We've had a few complaints about the growing size of some signature images.
Now normally we wouldn't step in, but - we do have to remember not all members operate off computer systems that might be able to deal as readily with images as ours might be.
This means, larger signature banner images can cause some real headaches.

So - from today, and new banner images being made, please can the size be kept within the following guidelines which after looking at all the possible aspects, would be the most viable for all board members.

No signature can be over 500 pixels wide by 100 pixels tall. That's 500x100.

Banners made before this announcement and already in use are not going to require changing, just any new ones made.

Please ensure when you make a banner it falls into this limit.

If in any doubt what a banner of this size would look like, here is an example.



Please note, posters who don't abide by this risk getting a warning from us, which we would rather avoid, so please do ensure you stick to the size.
However, if you do have a picture that you really can't get to look right within the height given (note we will not change the width of 500) contact us, explain what size you have and what the problem is and we will consider it.

Thank you.

OK, wait, just to clarify, I've got a sig banner which is too wide. So I need to fix it, right? So that it's not over 500 pixels wide? Because I got confused reading your post, about existing banners vs new ones etc etc. :huh:

No - old banners made before this announcement are okay.

Wouldn't be fair to expect everyone who has got a banner that is already in use but not of the size we want to see having to change them.

So only newly made banners from today need to adhere to the size.

PS to that - actually the length generally doesn't cause quite as much of a problem for others as the depth and length of a banner combined which is over the size we've quoted, so your banner isn't too bad anyway.

OK, cool. Although if I change it, and upload the new graphic to my sig, then it would change all my posts, right? So it wouldn't be so much of a pain for me to change it, if you decide I should. Let me know. I mean, I'm attached to the crappy thing, given it was the first time I attempted to use photoshop to do anything, but it wouldn't be the end of the world if I had to come up with something else. :)

No its fine Abzug, we're more than happy to let you keep it as is. Only if you decide to go for a change is when we ask to look at the new sizes :)

Can you explain pls--just for my curiosity!--what the issue is? I.e. is it that you're trying to limit size because of time-to-load, i.e. KBytes? Because if people could save larger images with slightly less-than-100% image-quality it'd bring the size down a lot, in case this problem is about how *long* it's taking images to load.

If it's about monitors and page-width, that's another story; in which case the 500 pixel width makes perfect sense to me--but not necessarily the 100px height, which seems extremely narrow.

Couple of reasons. First - the width is exactly as you say. Not everyones monitors allow for easy width and stretch. 500 pixels is a nice recommended size to allow for the table the board is set in as well to maintain a nice width for everyone.

Also - 100 pixels has been used because we know that while the depth doesn't cause a stretch issue - often people don't like to read a post - to see most of it crammed up with signature banner.
The next problem is - we could go a bit higher, but we tend to find 150 is just a bit high for some people - whereas most people tend to get confused if you begin to break it down between those numbers.
We just know from experience, people can remember 100 or 150 - but they just don't find it as easy to remember 125 say! Bizarre but the case.

If someone really wants a particular image, and they really just can't get it looking right across those figures (mainly the 100 height) we aren't adverse to them just asking us if they can go a little higher.

We don't intend to "police" this absolutely strictly - but we have noticed some signatures are creeping up in size, so we wanted to standardise it all before it became too much of a problem and people did get upset because of us having to step in and say something.

Thanks ILMNJnet, I thought these things were the case but just wanted to know for sure! --e

No problem. Have just amended the wording on the first post slightly to reflect the height if someone has a banner that really doesn't work off just 100 pixels.

Thanks, that's very reasonable. :) Sometimes it's hard to shrink things down & keep it visible-yet-proportionate. That's why I asked, really. --e

I'm glad someone asked about the KB size . . I'm probably just guaranteeing that I'm going to make a banner that isn't going to be permitted, by asking, but I was wondering what the verdict is on animated banners? I think I've seen a few already, but I could see it as a future point of contention. I'm pro animated banners as long as they don't flash so much they cause seizures.

I do understand, though. It does get to be a bit much, when you see someone's sig far more than you see their actual posts. I know, when I use sigs, I feel self conscious, if my sig is thicker than my text.

-edit-
It's true, not everyone has high speed internet & a 19" 1600x900 resolution monitor. . I'm glad to know that there can be some leniancy on the 100, because I have said monitor and 100 pixel stuff is not going to be as pleasurable for me to look at, so I'll be glad other people can make theirs higher.

Animated banners - again, fine but we would just ask some sense is played when making them by people.
Simply because too much flashing animation can again annoy other board members when trying to view a thread or post but are distracted by incessant flashing or whirling going on around a banner.