huge forum signature pictures

[WalterTrull]

I kind of like the permission-to-load notices. Maybe slow things down though. When I got my first computer in 1985 (a Kaypro with 256 ram and 10 megs of hard drive - never fill up all that space) I got a kick out of "do you really want to do that?" type messages. "Do you really want to re-format your hard drive?"

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

This has been bothering me for a while, but I thought I might actually say something

Thanks for raising this.

 

[McBell]

If you click on "preferences", there is an option for "show people's signatures with their messages". If you click it so it's blank and doesn't have a tick in the box and then save the settings, all the signatures will disappear.

It would be better if you could turn off signatures of specific members.

 

[Quintessence]

It would be better if you could turn off signatures of specific members.

There is... sort of. Putting them on your ignore list.

It used to be you could AdBlock specific signature items without blocking everything, but it doesn't work that way anymore with the new software either. Made me kinda sad.

 

[DavidFirth]

It would be better if you could turn off signatures of specific members.

It would be better if a limit could be placed on how big a signature image could be. Just fix the site to refuse images that are too big.

 

[McBell]

It would be better if a limit could be placed on how big a signature image could be. Just fix the site to refuse images that are too big.

opinion noted

 

[DavidFirth]

opinion noted

Thank you.

 

[Kapalika]

I specifically mentioned gifs cause havoc on slow connections so a sarcastic thank you to the people linking gifs and ****ing up my connection. It took me about 10 minutes just to load enough to make this post.

I'm on 259kbps down and 159 up atm. And that's fairly good for my connection. (for the tech illiterate a kb (kilobit) is an 8th of a kilobyte (KB), which means it takes me over 32 seconds to download a single megabyte of which most pages are several... I mostly get around it with caching but that means having loaded the visual elements of that page before).

The forum software changed - we went from having a built-in method of limiting signature size to not having one. For the most part, it hasn't been an issue. From time to time, we've contacted folks about oversize sigs and they've changed them. Didn't feel a need to put up an official policy somewhere, but we will be doing that shortly.

I'd assume you guys have 100% control over the site, unless you got some silly limited managed hosting which for a site this large would seem kinda dumb to me. And admin, well, having technical control over the site is where the name administrator (admin) comes from.

I guess what I'm saying is couldn't you just change the code to the new limit? I'm by no means an expert but I do know that it's in there. I think last I checked there was no height limit but auto-resizing of the width (which still loads it as if rendering the full size image).

Should be where you can just plug in the values you want.

There is... sort of. Putting them on your ignore list.

It used to be you could AdBlock specific signature items without blocking everything, but it doesn't work that way anymore with the new software either. Made me kinda sad.

Does ignoring someone actually block their post from loading though?

EDIT:

Also when trying to find the line again, I inspected element on @Skwim 's signature as it has a picture and holy crap his signature is like 1700 pixels wide but my window just downscales it lol (I was split screened). I couldn't fine the lines again though that has the limits, I haven't managed a site in so long I've forgotten stuff lol

 

[DavidFirth]

I specifically mentioned gifs cause havoc on slow connections so a sarcastic thank you to the people linking gifs and ****ing up my connection. It took me about 10 minutes just to load enough to make this post.

I'm on 259kbps down and 159 up atm. And that's fairly good for my connection.



I'd assume you guys have 100% control over the site, unless you got some silly limited managed hosting which for a site this large would seem kinda dumb to me. And admin, well, having technical control over the site is where the name administrator (admin) comes from.

I guess what I'm saying is couldn't you just change the code to the new limit? I'm by no means an expert but I do know that it's in there. I think last I checked there was no height limit but auto-resizing of the width (which still loads it as if rendering the full size image).

Should be where you can just plug in the values you want.



Does ignoring someone actually block their post from loading though?

EDIT:

Also when trying to find the line again, I inspected element on @Skwim 's signature as it has a picture and holy crap his signature is like 1700 pixels wide but my window just downscales it lol (I was split screened). I couldn't fine the lines again though that has the limits, I haven't managed a site in so long I've forgotten stuff lol

Yes, it does. You don't see their posts or their avatar or anything else. It's as if the person doesnt exist.

 

[Onyx]

holy crap his signature is like 1700 pixels wide

I don't think that is so bad, it's the height that matters IMO. If I'm reading the code correctly it scales images to 100% (the horizontal size of the post) but there is no vertical limit.

 

[Quintessence]

I'd assume you guys have 100% control over the site, unless you got some silly limited managed hosting which for a site this large would seem kinda dumb to me. And admin, well, having technical control over the site is where the name administrator (admin) comes from.

The only person who has any control over something like that is the site owner, @Brent W. The volunteer staff team - the ones you see around on any regular basis posting in the forums - don't have any control over that stuff. Essentially, although we as a staff team already have a consensus about what we'd want to limit the size to and everything, we can't implement that in the forum software without the site owner doing it for us.

Difference between blue staff (mods) and red staff (admins) controls-wise is that red staff have limited access to the administrative control panel. Like, really limited. Admins can do stuff like remove your signature, while the moderators can't. So... uh... basically guys, when we put in this new policy, please make our jobs easier by just not violating the rule. 'Cause I have to manually go in to the admin control panel, rip out your signature, and then send you a nastygram to knock it off.

 

[Kapalika]

The only person who has any control over something like that is the site owner, @Brent W. The volunteer staff team - the ones you see around on any regular basis posting in the forums - don't have any control over that stuff. Essentially, although we as a staff team already have a consensus about what we'd want to limit the size to and everything, we can't implement that in the forum software without the site owner doing it for us.

Difference between blue staff (mods) and red staff (admins) controls-wise is that red staff have limited access to the administrative control panel. Like, really limited. Admins can do stuff like remove your signature, while the moderators can't. So... uh... basically guys, when we put in this new policy, please make our jobs easier by just not violating the rule. 'Cause I have to manually go in to the admin control panel, rip out your signature, and then send you a nastygram to knock it off.

Dang. I feel sorry for you guys :s I've owned a server or two like that before it sucks if someone else needs to do some poking around in there; some others let you set permissions to be everything for any group. I guess the upside is it's a lot more secure the way you described though.