Raise signature size limit

[SystemViper]

thread has been done before, outcome: no need to, end of!

thats the way i see it. i cant see what would be gained from changing it, only wasting some of w1zzards time in the process.

I can give you 2 reasons why now.

1: A moderator is on the side of increasing size and is the OP.
2: It's proven that there is a slight image quality gain that would enhance the sigs of the people what want to spend the time to do one.

i cant see what would be gained from changing it

answered already: Image quality

 

[3870x2]

Actually, i just created this sig just for this post, but it actually looks pretty good... should i keep it?

EDIT: ya kno, i think i will...
back to the subject, i think that if it is going to be a waste of w1zzards time to make his website better, than dont, or we could put up a vote, therefore the popular vote gets the cake. Also, im not going to argue either point because its not too big a deal for me, but if it did come to a vote, ill vote for a 50kb sig.

 

[imperialreign]

Actually, i just created this sig just for this post, but it actually looks pretty good... should i keep it?

I think it looks good

 

[SystemViper]

Actually, i just created this sig just for this post, but it actually looks pretty good... should i keep it?

IMHO like it better then your current one...

 

[mullered07]

I can give you 2 reasons why now.

1: A moderator is on the side of increasing size and is the OP.
2: It's proven that there is a slight image quality gain that would enhance the sigs of the people what want to spend the time to do one.



answered already: Image quality

ok

1. moderators have opinions too just like me and you
2. who cares about

slight image quality gain

its a sig ffs and this is my opinion so plese dont get offended, thats all it is, nothing more.

i sometimes come along the odd amusing quote/pic in a sig and it makes me lol, do i wish it had been in better quality ?? no it doesnt enter my mind.

if its not broke then dont fix it imo

 

[PVTCaboose1337]

I disagree with raising the limit. 19kb is perfectly fine for quality. Don't change it. This is coming from a guy who makes 5-7 sigs a week.

 

[SystemViper]

All i a talking about is that you say

2. who cares about

no it doesnt enter my mind.

if its not broke then dont fix it imo

....


So i say, if you don' care, have no concept of image quality and never think of it, then why do you think it's broken and also why would you not want me to have a little better quality in the images i make, you don't care, but you do by posting and trying to limit me,

Also I like growth, that is what this is, it would allow a little more creative growth, to an artist, just like an overclocker, getting a few more pixels, a little more color is a BIG thing. Why would you be against me having a little better image, why?

19k is nothing, but 40k i 2x that nothing and might be something to some people....

 

[3870x2]

I have a sig pic, my F@H one. It is an external picture, but it is a 20KB BMP, and it is only like that because it is dynamically generated.

There is nothing wrong with the 19kb version, with images that small, the minor artifacts created by compressing the image to 19kb aren't noticeable unless you look extremely close, and no one is wasting time looking at sig pics under a microscope.

what i meant is that there is no quality to your sig, so you have no reason to ever want the increase.

 

[DrPepper]

I never noticed there was image quality problems in the first place, but won't the IQ also depend on the viewers screen as well ?

 

[3870x2]

ok

1. moderators have opinions too just like me and you
2. who cares about its a sig ffs and this is my opinion so plese dont get offended, thats all it is, nothing more.

i sometimes come along the odd amusing quote/pic in a sig and it makes me lol, do i wish it had been in better quality ?? no it doesnt enter my mind.

if its not broke then dont fix it imo

spoken from another person who has a dynamic 3rd party sig... I could say this should be left to thos sig artists like me and the OP, however the larger image size might also affect those without sigs in terms of how long it takes them to load a page. I pride myself on making sigs for me and others, and i like to make them look good. (It seems like i do feel a little bit more strongly about this than i originally thought.)
EDIT: Also, if you look at the avatar to my left, you can easily see the degradation. This corei7 logo was thieved directly from the intel site, where it was an unadultered perfect image of the logo, now look at the sad logo that it is now.

 

[Darknova]

back to the subject, i think that if it is going to be a waste of w1zzards time to make his website better, than dont, or we could put up a vote, therefore the popular vote gets the cake. Also, im not going to argue either point because its not too big a deal for me, but if it did come to a vote, ill vote for a 50kb sig.

you haven't been here long enough to realise this isn't a democracy have you?

