| | Author | Message |
|---|
_kate_
  
| | #1 posted June 26, 2009 at 9:24pm (EST) |
I'm sure this has probably been brought up before, but is there currently a limit on how large a signature can be, even if it's being hosted externally? I sincerely think there should be (though I don't quite know how that would be monitored). I suppose I could disable sigs, but for the most part I actually like seeing them, save for large ones that slow down browsing.
Just a thought.
 | bill
  
 
 
| | #2 posted June 26, 2009 at 10:10pm (EST) |
We don't have a good way to detect them, but we have and will remove them.
You can email mods to report sigs that are too large.
I'm not sure what the exact limit should be... do you have some upper limit in mind? | BJB
 
| | #3 posted June 27, 2009 at 12:03am (EST) |
But I once had a large sig and it told me that it was too big and made me change it
Promo Marketplace
http://gametz.com/forum/USER%3A114794
 | benstylus
(frozen)
| | #4 posted June 27, 2009 at 6:19am (EST) |
if you have adblocking software in your browser such as the adblock plus plugin for firefox, you can tag any jumbo sig images as an ad, and you won't see them again. Not a perfect solution, but it is one that requires no effort from bill and very little from you as 95% or more of the sig images are fairly small. | _kate_
| | #5 posted June 27, 2009 at 6:41am (EST) |
bill wrote:
> We don't have a good way to detect them, but we have and will remove
> them.
>
> You can email mods to report sigs that are too large.
>
> I'm not sure what the exact limit should be... do you have some upper
> limit in mind?
Thanks for the info. The average web page is technically not supposed to exceed 150KB. Technically that is insanely outdated for sites themselves, but I don't think expecting a size limit like that on a sig would be unreasonable.
| _kate_
| #6 posted June 27, 2009 at 6:42am (EST)
edited June 27, 2009 at 6:43am (EST) |
bill wrote:
> We don't have a good way to detect them, but we have and will remove
> them.
>
>You can email mods to report sigs that are too large.
>I'm not sure what the exact limit should be... do you have some
> upper limit in mind?
Thanks for the info. The average web page is technically not supposed to exceed 150KB. Obviously that is insanely outdated for sites themselves, but I don't think expecting a size limit like that on a sig would be unreasonable.
benstylus wrote:
> if you have adblocking software in your browser such as the adblock
> plus plugin for firefox, you can tag any jumbo sig images as an ad,
> and you won't see them again. Not a perfect solution, but it is one
> that requires no effort from bill and very little from you as 95%
> or more of the sig images are fairly small.
I generally don't use ad-ons in my browsers if I don't have to, but this ia pretty good solution. Thanks, Ben. I think I'll check it out.
| benstylus
(frozen)
| | #7 posted June 27, 2009 at 6:47am (EST) |
as another plus, you can also choose to zap small but offensive images (forum avatars for example) | oulzac
 
