Forum Sig Spam pet hate

[Goosestaf 0]

now. . . this might jsut be a personal pet hate, or could be soemthign lots of ppl are pissed about.

 

bassiclly, what gets me is members on forums who have what i call "spam sigs"

 

You don't have to go far in this forum to see a load, and even some moderator such as saint michael cram their sig full of "crap"

 

now don't get me wrong. . . . sigs in forums are fine and good idea, BUT the actual meaning of a sig is just like a signature at the bottom of a letter, so like your name, a quote, a link or two or in all cases nearlly, a peice of graphic displaying your name. Now that is the idea but there does become a point where its jsut spam which ruins clean forum viewing.

 

i can see some contraditions in trap 17s policies, now SPAM is a big NO NO, which is perfectly fair and i obviously agree, BUT does it make a difference if sum1 spams in a post, or spams their Signature space, which occures everytime a person posts. (example sig below)

- - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

-Quote bout something

GET FIRE FOX ! SAY NO TO IE! (link) (link)

 

(finsihed sig)

 

now thats pretty much as bad as they get. . . but seriosuly. . . why not impose a 300 pixel height limit of graphix (total of all graphix) and so many lines of Text.

I mean if people want to show off art then add it to their website and let people view it there or add it to the new Xisto Gallery system. . . the forums are not a gallery so don't flood it with spam sigs

 

rant over. .

[snlildude87 0]

You're not talking about me when you said "some moderator", right?

 

Anyway, I know what you mean. Usually, I will contact that member to remove some stuff in the signature space, but none has bothered me recently. What really gets me is that some members used to have huge sigs that took up half my monitor.

 

If someone's sig is bothering you, PM me, and I'll make them remove it.

[wariorpk 0]

You forgot to rant about flame signatures. I have only seen a couple here but at some forums it is out of hand and they are very annoying because I don't like seeing someone's flame war every time they post. About the spam signauture issue I don't see how this is a big deal but there has to be a limit somewhere. I mean if it takes up half a page its too big but even a quarter of a page is tolerable. Thats my two cents anyways.

[Saint_Michael 3]

well i see where you are going with this and the fact that this post is directed more towards me then anyone else.but you do have the option as a member to turn off the member signature block to be shown, just go to board option and then turn it off thus your problem is solve.But for me defense i would say mine is the cleanest of the signature blocks, yeah it could be cleaner where you just put a bunch of "X's" where the names are but showing the names is the best way to see what people can do.

[switch 0]

yep i'm not a huge fan of the massive graphic signatures, probably because i've got a 300 meg/month download limit :ph34r:but anyways, some of the signatures look really cool, i was just sitting here reading this and then i saw Saint Michael's second image signature... it's mad!i'll respect graphic signatures as long as they look cool and aren't excessive.btw, where'd u get that spiderman thing? cheers

[Goosestaf 0]

well i see where you are going with this and the fact that this post is directed more towards me then anyone else.

sorry, you were jsut the alst example i had seen. nothing personal
Its just the actual point and meaning of a "sig" has changed. . . soon ppl will be putting Advert banners in and maybe even a whole website in its own right!

btw, where'd u get that spiderman thing? 

saw it on a forum i used to be one and highjacked it, although u can easily find it in google. . . . i added the "hater of enoying gifs. . gifs burn in hell bit" . . . ialso hate enoying flashy gifs, but this one jus pissed me off for sum1 who had 4 of them in their sig . . .

[OpaQue 15]

I got SIGNITURES turned off right from the day, SIGNITURE BUG stinged Saint! :ph34r:Anyway, if you have problems with Sigs, you can always report it.

[[i]_R_Crazy_Idiot 0]

Would this be a bad signature?

[cragllo 0]

I have to agree, I like seeing peoples sigs to see their sites etc. but some are just too long! Other forums i go to have sig rules
e.g

4 lines of text ONLY.
NO sig pictures are allowed.

No all bold or "color is neat so I'll use it alot" type sigs.

Use of Smilies in sigs is banned.

URL links are to be 3-5 words. Do not use a whole sentence for a link. Multiple links allowed.

Do not link directly to adult content in your signature in the non-adult forums.

No foul language.

And people dont often break the rules, they have a VERY fast firum because of the no sig pics rule. After they introduced these new rules, the forum even became more active.

[Goosestaf 0]

Would this be a bad signature? 

188227[/snapback]

ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

*collapses on floor*

[HoRuS 0]

I come at GUA a lot and there they have one simple rule, ones sig only may be 80kB or it gets banned. They really live it up because I once had a 85 kB sig and got banned. But still there are ways to spam a sig

[Avalon 1]

I come at GUA a lot and there they have one simple rule, ones sig only may be 80kB or it gets banned. They really live it up because I once had a 85 kB sig and got banned. But still there are ways to spam a sig 

188313[/snapback]

I agree with this idea for keeping sigs under control. I am on a dial-up connection and sometimes it takes ages for pages to load due to the file size of some of the sigs. I myself have been guilty of making large sigs, mainly because it seemed to be an accepted practice here.

 

If there was a file size limit on sigs it would allow the pages to load faster and lessen the bandwidth used by the forums which should be a good thing for OpaQue. It would also present a new challenge to sig makers.

[Goosestaf 0]

If there was a file size limit on sigs it would allow the pages to load faster and lessen the bandwidth used by the forums which should be a good thing for OpaQue. It would also present a new challenge to sig makers.

very true. . . creating a good looking sig which represents who you are with a size limtie would be a nice challenge, rather than the usual large renders, brush work and one tone colour, which tend to get really boring (no offense to those who love them)

[Saint_Michael 3]

thats why 400x130 to 400x150 is a good size but also depending on how many layers you use as well more layer you use the bigger in kb it gets, my latest ones from 1-40 to 2-17 are 100kb to a little over 200kb, i should cut down the layers a bit., but of course renders have a good portion of that size, but also when i save i max out the quality look they give after i finish them.best thing to do is save them as jpg and not png thats why people hate pop-up so much cuz pngs take a lot of space.well lucky for me i guess that i am stud muffin of a good guy, OPAQUE you blaming db problems with me now j/k.well html is turned off in the sig block for that very reason that someone would build a whole website in it, but yeah i would have to agree people using large images to link to their site is of bad taste thats why you use thumbnails or that tab RSS image that i see.but to be nice i cleaned it up just a bit, but i htink the sig rotators could be in on the act due to the mas amount of info it collects to load an image.

[psychiccyberfreak 0]

yeah, but if you flatten it before you export it, it takes up much less space. Anyways, yeah, spam sigs are bad, but I consider Saint michel's sig an average size sig. Mine is just about as long if I were to add a popout sig.