# Can't we lose the huge pictorial sigs ?



## HerbieFrog (Mar 20, 2004)

Just my opinion, but wouldn't it be easier to read the posts on here if we didn't have to scan thru all the crap following the actual post?

Herbie (yes I'm a newbie but I have opinions)


----------



## stevett (Jan 13, 2003)

Shame there's no option for individuals to turn them off.......


----------



## vlastan (May 6, 2002)

I use the signature picture as a quick way of identifying who is posting, without having to check the name field. So I like them to stay.

If it is just text it will look boring like the Guardian. :wink:


----------



## muTTley (Mar 15, 2004)

vlastan said:


> I use the signature picture as a quick way of identifying who is posting, without having to check the name field. So I like them to stay.
> 
> If it is just text it will look boring like the Guardian. :wink:


he's not saying they should go - just not take up the whole screen so you get half a post per screen...


----------



## mdopi (Jul 31, 2004)

CHANGE YOUR SCREEN RES. i like them


----------



## agenTT (May 8, 2004)

Yeah. But nowadays everyone has 17" monitor. Some even have 19" . 21". Shouldn't be that of a concern. But of course, if everyone can limit the size of his pic then it will of course make the world better.


----------



## mighTy Tee (Jul 10, 2002)

vlastan said:


> I use the signature picture as a quick way of identifying who is posting, without having to check the name field. So I like them to stay.
> 
> If it is just text it will look boring like the Guardian. :wink:


Agree, but there should be guidlines something like:

1) Picture size should be (say) under 25k

2) Width and Height should be restricted

What really annoys me is the wide pictures which necessitate scrolling to the right to read the end of each line. I recently (politely) asked one member by PM to reduce the width of his sig for this very reason. As of yesterday he had not resized it and if by the end the end on next week he has not then I was going to name him in the flame room. :evil:


----------



## scoTTy (May 6, 2002)

There is already a published guidline of 30k although not a pixel size limit.
There are examples in this thread where people have larger than this (it couldbe saved at a lower quality without affecting the size and without it being noticeable).

The moderators are not going to spend their time goign through every sig pic checking as we'd hope the site and posters can be as self regulating as possible.

TBH I don't really notice the sizes as I'm on broadband so without checking each one, it's tough to enforce. :?

I personally would be more than happy to drop the sigs and just have the side one. Just a personal opinon.


----------



## mighTy Tee (Jul 10, 2002)

scoTTy said:


> There is already a published guidline of 30k although not a pixel size limit.
> There are examples in this thread where people have larger than this (it couldbe saved at a lower quality without affecting the size and without it being noticeable).
> 
> The moderators are not going to spend their time goign through every sig pic checking as we'd hope the site and posters can be as self regulating as possible.
> ...


Suddenly thought I was about to be named and shamed, but my pic is only 20k (just checked it to make sure). The problem I have is with the wide pics which then means the width of the page increases and text is lost to the "right hand region".


----------



## icruicks (Aug 1, 2002)

I'd have to agree with scoTTy and just have the side sigs, much more "work friendly", theres no chance of a option to turn them off?


----------



## MacBuff (Aug 11, 2004)

scoTTy said:


> There is already a published guidline of 30k although not a pixel size limit...


There is a recommended pixel size of 400x200 if memory serves me right - mine is 452 x 80 so I bend this slightly one way but not the other..

But they are only guidelines ..

John


----------



## jampott (Sep 6, 2003)

I'd suggest making a mandatory guideline for the pixel size - but ensure it is "flat" - more like a banner add than a huge picture.

mdopi, for instance, has a lovely pic but it just looks the wrong "shape" for a sig... imho.

the 80 pixels of macbuff's looks much "better"...


----------

