Sig pics, 1 year on

[Scikar]

Prompted by a slight memory lapse on my part. Anyway, it seems that when this topic came up originally, a significant part of the membership didn't vote. We now have roughly double the members. I think I'm still in the minority as far as sig pics go, but this poll will find out.

I don't think anyone would argue that several large, animated sig pics is obstrusive and annoying. I'm of the opinion that a small, single, .jpg or .png is reasonable. With the current layout and avatar size, I don't think a pic 80 pixels in height would actually increase the size of posts.

I'm not sure on animated sigs, in some cases it's just things like light reflecting off glass. In others you have cycling multicoloured backgrounds which give people headaches. If possible I'd prefer a restriction of "limited animation only", but this is ambiguous and will no doubt result in cases of people thinking their animated sig pic is acceptable, when it isn't. So I can understand leaving animations out.

At the same time, I know some people here are dead set against pics in signatures. I can live without a sig pic, so I'm not going to kick up a big fuss over this. Anyway, cast your vote!

EDIT: For reference, the previous two threads on sig pics:
Thread 1.
Thread 2.

[M.Steiner]

I have no probs with people using sig images as long as,

-they aren't huge in size,
-they aren't animated with crazy flashing effects,
-and they don't contain stuff thats not suitable for the forum.

[Inquisitor]

Had this discussion before, my reasoning hasn't changed, so will post a link to the last time.

[BlackDove]

As much as the debate leaves much to be desired for, I will quote what Chimera said on the last incarnation of this thread.

If people want to add a lasting impression to their posts, they should try working on the sentence structure and grammar in their paragraphs.

The reasoning for me being that I do not want to scroll down through signature images in order to get to the posts that I want to read. They're an obstruction no matter how you cut it, to the core principle this place has been designed for - communication.

An addendum for the people who want them, but regulated - the only regulation for them can be done by moderators. If they are allowed, and restrictions are bestowed upon them, it means a lot more work for the moderators than there is now. Now we just remove them. Later we have to wad through them, check them and then if they violate the standard, remove them. Note that the possibilities for removal expand greatly if they are allowed, since many people will have them.

[Anubis]

I have no probs with people using sig images as long as,

-they aren't huge in size,
-they aren't animated with crazy flashing effects,
-and they don't contain stuff thats not suitable for the forum.

Ditto. As long as they follow those rules I like sig pics. Its not really an essential though, so it doesn't really bother me either way.

[Scikar]

As much as the debate leaves much to be desired for, I will quote what Chimera said on the last incarnation of this thread.

If people want to add a lasting impression to their posts, they should try working on the sentence structure and grammar in their paragraphs.

The reasoning for me being that I do not want to scroll down through signature images in order to get to the posts that I want to read. They're an obstruction no matter how you cut it, to the core principle this place has been designed for - communication.

As long as they're kept to a reasonable size, scrolling through a page with sig pics in is no different to scrolling through a page with text sigs. I want to be clear about this, the only support is for reasonably sized sigs (i.e. no larger than current text sigs).

The last sig pic thread showed that several people were arguing against them on the grounds that huge obnoxious sigs are extremely irritating. That's completely irrelevant, because nobody is suggesting we allow sig pics in that state.

[Inquisitor]

Why do you want them? What purpose DO they serve?

My text sig, I think, does indeed serve an informative purpose.

Whatever is decided, though, has to be enforceable.

"Some animation" leaves too much to teh imagination. No animation is clear. "Some" is not enforceable.

[BlackDove]

As much as the debate leaves much to be desired for, I will quote what Chimera said on the last incarnation of this thread.

If people want to add a lasting impression to their posts, they should try working on the sentence structure and grammar in their paragraphs.

The reasoning for me being that I do not want to scroll down through signature images in order to get to the posts that I want to read. They're an obstruction no matter how you cut it, to the core principle this place has been designed for - communication.

As long as they're kept to a reasonable size, scrolling through a page with sig pics in is no different to scrolling through a page with text sigs. I want to be clear about this, the only support is for reasonably sized sigs (i.e. no larger than current text sigs).

The last sig pic thread showed that several people were arguing against them on the grounds that huge obnoxious sigs are extremely irritating. That's completely irrelevant, because nobody is suggesting we allow sig pics in that state.

For point 1 - I can tell you that scrolling through images or text on my Pentium 200 makes a great difference.

For point 2 - we always argued any and all incarnations of sig images. They're all generally obtrusive and distracting (naturally, personal opinion). For me, size and shape don't matter. Extra images in a place that uses text as a medium for communication is pointless.

[Scikar]

Why do you want them? What purpose DO they serve?

My text sig, I think, does indeed serve an informative purpose.

Whatever is decided, though, has to be enforceable.

"Some animation" leaves too much to teh imagination. No animation is clear. "Some" is not enforceable.

Agreed on animation.

As for serving a purpose, look at some other sigs people have. Some people have links, some people have their favourite quotes. I think the main reason I prefer them is that I tend to learn who people are on forums with something individual like that. And I know I'm not the only one - I changed my avatar on the Neocron forums after having the same one for about 12 months and threw several people off.

The fact that we have fairly large avatars offsets that to an extent, though some people don't have an avatar at all, or use one of the standard SSX logos. I have to confess, there are several people here who have been members for some time, but when I see their names I don't really remember anything about them at first. An individual avatar or sig usually jogs my memory though.

Then again, there are several people who won't use a sig pic and will keep to their standard avatar, so it probably won't make that much of a difference.

