Gee, can you really say futz???

 

Heh... I don't doubt it.

For what it's worth, since the electronic enforcement method will be in effect soon, I am no longer "chasing" up people's signatures unless they are pretty blatant. There's been an astronomical number of "reported posts" for signature violations from some individuals (yes, more than one) who were quite upset that they were made to change their own signature.Uhh, no thanks. I'll stick to JCW leather instead. Don't want Alcantara either... very nice but I'm concerned about long term durability. It's nice that they offer different options. futz. Yep... the vast majority of the definitions are clean, even if there is one "possible" bad interpretation.

 

Wyy thank you. I'm still not done with the new one. I'm hoping to tweek it to way cooler status too .

Sheesh reducing my siggy involved way more than a 3 min photochop because of the animation but I have almost gotten my image animator figured out now so hopefully future revisions will be easier if I get re-nabbed by the signature fuzz

 

Well dadgum. I went through all this for a lousy 78 pixels over width. I coulda probably slid by until electronic enforcement

 

oh Yeah, but mine was just like 3 distinct pics (objects) on layers, made originally in photoshop at 100 x 500 transparent background. So making it smaller was just a matter of changing the object sides provided you save the original as a .psd (actually using photosuite a ufo). If you dont save the original and just convert it to a flat jpg, then your screwed and have to start over. I learned that lesson.

Adding the gif animation, of course, makes it harder but I'm guessing you didn't make the .gif from hand with a gif animator but just copyied it into a blank background.

Someone also made an original for me once too (thank you) which helps.

 

Offensive, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.

Mark

 

 

I like my sig, but am not sure what to change it to when the update happens.

 

I think everyone will be required to use "Upload Signature Picture" and then "Insert Singature Picture" under Edit Signature.

Your signature image won't pass the filesize test ...

 

Mark (Matarella)... I love the new signature... very timely.

 

'Couldn't help myself...

 

A sense of humor is always a good thing.

A couple of other random notes...

• You're only 3 posts away from 6th gear... congratulations will be in order shortly.
• Did anyone else notice the new NAM smiley that just showed up? -->

 

It is worth posting in here just to use a new smilie!

So I'll use this as an opportunity to also express my opinion on signature images.

The problem with big signatures is NEVER the width but instead the height of the sigs gets annoying because it takes up vertical space on the screen for other people's thoughts.

I am typing on a TINY laptop with an 10.5 inch screen and I could easily handle viewing signatures that were twice as wide without any bothersome side effects. But tall signatures can sometimes take up almost half of my availble space for reading posts.

So, although I am just one tiny voice, how about giving us some extra pixels to make our sigs wider at the same time the strict enforcement goes into effect? If the file size limit does not change, it doesn't really affect anyone if sigs are a little bit wider.

So, in short, limiting signature width to only 500 pixels doesn't make much sense, and tracking people down for a few extra pixels beyond 500 is even more pointless.

edit: I thought I would dust off this old signature from a previous signature size uproar. . . .

 

Geez, if I guessed I'd said I was in 2nd or 3rd. Oops, a gratuitous post pushes me closer! And I just finished 'futzing' with the sig a wee bit more. I'll put it back to norm in a couple days. If I were more talented / had more time to waste it'd be fun to make the mag move and show the larger image under.

Ya gotta be able to laugh. Lifes way too crazy to take too seriously.

 

neve underestimate the creativity of a bored forum member

 

What is going on.. I was following the GP thread and clicked on a link.. I though "Maybe something interesting .." I am impressed a group of tenacious people here on NAM ...
2 days for a signature dispute... and the points system is too complicated ..
I am better off motoring ...

 

or driving

or bored at work like most of us who post here between 8 and 5

 

We'll be performing a site update in 2-3 weeks time (mostly to resort the forums for the R55/R56/R57/R58).

In conjunction with that we will be migrating everyone over to the signature uploaded function which automatically enforces height, width and file size.

At that time [img] tags will be disabled in signatures, so the only way to have a signature image will be to have it uploaded through the signature picture function.

Until that time, please stop reporting each other's signature for minor violations (if it's a full size image affecting viewability sure report it, otherwise just ignore it for now as this problem will basically go away in a few weeks time - at most).

 

Well, that settles that

Mark

 

Do as I do ...

Untick "Show Signatures" under Edit Options

 

Exactly.

 

But I like seeing the signatures, just don't like the gigantically tall ones that take up my whole screen.

I'm all in favor of an automated system to keep sigs to a reasonable size, especially since I am not the kind of petty little person who would report someone for a few extra pixels.

But I still believe that it would be very reasonable for the powers that be to allow signature widths to increase a bit with the 100 pixel height limit staying the same. 500 pixels made sense when people had monitors at 800x600 resolution, but these days most people have large monitors capable of displaying a signature as wide as 750 pixels without affecting the layout of the site.

 

Yucca,

I understand where you're coming from, and I agree with you to an extent...

But I'd be willing to bet that when you access NAM from that 10.5" LCD screen on your laptop, that you have the browser maximized to fill the screen.

A lot of people these days don't like to maximize their browser... especially in the days of very high resolution screens or multiple monitors. For example, I run 1280x1024 across two screens (i.e. 2560x1024) at the office, and 1600x1200 across two screens (i.e. 3200x1200) at home.

I don't want to maximize the browser in either situation, because it is a waste of desktop real estate, and reduces the usable functionality when trying to multitask, even if I only maximize within 1 monitor. So I run all my browsers in a window - and I often have multiple browsers open (even with multiple tabs in each browser!).

Increasing the signature width does have an impact on that. I'm not saying necessarily that 600 pixels is too much (it might not be!), but just that you have to take into account that not everyone browses the same way you do (at least the way I imagine you do).

So please understand I'm not "against" your idea - not at all... I'm just trying to highlight that it's a more complex issue than it may first seem.

 

the simple fix for someone in that situation is to access their UserCP and turn signatures off. I do that for many sites where there's seemingly more content in the signatures than in the thread.

 

Wow Marina, we agree

It is all a bit silly but I see the point about bloated sigs taking up bandwidth, server space, etc.

In fact, when I first saw NAM and all those sigs listing every car someone owned I thought Whats the point of that?

And NOT to pick on Edges sig .. I know I had to ask him several times what all those abbrevations meant ... a language of its own. But, to each their own ... that's what makes America Great!

hmm, I gotta go check the Ferrari boards and see if ppl list every car they ever owned!