Please note that per the NAM Site Guidelines (#11) the total size of all images in the signature block are not to exceed 500 pixels wide by 100 pixels tall.

If your the image(s) in your signature occupy a space larger than the image above, then you need to modify your signature.

While the badges are a great way to show spirit, please be aware of the signature size limit above has been in place for at least three years and is there to aid the viewability of the site.

Thanks,

Dave

 

Umm, I was hit by the signature police, as you can see below. My sig was automatically resized, even though it wasn't that big to begin with. But now as I'm bouncing around the forums I see other sigs (I'm not going to point fingers) waaay more obnoxious and large. What's the deal? I don't mind playing by the rules if everyone is playing the same game.

 

Everyone is playing by the same policies.

I hit up 30 members in the last week or so all for signature image(s) larger than the permitted 500x100 size. If it was possible to do a quick resize by linking a thumb image instead of the fullsize image because their photo was hosted by NAM, I did that. You're always welcome to replace that with an image that fits within the 500x100 image size restriction.

I understand there are more members to take this up with, and when i get the time that will happen.

 

Don't worry, their time will come.

 

That is why I deleted the Astro Black badge from my sig... to stay legal.

Someday when COOPERation has some time... or if someone else will integrate it for me...

 

I'll start of by saying I a gree with their bieng limits to size, and there are definately those that get out of hand, but just wanted to throw out, something to consider as it may mean less work for the moderators, and may help some with the badges in their sig. If photos can be up to 800 pixels, then any signature under the 800 wide shouldn't harm the veiwability anymore than an acceptable photo, and it would allow for the badges to more easily fit within a signature (for those who feel the need to have many or larger photos). Just something to consider as being easier for the community as a hole without defeating the purpose of the limits, I have no issue playing by the rules, so I'll keep the 500.

 

Motor on, I agree that the height of large signatures is MUCH more distracting than the width.

A couple hundred extra pixels would be nice, but people probably wouldn't keep to that either. . .

But I'll vote for an increase in width along with a crackdown on excessively tall signatures. . .

 

I hate scrolling right to left because there's a wide image on the page. It makes reading the posts hard. I don't browse the web with my browser window maximized... I prefer a tall, narrow window - sort of paperback book shaped.

 

Or you could always rent a 100x100 pixel block of my signature space for your badge!

 

Here's how I deal with them

 

Yeah, that's how I generally deal with them too, but some people do like to be able to look at signatures.

Also, the number of people viewing the site that aren't registered members is greater than the number of members, and they can't turn off signature images.

 

Actually I find the text in signatures more distracting

All the more reason for them to become members

 

Well what I hate is the variable page width. You know someone posts a picture and then every post goes wide. I will edit my posts so that you don't have to scroll left or right to read it.

 

According to the rules you can have either a 500px x 100px image OR a max of 300 characters. Most I've noticed have both so really almost everyone isn't following the rules.

 

If people were courteous they wouldn't post images any wider or taller than those displayed on the Gallery pages of this site (600 pixels maximum) and use clickable thumbnails for posting multiple images.

Photo hosting sites like Photobucket and ImageShack provide clickable thumbnail code, and this code can be built for Gallery images on this site:

{URL=http.../gallery/data/###/filename.jpg}{IMG}http.../gallery/data/###/thumbs/filename.jpg{/IMG}{/URL}

 

That is my only complaint. Large images posted which messes with the text of the thread. It would be nice if people would resize them no larger than 600 or 800 pixels wide but some are unsure how to or just don't care. It would be nice if the forum could self adjust a large image to meet a maximum required width. Is that possible now or down the road with the software?

While we are discussing signatures. I removed my animated one when it was mentioned they may be banned. As long as it is not an seizure causing gif, are animated sigs ok to use?

 

Uploading high resolution images to your Gallery will resize them to the 800 pixel format.

 

OH speaking of seizure causing GIFs, I saw one last night. It was really big too. I wish I knew whose it was because I'd ask them if they would remove it. I had to close my window so fast I didn't pay attention to whose it was. It was one of those things where if you unfocus your eyes it becomes another image, but this was also animated. Well to someone with vision loss in one eye it just looks like quickly moving white noise that makes you queasy. I'm kinda bummed I can't see those anymore, but with limited depth perception it doesn't work.

 

Why dont you write a validation to prevent pictures that are too big? Then Edge wont have to PM so many people. He was very nice to explain the rules to me Thanks Edge!

 

LOL I'm not the only moderator who enforces large signatures, you know.

 

NEVERMIND