Question Regarding Signature Rule

[admin]

Hi guys. I've noticed that for a while now there are a few members here that have a very large image in their signature file. I've been on other forums where they have a rule regarding how large of an image can be used, and they are usually restricted to a small size - much smaller than the few I've seen. The reason is that the large images can be distracting.
Should we institute a similar rule?

 

[didimauw]

Probably wouldn't hurt .

 

[cosmicfolklore]

To me, I'm ok with it, but I have read at least 6 complaints in threads and PM's.

 

[hmhaines]

I can hear cannons being loaded! ::

 

[balkisobrains]

One very popular site that I frequent has a "no pics, no animation, max five lines of text" rule, which I love.

 

[prairiedruid]

I don't mind the images; allows for some to individualize their account. I have broadband so I don't have the issues with slow loading that some forum members do.

 

[mawnansmiff]

I'm all for a restriction myself because yes, they can be very distracting, particularly the ones with moving images.
One member has as his avatar someone banging on what looks like a cowbell...I have to skip his/her posts because it is so damned annoying. Thank goodness there is no sound to go with it!
One also has to factor in bandwidth. Sometimes it takes an age for a page to appear simply because of huge/moving images.
Just my 2p worth ::
Regards,
Jay.

 

[doctorbob]

Yes, it would be helpful.
Doc

 

[snowyowl]

I guess I have fewer control issues (as a former BBS moderator). I like the diversity and imagination expressed by members in their screen names, avatars, text and image signatures.
The more, the merrier.

 

[wyfbane]

Lol this thread shows the generation gap among pipers. Personally I don't care either way, but I have to say the guy with the "Cute-Thulhu" .gif is my hero!

 

[derfatdutchman]

I would not have a problem with setting a limit on the size of a signature image.

 

[hakchuma]

does t bother me either way, it's your call boss. Good that you are bringing the question to your members though. Respect.

 

[balkisobrains]

A single frame in the avatar is one thing. Usually if there's a pic or animation in a sig, I'm scrolling right past the whole post and not even reading any of it. Also thumbs-down on sponsored ads in the sig when the reader is not logged in.

 

[pipesmokingtom]

I like that people have fun with them.
When they get too big and take up too much of the screen or are moving though, it can make it difficult to follow the conversations (many of which are hard to follow as it is :wink: .)

 

[mso489]

I'm not a graphics guy because of my technological ineptitude, so I want to be careful about cramping other peoples' styles. The annoyance to me with the big graphics that are run with every post is that it makes for some laborious down-scrolling, especially after you've see that graphic many many times. I say, give us a look at the graphic in one post only. I don't think it enhances the experience seeing it many times. But I will concede that I am a graphic non-contributor.

 

[jackswilling]

I Heart Gifs

 

[jackswilling]

The gif only shows up in the first post in a thread. Since this is not a democracy, it does not matter what the members want in the end. I like to see all the images. More images, more better. Most/many gifs/avatars are changed out periodically. Mine will go at some point, and those who dislike the visuals, mine in particular, can rejoice. Seems like for many, the duller, the better.

 

[jpmcwjr]

Right now I am on limited bandwidth, so repeats of large images are a drag, literally and figuratively.
And animated .gifs are simply annoying, especially in avatars. I also skip those posts as quickly as I can, though the posters in question are folks I'd like to read. (And do sometimes anyway.)

 

[aldecaker]

I can go either way with it. The images and gifs in question don't bother me at all, and the bandwidth aspect has given me no problems whatsoever. If they become restricted, well, I would abide by the new rule, and continue to participate in the forum just as happily as before.
@Smiff- Do you guys not get Saturday Night Live in the UK? Not being sarcastic at all, just curious. Our Public Broadcasting System shows quite a bit of BBC content, and I was wondering if you guys have some similar access.

 

[mawnansmiff]

Aldecaker, I have heard of it but never watched it. What is it and how does it pertain to this thread?
Regards,
Jay.