Limits on Signatures

[Excel]

Are there any specific rules on signature size/content?

 

Not to call out anyone in particular but some posters have mighty sizable sigs, some with pictures greater than 600x400 which seems a bit excessive. I know its possible to ignore sigs, I get that much but still, when your signature takes up ten times as much space as your post something's wrong there, it just makes the board look too busy. Also, youtube videos? Really?

[knapplc]

I'm guilty of this. I used to have a ton of stuff in my sig, but I cut it way down.

 

We probably should pare back what we allow in signatures. It gets a bit excessive.

[zoogs]

Giant space-eating signatures is a pet peeve of mine, as well.

 

I think we have taken action before, but very rarely. And there are no explicit pixel requirements.

 

However, I do think there is no reason to have youtube videos embedded into your forum signature. I think we can enforce that one relatively easily.

[HuskerfaninOkieland]

I just turned off all the signatures in my profile. I see no ones signatures, not even mine

[Excel]

I just turned off all the signatures in my profile. I see no ones signatures, not even mine

 

The mods changed it awhile ago. It is now Justin Bieber riding a pony.

[AR Husker Fan]

We can limit the size of images in signatures. Suggestions for what's acceptable - or, alternatively, what's too large?

[Excel]

We can limit the size of images in signatures. Suggestions for what's acceptable - or, alternatively, what's too large?

 

I know HB isn't a democracy but maybe we could vote on it or something? Or have you mods vote on it?

 

Personally I don't know exactly what I think is too large, the issue is height more than width...

 

500 pixels x 500 pixels

 

 

400x400

 

300x300

 

200x200

 

100x100

 

 

I guess 300 pixels high is too large...maybe around 250? Even that'd be kind of pushing it. The most annoying one I've seen here is 480 pixels tall. Kind of excessive.

[zoogs]

I think 250 is a good number. 300 is pushing it.

[NUance]

If you really wanted to put it to a vote, you should first vote on whether or not any change is needed at all. I'll bet 85% of HB would prefer to leave things the way they are now. Unregulated.

[knapplc]

I think 250 is a good number. 300 is pushing it.

 

I would agree with this. 300 is too high.

 

But there should also be a KB limit or people will just stack 300px pics on top of each other.

[Excel]

If you really wanted to put it to a vote, you should first vote on whether or not any change is needed at all. I'll bet 85% of HB would prefer to leave things the way they are now. Unregulated.

 

You're right, there shouldn't be any limits.

[NUance]

If you really wanted to put it to a vote, you should first vote on whether or not any change is needed at all. I'll bet 85% of HB would prefer to leave things the way they are now. Unregulated.

 

You're right, there shouldn't be any limits.

Perhaps we could impose the limits only on the cheeseheads and other assorted shortbus types.

 

 

 

Note: This in response to Bucky humorously making his sig line about 2000 pixels high--which I suspect will be changed soon.

[Excel]

If you really wanted to put it to a vote, you should first vote on whether or not any change is needed at all. I'll bet 85% of HB would prefer to leave things the way they are now. Unregulated.

 

You're right, there shouldn't be any limits.

Perhaps we could impose the limits only on the cheeseheads and other assorted shortbus types.

 

 

 

Note: This in response to Bucky humorously making his sig line about 2000 pixels high--which I suspect will be changed soon.

 

I wanted to see if IP had any built in regulators so I made it a huge HD pic of the Eiffel tower, turns out the forum allowed it...took 45 seconds to load a page...still say there shouldn't be rules?

[zoogs]

If you really wanted to put it to a vote, you should first vote on whether or not any change is needed at all. I'll bet 85% of HB would prefer to leave things the way they are now. Unregulated.

 

I do not think there will be any significant changes. Signatures that were egregious have been addressed in the past. Almost everything I see now is at least, tolerable.

 

At the same time, this topic is a good reminder for both users and the mods team. I don't think we'd ever say, "Hey, your signature is 26px over {arbitrary limit}. Take it off." However, if someone's put up a 1280x1024 wallpaper up there, then we are going to remove it. Additionally, having a youtube embed following every post is egregious -- although I have not noticed any cases of this, either.

[NUance]

If you really wanted to put it to a vote, you should first vote on whether or not any change is needed at all. I'll bet 85% of HB would prefer to leave things the way they are now. Unregulated.

 

You're right, there shouldn't be any limits.

Perhaps we could impose the limits only on the cheeseheads and other assorted shortbus types.

 

 

 

Note: This in response to Bucky humorously making his sig line about 2000 pixels high--which I suspect will be changed soon.

 

I wanted to see if IP had any built in regulators so I made it a huge HD pic of the Eiffel tower, turns out the forum allowed it...took 45 seconds to load a page...still say there shouldn't be rules?

Rules for *some* people. See post above.