|
Thought on signatures...
|
|
Member
8 product reviews
|
17. June 2009 @ 04:20 |
Link to this message
|
Recently I re-sized my signature because it didn't comply with the filesize limitations stated in the rules.
Granted, this didn't even classify as an inconvience, but I'm curious as to why a limit has been placed on filesize.
I can understand deeping certain size restraings like 500x200 or such, but I can't really see the 50KB part.
The images are not hosted on afterdawn, and therefor do not consume any of the websites bandwidth because their embedded from image hosting websites.
I'm not trying to be disagreeable or anything, just wondering if there was a reason that I'm failing to understand.
But seeing as no explination is given as of yet, my suggestion is this:
We should modify the rules to remove filesize limitations on images. This would allow for higher-quality images, and the size difference would be minimal. It wouldn't even hinder users visiting via dial-up in most cases.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 17. June 2009 @ 04:28
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
|
|
ddp
Moderator
|
17. June 2009 @ 21:54 |
Link to this message
|
|
does hinder dialup users which is the main reason for the 50k limit.
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
17. June 2009 @ 22:37 |
Link to this message
|
|
yea but couldnt dial up users disable all images as i used to do when thats what we had?
Come talk with us on efnet at #elitemods !!! or just click ME
ALSO, DO NOT SEND ME MESSAGES ON LIVE REGARDING MODDING CONSOLES, OR HOW I PLAYED A CERTAIN GAME EARLY. I WILL NOT RESPOND. I WILL INSTEAD DELETE YOUR MESSAGE, AND BLOCK ALL COMMUNICATION FROM YOU. JUST SEND ME A PM ON HERE. |
|
ddp
Moderator
|
17. June 2009 @ 22:50 |
Link to this message
|
|
depends on the user's knowledge if can disable images as not certain we can on this site.
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
17. June 2009 @ 22:54 |
Link to this message
|
you can with five clicks with firefox,
1. tools
2 options
3 content
4 load images automatically
5 ok
Come talk with us on efnet at #elitemods !!! or just click ME
ALSO, DO NOT SEND ME MESSAGES ON LIVE REGARDING MODDING CONSOLES, OR HOW I PLAYED A CERTAIN GAME EARLY. I WILL NOT RESPOND. I WILL INSTEAD DELETE YOUR MESSAGE, AND BLOCK ALL COMMUNICATION FROM YOU. JUST SEND ME A PM ON HERE. |
|
ddp
Moderator
|
17. June 2009 @ 23:08 |
Link to this message
|
|
how about explorer?
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
17. June 2009 @ 23:12 |
Link to this message
|
|
not sure, i never use it, but ill check here in a second for yea.
yep you can.
1 tools
2 internet options
3 advanced
4 scroll down to multimedia and untick show pictures
Come talk with us on efnet at #elitemods !!! or just click ME
ALSO, DO NOT SEND ME MESSAGES ON LIVE REGARDING MODDING CONSOLES, OR HOW I PLAYED A CERTAIN GAME EARLY. I WILL NOT RESPOND. I WILL INSTEAD DELETE YOUR MESSAGE, AND BLOCK ALL COMMUNICATION FROM YOU. JUST SEND ME A PM ON HERE. This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 17. June 2009 @ 23:14
|
Member
8 product reviews
|
18. June 2009 @ 03:52 |
Link to this message
|
|
Thanks, wabashman.
So this would mean that the AD staff could allow for more than 50KB, but that'd come at the cost of educating dial-up users about how to disable the images.
But on a percentage scale, do enough people really use dial-up internet anymore that we should put thought into it? I mean... If only 6% of people who visit the site do so through dial-up, that would mean that the other 94% are having to change the quality of their images to accomidate a very (VERY) small minority.
I'm not trying to be disagreeable, I'm just, I guess, wondering if there's really enough of a user-base on dial-up to justify special action.
|
Moderator
|
18. June 2009 @ 04:33 |
Link to this message
|
|
Here's how i look at it. For the first 3 years or so that i'd been here, out of spec signatures took up a lot of moderator time. These days the only time i ever have to comment on signatures is when people use them for advertising, i can't rememeber the last time i had to chase someone for a signature over 50k. It's mostly been kids in the console forums that would abuse the 50k, i guess that over the years of cracking down on signatures they've all got the hint, and most of those kids have moved on so with no over-spec signatures for kids to look at/compete with (in size terms), it seems to me like it stops them wanting to push the limits.