Seriously though, I'd love to have sig pics banned. On a tech site, IMO, a signature should only show your name and system specs, maybe a funny quote, but I personally see no reason for pictures. This is my opinion, most won't agree with it, that's fine, but I see no reason to up the kb limit, you just need to be more creative with your compression

 

[mullered07]

what i meant is that there is no quality to your sig, so you have no reason to ever want the increase.

lmfao

 

[imperialreign]

you haven't been here long enough to realise this isn't a democracy have you?

Seriously though, I'd love to have sig pics banned. On a tech site, IMO, a signature should only show your name and system specs, maybe a funny quote, but I personally see no reason for pictures. This is my opinion, most won't agree with it, that's fine, but I see no reason to up the kb limit, you just need to be more creative with your compression

if that's the case - I'm more than willing to fork over .psds your way to final compression . . . and keep asking you to re-do it until it meets my standards.

not trying to be a dick, but I find the "needs more creative compression" arguement to be rather shoddy.



personally, I'd like a little more overhead - it's not like we're in the dark ages of internet connections anymore, nor is anyone asking for a raise in image dimensions.

but, whatever . . .

I never noticed there was image quality problems in the first place, but won't the IQ also depend on the viewers screen as well ?

it very much can - LCDs can be more prone to false colors and the like . . . that's why in my above post I had all the images centered - some widescreens don't always display correctly to the extent of their margins.

 

[3870x2]

lmfao

that wasnt meant to be rude, only to make a point, its only text

 

[Lillebror]

I dont think 50kb for a sig is a bad thing - I just think the whole signature area is way to big!
On my laptop, if imperialreign makes a post, the whole sig area is about half of my screen! thats way to much in my opinion! Rather want a single picture thats 50kb, than a picture, 10 quotes and some other stuff.

 

[3870x2]

if that's the case - I'm more than willing to fork over .psds your way to final compression . . . and keep asking you to re-do it until it meets my standards.

not trying to be a dick, but I find the "needs more creative compression" arguement to be rather shoddy.



personally, I'd like a little more overhead - it's not like we're in the dark ages of internet connections anymore, nor is anyone asking for a raise in image dimensions.

but, whatever . . .

it very much can - LCDs can be more prone to false colors and the like . . . that's why in my above post I had all the images centered - some widescreens don't always display correctly to the extent of their margins.

couldnt be more tru, did you know that CRTs had more precise colors? My wife is a photographer, and they still use hi-def CRTs to show a final image and to do photoshopping.
This is why MAC still uses very large LCD displays, for better color sharpness, and dont even think about doing any professional photoshop work on a TFT LCD lol...
I respect all opinions, however this being a tech site, we dont want to turn it into a communist web site by taking away all images to optimize productivity.

 

[3870x2]

I dont think 50kb for a sig is a bad thing - I just think the whole signature area is way to big!
On my laptop, if imperialreign makes a post, the whole sig area is about half of my screen! thats way to much in my opinion! Rather want a single picture thats 50kb, than a picture, 10 quotes and some other stuff.

im willing to bet that putting links and extra text to the side of the sig rather than at the bottom might help with that.

 

[newtekie1]

If you don't like the size limit, use an external hosting service. The size limitation is only imposed on images uploaded to be hosted by TPU. Yes, we are not in the dark ages of the internet, and people have faster internet connections, however that is not the point. Larger sig images means TPU bandwidth usage goes up, and the site costs more to keep running. If you want larger images, use some one elses bandwidth.

You are all ungrateful. It pisses me off to no end when people actually complain about a service that is provided to them for free. Sorry the totally free service isn't good enough for you all, but if you don't like it fell free to stop using it.

 

[imperialreign]

couldnt be more tru, did you know that CRTs had more precise colors? My wife is a photographer, and they still use hi-def CRTs to show a final image and to do photoshopping.
This is why MAC still uses very large LCD displays, for better color sharpness, and dont even think about doing any professional photoshop work on a TFT LCD lol...
I respect all opinions, however this being a tech site, we dont want to turn it into a communist web site by taking away all images to optimize productivity.

CRTs have a few dedicated markets for those exact reasons - shame, though, the cost of CRTs is now climbing as their popularity is waning.

I dont think 50kb for a sig is a bad thing - I just think the whole signature area is way to big!
On my laptop, if imperialreign makes a post, the whole sig area is about half of my screen! thats way to much in my opinion! Rather want a single picture thats 50kb, than a picture, 10 quotes and some other stuff.

well - in my defense, there are other users with more atrocious sig spaces than mine . . . I've always been willing to accomodate as well, but no one has ever made a complaint with my setup . . . your post is the first issue anyone has had

But, I'm not trying to argue it; I'll revise and change it some

If you don't like the size limit, use an external hosting service. The size limitation is only imposed on images uploaded to be hosted by TPU. Yes, we are not in the dark ages of the internet, and people have faster internet connections, however that is not the point. Larger sig images means TPU bandwidth usage goes up, and the site costs more to keep running. If you want larger images, use some one elses bandwidth.

