Today's moan

[JohnnyFind]

Why do people need an aviator and a picture signature..?

They seem to be getting bigger and bigger, and it drives me mad.

[Undergrid]

Why do people need an aviator and a picture signature..?

They seem to be getting bigger and bigger, and it drives me mad.

I'd agree there, I personally would ban pictures in sigs.

[Rik_S]

Now I`ve completed my regular eight hours moaning at work, I`ve come home and need to do some more........the avatars seem OK, but the sigs are now getting bigger than the actual message...and usually they`re not as interesting

Then again I am a luddite and sigs don`t interest me.

[Emma]

You lot are only moaning cause you ain't got one !!!!    

What about the feedom of choice?
They are hosted on web space elsewhere!!!

And before you moan about those using 56k, the text comes up before the pictures !!!!

[Tricky]

What about the feedom of choice?

What about it?   I see no written and signed contract entitling anyone to that.

Seriously though, the sigs do break the flow of the threads and make them harder to read. Now, of course, the perception of how hard something is to read is up to the individual. In my case I 'scan read' and don't bother reading anything that looks uninteresting. I sometimes skip over some of the more artistically stunning threads due to the act that they often contain more graphics than words and I don't have time / can't be bothered to read them.

A good example of a site that is very easy to read are the forums at http://www.webmasterworld.com. They don't allow sigs because of the readability issue - and it makes a huge difference. Now that site is a serious discussion site where mixing huge graphics with long threads of debate would make things very difficult. We on the other hand need a more balanced approach but IMHO the sigs are getting too big at the moment and the admins need to decide what approach to take to the problem.

[phil-007-uk]

Why do people need an aviator and a picture signature..?

They seem to be getting bigger and bigger, and it drives me mad.

I'd agree there, I personally would ban pictures in sigs.

sigs are a way of being a bit differant,in a clan you all have same tag name-etc,so sigs are a way of saying that this little bit of art work is yours and yours alone,now i dont see a problem with these-BUT we are all allowed our own views but what i dont agree with is the DONT CLICK HERE bit up above,and thats an admin of hamster for you,sorry guys but come on ,harmless sig against that...well.....what can we say..

[Undergrid]

sigs are a way of being a bit differant,in a clan you all have same tag name-etc,so sigs are a way of saying that this little bit of art work is yours and yours alone,now i dont see a problem with these-BUT we are all allowed our own views but what i dont agree with is the DONT CLICK HERE bit up above,and thats an admin of hamster for you,sorry guys but come on ,harmless sig against that...well.....what can we say..

I have nothing against sigs, what I have a problem with is bloomin big pictures in every message.  If I didn't like sig then they would be disabled on this board (which can be done very easily) which they may notice that they are not.

Now as for my sig, if you click a link that tells you not to then thats your own business..

[Calibrax]

I'm not a fan of banner sigs, I must say. They do become intrusive, especially when someone has made several posts in a thread, meaning their large sig repeats over and over again on the same page (grrr!)  

I have a piccy in my sig, but it's only really a text string that I can't get unless I use a piccy... it is pretty small and unobtrusive. But that's because it's an actual signature, not a full movie poster campaign!    

Steve    

[P-Dub]

I'm not a fan of banner sigs, I must say. They do become intrusive, especially when someone has made several posts in a thread, meaning their large sig repeats over and over again on the same page (grrr!)  

However u do have an avatar which is 115k........ now how long would that take u 2 download over 56k?? Thats not the issue though is it?? The issue is about physical size rather than file size...... personally i like seeing the expressions of artwork, and once they have been downloaded once they stay in the cache and load instantly the page does......

Guys, if my signature offends then it shall be removed, but that has been my sig ever since my name became Wolverine back in the days when i was running MCM2 every hour god sent and then a few more....... Lemme know and i shall remove it if required...

L8s

Chris

[Calibrax]

However u do have an avatar which is 115k........ now how long would that take u 2 download over 56k?? Thats not the issue though is it?? The issue is about physical size rather than file size...... personally i like seeing the expressions of artwork, and once they have been downloaded once they stay in the cache and load instantly the page does......

To download 115k over a 56k connection would take 16 seconds (download time calculator here!). I know, my avatar is bigger than it should be, but then my sig is quite a bit smaller than I could make it...    

Anyway as you said, size isn't the issue - text displays on screen before the avatars / sigs download, so really the connection speed is irrelevant.  

I like the artwork too... but to see it seven or eight times on a single page gets irritating after a while! Your sig is rather nice though.

Steve    

PS... I just optimised my avatar, so it's now 79kb, not 115kb... been meaning to do it for a while, just hadn't got round to it.  

[phil-007-uk]

hope hamsters dont ban sigs,some are very good,some arnt,but its just that little thing to say im differant. hope this isnt going to be a tit 4 tat post.we are all allowed our say i agree.but i hope it does nt go to far ,to the extent that all sigs get banned...would be a shame,cos you have to admit-they do brighten things up-and some are really funny.and make you laugh

[Calibrax]

hope hamsters dont ban sigs

Naah, I don't think they should be banned, I mean, sigs are standard on forums across the web... I'm not a huge fan of them myself, but everyone has the right to express themselves with a sig if they want. Personally I prefer to express myself with my avatar, but that's just the way I am (slightly odd!)  

Steve    

[Tricky]

sigs are standard on forums across the web

I'm sorry but that isn't true. They are allowed on some forums and banned on others. It depends on the forum.

but everyone has the right to express themselves with a sig if they want.

That isn't true either. Everyone is allowed to use the forums within the rules. If the rules of the forums were to change so that sigs weren't allowed then that is that. I don't recall sigs being mentioned in the Human Rights Act.  

[SCoob [NL]]

When I first came to {HamsteR} they people here only used avators.
Think I was the first to use a sig as well (might be wrong about that)  
So if people don't like sigs, blaim me    

[Tricky]

So if people don't like sigs, blaim me

It's you! You created the monster! Everyone get 'im!  

While I was in the shower this morning I had an idea which came about whilst I was considering why sigs were intrusive. I came to the conclusion that the amount of perceived intrusion depends upon the type of thread. Sigs will probably be unobtrusive in a chatty thread but very annoying in a thread like a Match signup where you want to quickly see who is interested in playing. If this is technically possible (and it would probably require some work) maybe sigs should be removed (using code) in certain forums (e.g. Hamster news, Hamster 1 subs?) but left to remain in others (free chat, Lobby, ROW public forum?). That would be a good compromise if it worked.