I personally don't see why the 50k limit needs raising, all that would do is encourage people to want more than whatever the limit is.
I guess it's just because i classify signatures the same as user titles etc etc, ie they're just not relevant (for instance i've been using my signature gif for something like 4 years now, and have no interest in changing it), but maybe the Admin will comment on the 50k side of things.
Whilst it's probably true that a large percent of people aren't on dialup anymore, it'd actually be only a very small minority that actually want (ie not need) a larger than 50k signature, if you look at say, wabashman's signature you'll see the quality of image that a gamertag image can handle in that 50k.
Main PC ~ Intel C2Q Q6600 (G0 Stepping)/Gigabyte GA-EP45-DS3/2GB Crucial Ballistix PC2-8500/Zalman CNPS9700/Antec 900/Corsair HX 620W
Network ~ DD-WRT ~ 2node WDS-WPA2/AES ~ Buffalo WHR-G54S. 3node WPA2/AES ~ WRT54GS v6 (inc. WEP BSSID), WRT54G v2, WRT54G2 v1. *** Forum Rules ***This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 18. June 2009 @ 04:40
|
Member
8 product reviews
|
18. June 2009 @ 07:51 |
Link to this message
|
Noted, of course, but even with the transparent backing of my original signature (the HD version of the one I'm using now), the size came in at 85KB, if I had put the nice HD background to it that I wanted to, that would have boosted the size up to 110KB.
Could the quality have been reasonably lowered to meet limitations, yes, and it has.
But I guess I'm just a bit of a detail-oriented person. I mean, if someone spends time making highly detailed images that fit the page size requirements, and the majority of users are not hendered by these larger filesizes, why should the quality have to go down at all?
But with respect, the quality difference between my current signature and its original is merely cosmetic, and in fact people who had not seen the original might never know that the quality was reduced. So is it an inconvience to lower quality by... let's say 15% in order to cut file size down by 60%? Not really. But it does, in a way, put a limitation as to what people can do with their signatures, creatively.
There are some images, for example, that are so vast in color and detail, that I could never make them less than 50k without ruining the image as a whole.
But in review of this thread, I can see the point of the limitation, and if no one feels further need to discuss it, I would completely understand.
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
18. June 2009 @ 13:15 |
Link to this message
|
|
I see it as a "distraction". I am not interested in your signature or your choice of expression. I am interested in the content of your post.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 18. June 2009 @ 13:15
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
18. June 2009 @ 13:48 |
Link to this message
|
|
well then dont look at it. granted i feel that people shouldnt have a signature the size of texas, but the 'quality' of a signature doesnt matter to me. if its still 2 inches by 3 inches idc if its 50 kb or 500kb as long as it doesnt take up anymore room than it normally would.
Come talk with us on efnet at #elitemods !!! or just click ME
ALSO, DO NOT SEND ME MESSAGES ON LIVE REGARDING MODDING CONSOLES, OR HOW I PLAYED A CERTAIN GAME EARLY. I WILL NOT RESPOND. I WILL INSTEAD DELETE YOUR MESSAGE, AND BLOCK ALL COMMUNICATION FROM YOU. JUST SEND ME A PM ON HERE. |
AfterDawn Addict
|
18. June 2009 @ 14:02 |
Link to this message
|
|
I appreciate your opinion. My point was if you've got a signature that is larger than your post, how can I NOT look at it?
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 18. June 2009 @ 14:04
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
18. June 2009 @ 14:14 |
Link to this message
|
|
well my sig is usually larger than my post. mainly because i dont beat around the bush when it comes to telling someone why they can or cannot do what they are asking. ive always thought why waste a persons time reading a book when a simple 3 liner will do just fine.
Come talk with us on efnet at #elitemods !!! or just click ME
ALSO, DO NOT SEND ME MESSAGES ON LIVE REGARDING MODDING CONSOLES, OR HOW I PLAYED A CERTAIN GAME EARLY. I WILL NOT RESPOND. I WILL INSTEAD DELETE YOUR MESSAGE, AND BLOCK ALL COMMUNICATION FROM YOU. JUST SEND ME A PM ON HERE. |
Moderator
|
18. June 2009 @ 15:21 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by dailun:
I see it as a "distraction". I am not interested in your signature or your choice of expression. I am interested in the content of your post.
My sentiments exactly, i only have one because it's been my sig for something like 4 years now, am quite fond of my dancing bones.
