky.

0 (0%)

Unrestricted text signatures.  Images as big as the sky.

13 (3.3%)

Total Members Voted: 392

[MaxVance]

Though in an ideal Internet we wouldn't need these restrictions, I picked 3-6 lines of text and a 100 pixel height limit. I think this is the most feasible compromise.

My goblin-splattering sig is 72 pixels high.

[Untelligent]

 @ Derakon: Of course, that would mean we could noly vote once on either the image limits or text limits. Say I want a smuch text as I want, but no images. How would I represent that with one vote?
 
 Toady could make two threads, but that seems a little wasteful.

Can't there be two polls in one thread? I go to a forum similar to this one that can do that, although it seems to be coded differently so I wouldn't be overly surprised if this forum couldn't.

[Derakon]

Most polling systems I've seen on boards support multiple questions per poll. I'd assumed that this one did too, though having investigated, it appears it does not. Oh, well.

[Draco18s]

I voted in the higher end of the sig length in terms of lines, though 15 is excessive, I'd rather it be around 7-10 max than the lower bound of 3.

[Kagus]

There's a typo in the news headline...

[Aquillion]

I suggest we start with a "should images be allowed in sigs" poll.  Then we can refine from there.

I'm against images in sigs at all.  They're annoying and distracting.  Avatars serve the purpose of identifying you; sigs just serve as a place where people put jokes or images that get boring the second time you see them, much less after seeing them over and over.

No to image signatures, I say.

[Okenido]

While cool things can be done with signature images(Like having a dwarf hit a goblin off a cliff, only to splatter in the signature), I feel this will be abused much more than it will be useful. Or else we get monsters like this:

 http://www.gaiaonline.com/forum/gaia-community-discussion/excuse-me-i-was-here-before-you/t.41057057/

 It's not excessive, but you can see the problems. If you are not blinded by the whitespace/morons, you can see some signatures taking up the space of a small post. Of course, those forums are more leisurely browsed and ours are more hardcore, but you can see why I would not want signature images.

 Signatures should always be less than half the height of a post. Or else they become distracting.

Psssssh have you even been to the forums I hang out at? I've seen signatures 4 times the length of that.

[The13thRonin]

Text, 3-6 lines should be substantial for most members without being abrasive or impractical.

[PTTG??]

I like the News feature- I just noticed it. I hope it gets used often!

[Duke 2.0]

 Keep in mind that one post were half the post was an image itself. Not even a relevant image, just a signature. Inside the post.

 Scary stuff.

 But what exactly CAN this forum do in regards to restricting what you see? Also, I love the news feature.

 *Offtopic: Every time I wonder what this forum can do, I imagine a new apartment complex. We are moving in, and still finding new nooks and crannies filled with hidden features.

[Keiseth]

In my humble opinion, the problem with signature images isn't the width, height or frequency but rather the nature of the image itself. MaxVance's very DF-esque image doesn't bother me in the slightest, but an image with the same exact dimensions could just be the colors magenta, yellow and cyan repeating to no end. There could be lens-flares and all sorts of madness, and there's no way to regulate the contents of the image outside of dimensions and file-size.

On the other hand, Avatars appear to the left of a post and are easily ignored- the only time you need to see them is when you look at the user's name. In fact, they can be used to identify the user and are in this way rather handy. Signature images are sighted between each post and tend to dwarf* the messages themselves.

[*No pun intended]

Gaia is, at the very least within the context of this topic, beneath my mention.

[Janus]

I think 6 lines of text and maybe a max 75px tall image would be a good compromise. 100px seems a little too tall, and 60px just slightly too short. That would also just cover MaxVance's image.

an image with the same exact dimensions could just be the colors magenta, yellow and cyan repeating to no end. There could be lens-flares and all sorts of madness, and there's no way to regulate the contents of the image outside of dimensions and file-size.

Hah, an exaggerated worst-case scenario. Anybody who actually uses such a revolting signature image (pretty unlikely) can have it removed by an admin/global moderator and be warned not to add one like that again. If they persist, they deserve the ban they get.
Not really much of an issue in my opinion.

[Derakon]

Keep in mind that we have all of two moderators right now.

In my personal opinion, image signatures are a pox and should not be tolerated. There's way too much leeway for people to just, y'know, take up space without contributing in any meaningful capacity to the conversation. We're here to exchange our thoughts, not our signatures. Text sigs, thanks to their heavy constraints, lend themselves to more useful information, or at least more creativity.

I do find avatars useful for purposes of identifying people (which means that those dwarf-head avatars are gonna get very confusing, very quickly), and they don't usually make a post any taller than it would be from text alone. But since signatures are placed below the post, they just introduce lots of pointless scrolling.

[Willfor]

While I probably won't ever make use of it, I would like to see at least slight support for images and text within signatures. I honestly don't see the big problem with them.

A nice signature would be something like...

------------------------
Bomrek the Unrelenting Page-Scourge

*image of the struck down forum goers who objected to him in ASCII, including red ~'s*
------------------------

It just isn't the same without images. Though 100px might be a little excessive.

[Keiseth]

100px high does seem like a tad much. I could endure as much as 75~80px.

[In regards to my last post]

Hah, an exaggerated worst-case scenario. Anybody who actually uses such a revolting signature image (pretty unlikely) can have it removed by an admin/global moderator and be warned not to add one like that again. If they persist, they deserve the ban they get.
Not really much of an issue in my opinion.

Aye. I'm probably judging it too harshly, thinking of some other forums I've been to. Bay 12 is a remarkably friendly place, so I'm not too worried either way.