42 replies to this topic

[GIRakaCHEEZER]

I guess this can sort of serve as a general signature thread, but I have an issue I'd like to point out in specific.

So I've noticed a sort of increase in the number of potentially rule breaking signatures as of recent, and I think I may now know why. When you go to the page to edit your signature there's the following line:

Your signature may contain:
• Any number images
• Images of any size
• Any number of URLs
• Any number of lines

While this is technically true, it should really mention rule 12 here (12. Locations shouldn't be obscenely long (they stretch out the edge of the page), and signatures must not be greater than 500 pixels in length and/or 200 pixels in height.) Otherwise the user might get the impression that they can put really large images of Rihanna in their signature or something.

Thanks to Dinny for pointing this out.

[43501]

No prob, GIR.

[Hiino]

Otherwise the user might get the impression that they can put really large images of Rihanna in their signature or something

Haha yeah or those stupid "<member> has <X> internets" signatures


Anyway that Rihanna fanboy's sig doesn't break the rule of 500x200 so it's fine for now right?

Edited by Hiino, 08 September 2012 - 11:33 AM.

[DoubleThink]

First of all I don't know how to change this :<

Second of all, now that I think about it, those numbers were set way back at the start of MiraiGamer and have barely been discussed since. They're still a fairly reasonable limit, but it could be more useful to have an overall sig width/height limit, because having more than one image is common. What do you guys think?

[43501]

Haha yeah or those stupid "<member> has <X> internets" signatures


Anyway that Rihanna fanboy's sig doesn't break the rule of 500x200 so it's fine for now right?

BhadRebelle is a chick!

First of all I don't know how to change this :<

Second of all, now that I think about it, those numbers were set way back at the start of MiraiGamer and have barely been discussed since. They're still a fairly reasonable limit, but it could be more useful to have an overall sig width/height limit, because having more than one image is common. What do you guys think?

Having a width/height limit is all that's really needed. And that's only because I don't necessarily trust all new members to have common sense, based on what I've seen.

[Hiino]

it could be more useful to have an overall sig width/height limit

It's already the case, since the 500x200 limit is for the whole sig, not just pictures.

EDIT: Unless you mean an actual limit and not just a rule, like, physical impossibility to make large sigs. But I don't think it's possible, given the fact that size changes according to the navigators and the zoom level.

Edited by Hiino, 08 September 2012 - 01:10 PM.

[DoubleThink]

It's already the case, since the 500x200 limit is for the whole sig, not just pictures.

Huh, guess that got lost in translation over the years. In that case, it might be okay to raise it a bit (after all, everyone has bigger monitors now; I was running around with that gif in my sig for two months and nobody complained) and/or make it clear that having a large image means little or no text.

[Noxid]

I dunno, I still think 500x200 is about the limit of what I'd consider acceptable. Case example:


I dunno about you guys but if I had to scroll past an image that large every time someone posted I'd start to get a little miffed

[Wedge of Cheese]

200 seems like a good height limit, but I think the width limit should be maybe be a bit larger, since people all have big monitors now (maybe 700 or 800).

[Wild Desu]

Yeah I think the width should be increased a bit too, as long as it doesn't stretch the page. I really think height would be more of a concern for sigs anyway, since they'd be annoying to scroll past.