NZFF

Hi guys,

After getting feedback from the forum as a whole, and most moderators individually, we've decided to limit images in the signature at 800x200. With this large limit we've made, most users will have no change at all and be able to have the same signatures as always.

Any picture over this size in your signature will 'disappear', and you will have to link to an image that is within these size limits for it to appear. Below is an image depicting the maximum signature size.



If you have any qualms about this, please PM the Administrators directly.

Thanks,

Alex

Good decision, however I find it somewhat ironic that the NZFF banner is smaller in height than the maximum sig size...

Thanks, we'll blame Trolly for that one I think.

Alex

I find myself a little dissapointed with this decision...

First of all, Alex ran a poll which was open to the forum, and the results showed that the majority (those that voted) voted for the sigs to stay as they were. One would think that the majority vote would have been recognised. Now I realise that Mods and Admin may have all voted to get them reduced, but the poll should kinda come out on top??

Also, I think a bit more warning would have been appreciated with regards to removing sigs, as once the decision came out I would have been more than happy to alter my sig, but instead it got deleted for me which I thought was wrong....

All in all, Ill change the thing, but I think the handling was a little poor.

~ZK-KAG~

All in all, Ill change the thing, but I think the handling was a little poor.

Sorry KAG- You have a fair point. Me, Alex and Robin debated this over PM's and MSN, and decided among ourselfs what we thought was best, taking the poll into consideration of course.

Sorry if it did not suit you mate.

From the poll about 40% voted to have no restrictions, but another 50% voted to have some sort of restriction (be it small or large - or none). The remainder voted 'Other'.

For me that sort of evens it out. We have made the signature size restriction very large, and only 2 or 3 members should be affected by it.

Alex

Alex wrote: From the poll about 40% voted to have no restrictions, but another 50% voted to have some sort of restriction (be it small or large - or none). The remainder voted 'Other'.

For me that sort of evens it out. We have made the signature size restriction very large, and only 2 or 3 members should be affected by it.

Alex

Good choice guys

My Controls Board Settings Do you wish to view members signatures when reading topics? = "NO"

feel free to make your signatures what ever size you like... I dont look at them anyway

<rant>
To be honest, I think the sigs were getting a little out of hand... which prompted me to turn them off in the first place... it gets a little annoying when you have about 20 posts which are only one or two lines of text, and then half a screen of pointless image sig...

I didnt realise just how annoying I had found it until I went to the ARNZ site to look at the FNF NOTAM and just about wore out my scroll wheel trying to get through the post because of all of the sig pics!!!

I think Zoltugers on the ARNZ forum is the maximum a sig should be... around 450x125... and even that is a bit on the ridiculous side...
</rant>

On a lighter side, I remember back in the early days of the intarweb, when there used to be massive debates (read as: flame wars ) as to whether a sig should be limited to 1 or 2 lines of text!!!

ONE SIZE FITS ALL?
Many forums place restrictions on avatar and/or signature size. If they're small enough to start with then you won't have any hassle using them in all the forums you're a member of.

ZK-KAG wrote: I find myself a little dissapointed with this decision...

First of all, Alex ran a poll which was open to the forum, and the results showed that the majority (those that voted) voted for the sigs to stay as they were. One would think that the majority vote would have been recognised. Now I realise that Mods and Admin may have all voted to get them reduced, but the poll should kinda come out on top??

Also, I think a bit more warning would have been appreciated with regards to removing sigs, as once the decision came out I would have been more than happy to alter my sig, but instead it got deleted for me which I thought was wrong....

All in all, Ill change the thing, but I think the handling was a little poor.

~ZK-KAG~

erm... guys does it really matter? It's just a picture... Man, people on this forum make a big deal out of everything...

I must admit that anything which cuts down of the scrolling through forums works for me. My suggestion was 800 x 100, but we compromised:)
I visit a lot of forums every day, and NZFF has the most lenient sig rules of any.
By the way, HCP's suggestion to remove the sigs is good, but it doesn't seem to contract the posts -- there's just black space where the sig normally goes. It's not the images which annoy me, just the depth of screen they take up.
Remember we have a screenshot forum for those who really want to show off their stuff.

HardCorePawn wrote: feel free to make your signatures what ever size you like... I dont look at them anyway
...
I think Zoltugers on the ARNZ forum is the maximum a sig should be... around 450x125... and even that is a bit on the ridiculous side...

I have sigs disabled too, makes a huge difference to readibility of the forum. Here's my browser on my laptop (1280x800 resolution). The maximum sig size would take up 30% of the vertical browser area!



If it was my forum, I'd have no images in sigs. But as they say, forums aren't a democracy, so someone's always going to be disappointed with the decision.

Incidently my sig size is the same size on NZFF and ARNZ (apart from the text)

But you see with the current settings there is no problem either way as you can turn them on or off in your preferences. The fact there was a poll at all is a bit of a surprise to me because of the profile settings although I can understand its a good idea to set a standard size so people know not to go too far with their sigs.

will get a smaller one soon

On reflection I think something a bit stricter (maybe 500x150) would be better - but we want to try and keep a balance between forum readability and keeping people happy and comfortable with the forum.

Alex

SUBS17 wrote: But you see with the current settings there is no problem either way as you can turn them on or off in your preferences.

that's true, and as I mentioned earlier, I do have them disabled.
But what use are signatures if (say) a third of forum users have them turned off?

Well ask yourself why you have a signature. Sigs add something extra about the person whos posting. On forums that I've been to that don't have sigs they are quite bland while on some other forums where sigs are allowed there is some quite good sigs that are quite funny, or can be reflecting something about the poster.

toprob wrote:
By the way, HCP's suggestion to remove the sigs is good, but it doesn't seem to contract the posts -- there's just black space where the sig normally goes. It's not the images which annoy me, just the depth of screen they take up.

I think it does... its just that when someone has an avatar, and then the whole user group, number of posts, joining date thing... it stretches the post out, so it looks like there is a big space at the bottom of their post...

I'm all for sigs of a reasonable size, Zoltuger's is a good size. Ones like scon's old one are a bit over the top though (the one with the Panel of your aeroplane)

SUBS17 wrote: Well ask yourself why you have a signature. Sigs add something extra about the person whos posting.

Technically sigs are designed to be your 'signature' so you don't have to post your name at the end of each post.