EDIT: The P200 point is a valid one. Just like someone on a 14.4k modem probably struggles with images in sigs too. I'm not sure that catering for the special circumstances where someone's primary machine is out of action and they are left with a backup system is really that necessary though?

As for the use of extra images - in what way are images more obstructive to communication in a text based format compared to text sigs? If anything, I would say the opposite, that having text in sigs can cause them to be confused with posts?

[Inquisitor]

They interrupt page flow. My eyes stop reading and start "looking." They break up the text, and distract me from the conversation. Granted sometimes that's probably a good thing.

I turn them off when I am able to on all forums I visit. They are generally poorly done, often rude, frequently animated and usually entirely too large.

Right now we have a what, 3 line sig?

Make me some examples of a sig that will fit there, lets see what you are really talking about.

[Kon]

Inq, some sig pics are informative, like Xfire, or ServerBot. I vote yes, as long as they aren't taller than your post.

[Scikar]

They interrupt page flow. My eyes stop reading and start "looking." They break up the text, and distract me from the conversation. Granted sometimes that's probably a good thing.

I turn them off when I am able to on all forums I visit. They are generally poorly done, often rude, frequently animated and usually entirely too large.

Right now we have a what, 3 line sig?

Make me some examples of a sig that will fit there, lets see what you are really talking about.

Poorly done? Perhaps. Rude, animated or too large? Irrelevant, because such sigs would not be permitted. I realise that you are very much set against sig pics, and I am seeking a compromise. I'd appreciate it if you would stop throwing that strawman argument out though, as I have addressed complaints about size and animation already.

As for examples, this is the 80px sig I had briefly until I was reminded of the rule:


As an example of boards using signatures of this size, here is a thread in the PennyArcade debate and discussion forums. Those discussions are frequently very involved and text heavy, but I have no problems reading them. Also I find it makes it easier to find a specific person's post in a discussion, and stops pages from looking like one monotonous block of words. That may be partially offset by the smaller avatar size though (it's 64x64 max there).

This is my PlanetSide sig, it's 32px in height:


I can make something I like within pretty much any limitations we can agree on. If 3 lines of small text is as much as people are happy with then I can make a 50px or 30px sig that I'm happy with.

[Inquisitor]

All I have are "straw men" as the only places I have seen that allow them, have had those as the prevelant example. it's not a straw man if it's my only experience with them.

I can only work within my experience

Those are tasteful, and the Xfire ones I had not actually considred, those ARE relevant and informative.

I just don't know how we're going to enforce "tasteful" without being judgemental and irritating people. And size, would have to be honor system, unless someone knows how to code it? I have alot of questions.

Maybe we pilot it. Lets see how it goes over the next few days with the poll. We HAVE been down this road before, but meh, see what everyone else says.

I do LIKE you sig pics Scikar, very nice, very pretty, I just don;t see the point, but I may never.

[Anubis]

If this vote swings to a yes then we may need to have a vote on size. 80px would be fine to me, as would probably a limit of 100px (limit I used to have on my own forum which worked well). Limiting it to less than 80 though I would be against, as I consider 80-100px a reasonable size.

As for informative sigs, to be honest I've never used a sig anywhere that I frequent informatively. I tend to use my sig to display quotes or images I think are cool or fit in with my username. If this vote swings to a yes I am intending to use this:

Not informative as you can see, just a nice image. In my opinion the point of a sig pic shouldn't be only to inform, it should be whatever the user wants it to be (within reasonable limits such as no pr0n obviously).

My two cents.

[Serberus]

To be honest i sorta like Sig pics because ive gotten used to them on my freinds forum.

For those of you who are wanting an example of both good and bad use of picture sigs in a forum have a look-see around http://forum.xeverplay.com as just about everyone on that forum uses them. The reason i use that as an example is because you get to see people using sigs nicley and people sorta abusing them.

[Gryphon]

I'm with quiz and co.

I don't see the need.

[esd]

Over on Egosoft the rule is that signatures can be no larger than 600x150pixels including any text, and the avatar and signature combined can be no larger than 50kb. Works well, but you'll always get some idiot post a 1000x500pixel sigpic. That said, you also get idiots posting 500x500 avatars.

At The Mad Goner it's MUCH more relaxed on sigpic rules. This is the result:
http://www.maxgaming.net/~esd/img/sigpics.jpg
Yes, they're animated, including the women walking up the beach, the round thing... and more.
On that part of the forum I don't have a sigpic, partly in protest

Everywhere else, I use this at the moment:

[Sofia]

Sometimes i find myself very easily distracted by visual impressions. So, at the forum serberus had linked... i can barely read the text. Im sure, at some point it wouldnt be a problem anymore... as a matter of getting used to the sigs & thus not perceiveing them anymore. But whats the point in having them, when i can only perceive them as obstacles?

One avatar pic is enough, imo. So i go with quiz, BD & the very apt chim quote.

[Isileth]

Im personally for them although i dont actually use one myself. I find it helps me remember who each person is (I have a very bad memory )
It is annoying however when people have large and/or animated pics but since these wont be allowed i vote yes.

[Anubis]

It would seem that the vote has swung to a yes vote. Perhaps time to rethink the current policy?

[BlackDove]

The poll was supposed to be closed when the votes were 10 to 10.

So no.

[Isileth]

I only voted cause anny seems to really want them

[Inquisitor]

Until someone has the time and the talent to code the restrictions, and we find a way to moderate them without ruining my forum experience with them, no.

I should have locked this when it concluded the first time. This was 2 months ago, resurrecting threads is bad, m'kay?