I'm all for people being individual but a signature should never overshadow the content of a post, else why post.
Main PC ~ Intel C2Q Q6600 (G0 Stepping)/Gigabyte GA-EP45-DS3/2GB Crucial Ballistix PC2-8500/Zalman CNPS9700/Antec 900/Corsair HX 620W
Network ~ DD-WRT ~ 2node WDS-WPA2/AES ~ Buffalo WHR-G54S. 3node WPA2/AES ~ WRT54GS v6 (inc. WEP BSSID), WRT54G v2, WRT54G2 v1. *** Forum Rules ***
|
Member
8 product reviews
|
18. June 2009 @ 15:37 |
Link to this message
|
|
^ Which is why I agree with the size limitation (dementions), but I still sort of wish the filesize limitation would be removed for sake of improved quality.
But, if quality is something that no one will notice, then what's the point, really?
|
|
ddp
Moderator
|
18. June 2009 @ 16:37 |
Link to this message
|
|
i still like my sig.
|
Moderator
|
18. June 2009 @ 16:43 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by ddp:
i still like my sig.
Main PC ~ Intel C2Q Q6600 (G0 Stepping)/Gigabyte GA-EP45-DS3/2GB Crucial Ballistix PC2-8500/Zalman CNPS9700/Antec 900/Corsair HX 620W
Network ~ DD-WRT ~ 2node WDS-WPA2/AES ~ Buffalo WHR-G54S. 3node WPA2/AES ~ WRT54GS v6 (inc. WEP BSSID), WRT54G v2, WRT54G2 v1. *** Forum Rules ***
|
|
ddp
Moderator
|
18. June 2009 @ 16:46 |
Link to this message
|
|
i do & i am.
|
Moderator
1 product review
|
21. June 2009 @ 19:05 |
Link to this message
|
|
you is and you ain't :P
|
AfterDawn Addict
1 product review
|
21. June 2009 @ 23:22 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by LOCOENG:
you is and you ain't :P
Loco, where youse been hidin ?
"The flimsier the product,the higher the price"
Ferengi 82nd rule of aqusition
 |
I hate titles
35 product reviews
|
22. June 2009 @ 06:00 |
Link to this message
|
Size limitation's point is to speed up the loading of the pages, for all users. You might think that your 10/10 connection "is fast enough". It isn't. If a page contains 25 messages, each from a different user, everybody having a 50kb image, you load up the page for the first time and that means 25 different HTTP connections to be made by your browser, each pulling 50kb of data (plus HTTP headers), total of 1.2 megabytes.
Now, add the fact that most browsers (including Firefox)
a) by default, wont download more than 4-10 files at the same time for page, rest of the stuff need to go to queue
b) wont be able to render the page _AT ALL_ until all images -- that don't have set-by-page width and height known -- have loaded.
And for regular users, sure, it's probably fine -- you have our CSS files and navigational images already stored in your browser's cache. But according to many, many, many trials and tests, if you push the page's loading time from, say 1 second, to 5 seconds, 25% of people leave the site immediately. And even for the remaining portion, the user experience is already spoiled.
And another reason for not allowing larger sig files is the rise of mobile web -- 10 years after it was officially launched, mobile use of Internet is finally on rise, helped by fast phone platforms, good browsers and fixed-cost monthly data packages. Even with fixed-cost monthly data plan, 3G isn't very fast. And it has much bigger "lag" than wired net has -- thus, each request for each image takes its own time to initiate. And most people don't want to turn images off -- that cripples the user experience by making the site look ugly -- they just don't want not-needed-for-and-not-required images to be gone :-)
As an addendum, I've been considering to hide the sigs completely for not-logged-in users, for the reasons mentioned before.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 22. June 2009 @ 06:01
|
Member
8 product reviews
|
23. June 2009 @ 20:14 |
Link to this message
|
|
See? Now that is an informative answer that I can be happy with, lol. :D
I'd never have considerd mobile web devices as a cause for size restraints, but it does make plenty of sense.
It is a shame that the delay of a few seconds could affect such a high percentage of people in such a negative way though... Perhaps we're all just a bit too fickle for our own good. But I won't argue because I've no doubt that you're speaking from experience, so I guess this post will go the way that archives go and henceforth collect dust.
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
AfterDawn Addict
3 product reviews
|
24. June 2009 @ 11:28 |
Link to this message
|
|
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 24. June 2009 @ 14:39
|
