The return of the [img] tag and shortening the sigs

Vicsun · #1 (**permalink**) 10-30-2004, 02:24 PM

Has the time not come for [img] posting to be reinstated? I think that the storm is over and ... has cooled off by now. I'd hate to see this feature gone for ever.

My second request is the following: seeing how there seem to be a lot of signatures that are significantly longer than the average post, would it be unreasonable to ask for some sort of limitations on the maximum lengh a signature can have? I realize there's a character limit, but a line limit would be a lot more useful as my mouse scroll-wheel is starting to show signs of wearing out.
I don't know if it can be implemented, but a limit on the maximum text size in sigs would also make me an extremely happy poster. What's the use of posting point-25 text in your sig apart from making it extremely annoying?
I hope I'm not coming off as some sort of a minimalist-nazi, but it really does bug me when a signature is both 5x larger than a post and written in 25 point, bolded, red, impact font.. It distracts from the rest of the thread, it is aesthetically unpleasent, it is annoying, and it is kind of hard on the eyes.

Aegis · #2 (**permalink**) 10-30-2004, 03:00 PM

Vic has a point. A lot of signatures seem to overshadow the post (though, in the pure spam posts, that's not always an issue). Some sort of line limit, or a cap on the size of the fonts could go a long way to reduce the size of sig's.

Even on my monitor, and resolution, a lot of time is spent scrolling because of some of the more excessive sig's out there. (remember a while back some members having the entire lyrics to songs and poems. That's extreme excess).

Ideal Maxima · #3 (**permalink**) 10-30-2004, 03:07 PM

hmm... i know my siggy was big before, vic, but is it still big now? i could make even smaller at anyone's request

Stilgar · #4 (**permalink**) 10-30-2004, 03:50 PM

I totally agree with you Vicsun.
@Darc_Elv_Nyte, i think it is. Why not drop the blanklines and the large fonts.

BuckGB · #5 (**permalink**) 10-30-2004, 04:33 PM

How often was the [IMG] code used before? Is it a big deal to have to post pictures via an attachment instead of being able to post them directly into a thread? We have certainly seen the mischief that can be caused with the [IMG] tag, and unless it's a serious detriment, I'd rather not reinstate it.

However, the signature suggestion I agree with. I went ahead and reduced the total number of characters allowed in a signature from 500 to 300. I can also disallow the usage of VB coding in signatures, which might help for the excessive colors and font size. Before I do so, though, I'd like to at least get some feedback about whether or not this is a good idea from some of you. I imagine that disallowing the use of VB code in signatures will have a negative effect on some people.

Xandax · #6 (**permalink**) 10-30-2004, 04:52 PM

Personally - I have never seen much usage of the img tag, other then what people use it to insert smiles not native to the GB board.

IMO as we saw over a periode of time the tag can be seriously misused to post extreemly offensive material that can harm GB a lot.
However - I also recognize that the problem only existed due immature actions of one individual and we haven't had any misuse of it prior to this individual.

So it is very much the flip of a coin in my view.
Should we penalize the people that actually use the tag (although for minor elements after what I've seen over the last few years) in the name of keeping the board "safe".

Personally - at the moment - I lean mostly towards haveing it disabled for at least a while still.

As for the sig - then I wholehardedly (spelling?) agree. It is extreemly annoying to see huuuuge coloured letters in a signature. So I think it was a good decision to limit that capacity - as long as it doesn't hurt to many peoples "normal" styled sigs. (not me - I'm to unimaginative to colour in stuff).

Gwalchmai · #7 (**permalink**) 10-30-2004, 07:58 PM

Remember, people have the option of turning off their ability to see signatures (and avatars as well) if they are disturbed by too-large signatures.

Xandax · #8 (**permalink**) 10-31-2004, 01:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gwalchmai

Remember, people have the option of turning off their ability to see signatures (and avatars as well) if they are disturbed by too-large signatures.

But that would make it all or none.

In my view it is better to limit posting such letters as Vicsun illustrated, then having to turn of all signatures.

