Sig Size Limit

[Lucifus]

All votes in favor of change so far.

[masamuneehs]

I haven't decided what to vote for yet, and here's why I'm hung up:

the problem with taller sigs is that it really spaces out posts, making pages longer, adding 20% more bandwith usage per post. If you even look at this topic you'll see what I'm talking about. I can barely fit two entire posts (complete with time/date and 'On/Off' and 'Quote' functions) on my screen at one time. We're talking about 1-4 line posts.

The problem with bigger sigs is that the also tend to 'dominate' the forum because they're simply bigger and more attractive than alot of posts. The main thing in a person's post should be their words, not their sig.

On the other hand, I do like the idea of having more room to work with for sigs and all that....

[LaZie]

I voted yes, but I don't really need sigs to be larger as I prefer it to be smaller than huge. As long as I have the option to have it larger to fit my needs.

[FrogKing]

I haven't voted yet, but I am leaning toward no. In some forums, sig size has gotten WAY out of hand. It is way too busy at the bottom of each post. Some have little clubs, cartoons, and the sigs become stacked and of varying size. I don't know if I am looking at a screen shot of some sort or a sig. I kinda like how everyone has a sig that is just that a sig. Nothing too fancy, just simple.

edit: Oh, yeah I agree with masamuneehs!

[Board of Command]

That's a whole different case. We're just talking about increasing the filesize limit or the dimensions limit. Having multiple banners with animation and such is indeed out of hand but that's not what you're voting on here.

[FrogKing]

I realize that, but increase a little here add a second banner there....I think they are good right now. I am impressed with what people can come up with on the limited canvas.

[Board of Command]

Again, 20 pixels is very different from 2 banners... Yes, people have adapted and created some very impressive stuff using the current dimensions, but I'm sure we'll see much better looking stuff if we have an extra 20 pixels to work with. Look at how much the sigs have improved since the limit went from 400x80 to 400x100. I do realize that 400x80 was kinda absurb, but like now, people back then adapted to that and created a lot of good stuff. I'm not saying 400x100 is bad, I'm just saying it could be improved.

The concern is like masamuneehs pointed out, the forum becomes too graphic for its own good. The sig size is not the reason for why you can only see 2 posts at a time; that's caused by the profile stuff on the left. Even if I don't have anything in my signature field, my post still takes up the same amout of space. If you look at FrogKing's post, he probably has the smallest profile size possible, yet the sig banner still doesn't reach the bottom of his post area. There is a good 30 pixels unused under every sig banner (except mine of course, but that can be fixed) so I don't think it would hurt much to up the limit a bit. Also, bandwidth shouldn't be much of a problem nowadays because we're only talking about 10 to 20 KB more per image.

[Psyke]

I vote "no" as well. I'm an avid sig maker as well, and I think 400 x 100 is enough for people to work on.

[darkshadow]

yes, cause i make my sigs pretty big:




just to show a few

and i the extra bandwidth doesnt matter with my 8.2mbps ( soon 20mbps) connection :P

[Lucifus]

The vote is for the increase of the Sig Size limit, cause the JPG Quality sucks. 20 Kb more on a sig I doubt would affect Dial Up. I'm okay if we don't get teh 400x120, but it would give us alot of room for improvement.

Just please stop voting no for the SIg Size limit....