How come you cant use the img tags in a sig? Can a admin turn that on? please? i got a really cool sig that is bass related....

http://ogglyboogggler.homestead.com/files/DARK2.JPG

The reason that img tags and html is disabled in signatures is because it eats up a tremendous amount of bandwidth, if you have a graphic in your signature on every one of your posts.

That and they are annoying as hell. Little things I don't mind so much, but big blocky pictures like that one bug the hell outta me.

All you have to do is become a supporting member, and you can use a smaller version as your avatar...

Ok, kinda weird. I like sigs. And if its on a diffrent site i dont see how it takes up bandwith. Guess Ill just have to wait till i get some money to become a member.

It doesn't take up bandwidth on the TB site but it does take up the bandwidth required to view on an individual machine.

If I look at a thread, my web browser has to open a connection to download the HTML and then open a further connection for every resource referred to. That is time-consuming enough when all the connections are with the same server and the resources are kept small in size... once you start drawing in resources from external sites you've also got to add time to establish the connection with those servers - more data to download and also the chance that anyone of those servers will be unavailable at the time of the request.

And what does that accomplish? Just that the end user can be subjected to whatever graphical signature someone else has chosen to use.

The effect may not be very noticeable if you're privileged to be on a fast, reliable connection, but for someone with less wonderful resources, it adds to the hassle of using the site and you're more likely to lose their potential contributions than to gain anything by allowing images in the signatures.

That's my tuppence worth, anyway ;)

Wulf

Not only that, have you seen TC lately? Last time i was there they had the images in Sigs and for say a thread with 3 replies it takes ages to load and the images themselves are like a page wide.. *shakes head*

Merls

I *despise* images in sigs because I'm on a dialup.

Originally posted by HeavyDuty
I *despise* images in sigs because I'm on a dialup.

Took the words out of my mouth.

And they're pointless.

Images in signatures??!? We don't need to STEEENKIN images in signatures!!

Better idea... allow us to have full length DivX videos.

And what would you plan to do with full length DivX videos? My imagination started to take a look and then turned and fled, shrieking!

:D

Wulf

Originally posted by StupidMatt
Better idea... allow us to have full length DivX videos.

yeah!

how about allowing full length DivX movies but they have to be 2x2 resolution :D

j/k

Originally posted by HeavyDuty
I *despise* images in sigs because I'm on a dialup.

For want of a better word, "word"

Originally posted by StupidMatt
Better idea... allow us to have full length DivX videos.

:D

If you want an expansive signature, then put in a link to your web page. It's not quite as 'in your face' as images (or streaming video :eek: ) in your sig, but you've then got a technicolour palette for nailing your colours to the mast for anyone who follows it up.

That's why I put links in my signature, and I'm sure some of you will now not be able to resist clicking on them ;) (just like if I told you it was impossible to lick your own elbow, half the people who read this thread would probably try it... :D )

Wulf

What's with the people who attach images to every single post they make? Are they trying to do this "images in signature" thing? Wouldn't they eventually realize it doesn't work. :rolleyes:

Originally posted by wulf


That's why I put links in my signature, and I'm sure some of you will now not be able to resist clicking on them ;) (just like if I told you it was impossible to lick your own elbow, half the people who read this thread would probably try it... :D )

Wulf

That's absurd!
*licks elbow*

:hmm:

Originally posted by merlin
Not only that, have you seen TC lately? Last time i was there they had the images in Sigs and for say a thread with 3 replies it takes ages to load and the images themselves are like a page wide.. *shakes head*

Merls

Yeah I know what you mean, the T*bcr*wler signitures are almost as stupid and halfwitted as most of members.

I totally aggree with the admins' choice on no signitures (if I could use paintshop I'd make a no signiture picture, but I cant so it's text only).

Originally posted by Wrong Robot


That's absurd!
*licks elbow*

:hmm:

It's not! I saw a photo of a guy in a freinds FHM (male magasine) where the chosen one was photoed licking his own elbow, with his normal sized tongue, both intact/

Originally posted by Wrong Robot


That's absurd!
*licks elbow*

:hmm:


Whoa!? How did you do that?!

this is an extremely old thread, but i wanted to bring the topic up again.

there were a few concerns about the content and size of signature pics. there may be an addon to vB that can limit pic size, but someone else has posted a thread about having the sig show up once per thread/# of posts, etc. I think that would be one way to do it.

Another thing that can be done is to limit the size that the pics can be. if someone messes up and posts a big one, then i'm sure it will be noticed and you can replace their sig pic with a pic of the correct portions showing them what size it needs to be.

if you are limited on bandwidth, then all you have to do is turn signatures off so that you don't see anyone's sig. if sig pics would bother you that much, then how bout all the ad pics that are around the forums? those eat up bandwidth, too, and track your views on them as well (most of the time).

honestly, i don't see the issue with instigating rules about the size of sig pics and enforcing them is fairly easy.

sorry to bring it from the dead, but there it is.