You are all ungrateful. It pisses me off to no end when people actually complain about a service that is provided to them for free. Sorry the totally free service isn't good enough for you all, but if you don't like it fell free to stop using it.

Uh-huh . . . so, I can go make a sig that's 5MB in size, and it's permissable if it's via an offsite link?

Last I checked, offsite image links for sigs over our size and dimensions limit weren't allowed, either - but, hey, that gives me a thought . . . seeing as how our TPU image hosting is free, why not upload maximum image size per our dimensions limit and then link those? I mean, it's not offsite anymore . . . as long as we don't mind the TPU image hosting watermark.

but - that would be abusing a free service provided by us.

offsite linking also slows down page load times as well - much more than a local, larger image size would

 

[SystemViper]

If you don't like the size limit, use an external hosting service. The size limitation is only imposed on images uploaded to be hosted by TPU. Yes, we are not in the dark ages of the internet, and people have faster internet connections, however that is not the point. Larger sig images means TPU bandwidth usage goes up, and the site costs more to keep running. If you want larger images, use some one elses bandwidth.

You are all ungrateful. It pisses me off to no end when people actually complain about a service that is provided to them for free. Sorry the totally free service isn't good enough for you all, but if you don't like it fell free to stop using it.

So you speak for TPU. What bothers me is when people can't make a real argument/responce about the point, they try to make the issue about something it's not. Do you know if TPU complains about sigs taking up to much space? I am wondering why you get so mad an argue like you are paying the TPU hosting fees or are a owner or even have anything to do with the things that you say bother you. Please explain to me how you can speak for TPU or their point of view. Who are you?

I would think the OP can speak for TPU more then you an he made the post and is a moderator.

You are all ungrateful. It pisses me off to no end when people actually complain about a service that is provided to them for free. Sorry the totally free service isn't good enough for you all, but if you don't like it fell free to stop using it

Also who's complaining, Mussels asked about the idea of larger banner size for the sigs. I didn't take that as complaining as much as exploring a way that might enhance the site for some people.

Why are you getting so mad about this, we are are only trying to explore this as a possibility and take into consideration everyones feelings, comments and especially idea's so i don't see why your so offended,

 

[3870x2]

If you don't like the size limit, use an external hosting service. The size limitation is only imposed on images uploaded to be hosted by TPU. Yes, we are not in the dark ages of the internet, and people have faster internet connections, however that is not the point. Larger sig images means TPU bandwidth usage goes up, and the site costs more to keep running. If you want larger images, use some one elses bandwidth.

You are all ungrateful. It pisses me off to no end when people actually complain about a service that is provided to them for free. Sorry the totally free service isn't good enough for you all, but if you don't like it fell free to stop using it.

you know newtekie, i thought that it was still limited from an external source, thank you for that information. My opinion still does stand tho.

 

[spearman914]

Most forums around uses the 450 x 150 sig format and 25kb max i think. So u think that's a good idea too?

 

[imperialreign]

Most forums around uses the 450 x 150 sig format and 25kb max i think. So u think that's a good idea too?

450x150 is roughly the same size as our current 500x100 . . .

 

[3870x2]

If you don't like the size limit, use an external hosting service. The size limitation is only imposed on images uploaded to be hosted by TPU. Yes, we are not in the dark ages of the internet, and people have faster internet connections, however that is not the point. Larger sig images means TPU bandwidth usage goes up, and the site costs more to keep running. If you want larger images, use some one elses bandwidth.

You are all ungrateful. It pisses me off to no end when people actually complain about a service that is provided to them for free. Sorry the totally free service isn't good enough for you all, but if you don't like it fell free to stop using it.

Negative, just tried, external images have the follow the same size, 19KB.

 

[PVTCaboose1337]

19kb is sufficient for ANY signature. If anyone here needs more quality thats too bad. My sigs are all great quality. If you cannot get it under a size, you are not using the "save for web" option in photoshop.

I PROMISE I use photoshop more than ANY of you, so please take my advice when I say 19kb is MORE than enough.