Vicsun · #9 (**permalink**) 10-31-2004, 03:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Buck Satan

How often was the [IMG] code used before? Is it a big deal to have to post pictures via an attachment instead of being able to post them directly into a thread? We have certainly seen the mischief that can be caused with the [IMG] tag, and unless it's a serious detriment, I'd rather not reinstate it.

I used it occasionally to post non-GB smileys, as well as posting relatively large images which are bigger than what is allowed as an attachment. I know it is possible to both add new smileys and up the size allowed for attachments, but I don't think that would solve anything because the use of non GB smileys is rather marginal and including them would only cause bloat, and upping the allowed attachment size would likely increase the monthly bill.
The potential for mischief is there, of course, but bar the recent incident there have been no problems with the abuse of [img] code in the four (?) years the boards have existed. IMHO disabling some of the board's functionality for ever because of a single instance of abuse is overreacting, but that is just my opinion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Buck

However, the signature suggestion I agree with. I went ahead and reduced the total number of characters allowed in a signature from 500 to 300. I can also disallow the usage of VB coding in signatures, which might help for the excessive colors and font size. Before I do so, though, I'd like to at least get some feedback about whether or not this is a good idea from some of you. I imagine that disallowing the use of VB code in signatures will have a negative effect on some people.

Frankly, I don't think a blanket ban on all VB code in signatures is an optimal solution, as the problem isn't that big yet (people do exhibit common sense, thankfully). A limit on the maximum number of lines of the signatures would be the best solution, I think.

Stilgar · #10 (**permalink**) 10-31-2004, 03:55 AM

When disabeling the VBcode doesnt that also disable links in signatures?
So i dont think that would be a good idea.
Why not make a general signature rule, not a maximum numer of characters (cause when i want to create a link, that uses alot of characters while it only displays the name of the link).
But more a rule like: Dont size your signatures, max 10rules long etc.?

Vicsun · #11 (**permalink**) 10-31-2004, 05:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stilgar

When disabeling the VBcode doesnt that also disable links in signatures?
So i dont think that would be a good idea.
Why not make a general signature rule, not a maximum numer of characters (cause when i want to create a link, that uses alot of characters while it only displays the name of the link).
But more a rule like: Dont size your signatures, max 10rules long etc.?

I was actually thinking along those lines as well. It can be enforced on case-by-case basis by the moderators as that would allow the system to be a lot more flexible.

BuckGB · #12 (**permalink**) 10-31-2004, 11:50 AM

Unfortunately, I cannot limit the number of "lines" a signature is - only the number of characters. However, I do think a new forum rule might work to keep excessive signatures off the boards.

So, what specific guidelines would everyone like to see? Should pictures be allowed? Should there be a maximum font size? How about a maximum number of links? If we can get a general list of guidelines in the rule, it will make it much easier to enforce.

Aegis · #13 (**permalink**) 10-31-2004, 12:19 PM

No 'wasted' space. you really don't need multiple skipped lines in a sig. One, possibly two to give focus to a quote and link are fine, but having five or six things in the sig, with a space between each is just excessive.

Font's bigger than 12 font. Again, this is excessive. For the most part, you don't need to up the size of the text to garner attention to your sig, as many people will read them as they go through the posts.

The use of the quote boxes. This one is a tricky one, and could work either way in my mind. But, the quote boxes seem to take up a lot of space, especially when their is more to the sig than the single quote. That one would probably probably be more of a judgement call, though.

Rob-hin · #14 (**permalink**) 10-31-2004, 12:32 PM

I'm against pictures in sig's. They make the board look cheap.

I agree with Aegis, a maximum of font 12 in sig's.

As for lines, well that's a bit difficult and I expect the most discussion about this. I'd say 4 lines are good, no more.

Stilgar · #15 (**permalink**) 10-31-2004, 01:09 PM

I'm agains images, one of the main reasons i like gamebanshee is because the board looks organized cause there arent any pictures in the signatures.

For a sig, i would say the normal fontsize (dont know what it is), about 6-8 lines long.
People may post as many links in their signatures as they want, i cant think of a reason not to allow this (aslong as the link is to a site that you are allowed to post on the board aswell.)