| | #8 posted June 27, 2009 at 1:44pm (EST) |
_kate_ wrote:
> bill wrote:
>> We don't have a good way to detect them, but we have and will remove
>> them.
>>
>> You can email mods to report sigs that are too large.
>>
>> I'm not sure what the exact limit should be... do you have some
> upper
>> limit in mind?
>
> Thanks for the info. The average web page is technically not supposed
> to exceed 150KB. Technically that is insanely outdated for sites themselves,
> but I don't think expecting a size limit like that on a sig would
> be unreasonable.
>
>
where did you get this little bit of information?
--------
When I don't get my bath, I take it out on the slaves. | _kate_
| | #9 posted June 27, 2009 at 11:38pm (EST) |
oulzac wrote:
> where did you get this little bit of information?
Apparently "technically" was the word of the day. I got that info from one of the web design courses I did, but we all kind of had a laugh about it. That rule of thumb was set quite a number of years ago, back when HTML was where it was at.
| John
| | #10 posted June 30, 2009 at 9:39am (EST) |
That is a bit funny because, when I first started doing HTML many moons ago, it was recommended that a single page not exceed 50k! 
- John...
Be sure to check out the new WANTED FORUM! | John
| | #11 posted June 30, 2009 at 9:43am (EST) |
On a side note, for a bit of irony -- you have a 56k signature image yourself -- one that I resaved as a 100% quality JPEG at only 30k -- and even as an 85% quality JPEG (with no observable loss in image quality) that was only 10k.
Sometimes the best place to look at lowering sig sizes is at home... 
- John...
Be sure to check out the new WANTED FORUM! | _kate_
| | #12 posted July 5, 2009 at 8:54pm (EST) |
John wrote:
> On a side note, for a bit of irony -- you have a 56k signature image
> yourself -- one that I resaved as a 100% quality JPEG at only 30k
> -- and even as an 85% quality JPEG (with no observable loss in image
> quality) that was only 10k.
>
> Sometimes the best place to look at lowering sig sizes is at home...
>
Gonna' have to disagree on that one. A jpeg under 43k shows distinct articifacting on the text, which is why I chose a png in the first place.
The below image is 15.7k:
I understand what you're saying, but my primary reference was to sigs that are going 150+k. Some users here have sigs exceeding 300kb, which is six times the size of my own signature while in a lossless format. Anyone saving in a lossy format should not be making files several hundred kbs in size. People saving in lossless formats have to be aware of what they're doing. Even today while thinking this over, I've taken my sig size down to 54.3k, which is not a massive change, but per page reload it will add up.
 | John
| #13 posted July 6, 2009 at 7:27am (EST)
edited July 6, 2009 at 7:33am (EST) |
_kate_ wrote:
> Gonna' have to disagree on that one. A jpeg under 43k shows distinct
> articifacting on the text, which is why I chose a png in the first
> place.
> The below image is 15.7k:
> [full]
You can disagree, but I think you may just disagreeing because you're apparently using a horrible image processing application and are underestimating what JPEG can do. Because I agree that that image looks terrible (and, to note it, is is over 19,000 bytes -- so more like over 18k, not 15.7k) Here is your original PNG (55k), followed by my JPEGs at 100% (30k), 90% (12k), and 85% (10k) -- and then finally your horrible looking 18k version:
 (Original PNG at 55k)
 (100% JPEG at 30k)
 (90% JPEG at 12k)
 (85% JPEG at 10k)
(your JPEG at 18k)
I don't know why you are getting such horrible artifacting -- what did you use to save that crap??
In any case, I can see SLIGHT differences among those, but the 30k one looks great -- and even the 10k one seems decent to me (especially for a sig image) -- and the 12k one, at less then 1/4 the size of your original, seems great to me.
> I understand what you're saying, but my primary reference was to sigs
> that are going 150+k.
Oh, I know -- and agree with you -- you mean the "really big ones" -- but I still find it a bit ironic is all.
> Anyone saving in a lossy format should not be making files several
> hundred kbs in size.
Agreed -- I'm just not convinced that people need absolutely lossless for a simple sig either.
> People saving in lossless formats have to be
> aware of what they're doing.
Agreed -- which is why you clearly need an image processing application where the author knew what he was doing -- because whatever you are using now clearly has trouble saving as JPEG if that is what you're getting at 15.4k (or even over 18k).
Don't get me wrong -- I think it is fine if you want to use that image -- I'm just saying that I agree with you: lots of people should look at their sigs, no matter what size, and see if they could do much better without any huge changes in image quality.
- John...
Be sure to check out the new WANTED FORUM! | bill
| | #14 posted July 6, 2009 at 11:58am (EST) |
 | sk8rjason
 
| | #15 posted July 6, 2009 at 11:59am (EST) |
bill wrote:
> [full]
 
Killzone 2 Forum | _kate_
| #16 posted July 6, 2009 at 6:57pm (EST)
edited July 6, 2009 at 6:58pm (EST) |
John wrote:
> _kate_ wrote:
>> Gonna' have to disagree on that one. A jpeg under 43k shows distinct
>> articifacting on the text, which is why I chose a png in the first
>> place.
>> The below image is 15.7k:
>> [full]
>
> You can disagree, but I think you may just disagreeing because you're
> apparently using a horrible image processing application and are underestimating
> what JPEG can do. Because I agree that that image looks terrible
> (and, to note it, is is over 19,000 bytes -- so more like over 18k,
> not 15.7k) Here is your original PNG (55k), followed by my JPEGs
> at 100% (30k), 90% (12k), and 85% (10k) -- and then finally your horrible
> looking 18k version:
>
> [full] (Original
> PNG at 55k)
>
> [full] (100%
> JPEG at 30k)
>
> [full] (90%
> JPEG at 12k)
>
> [full] (85%
> JPEG at 10k)
>
> [full]
> (your JPEG at 18k)
>
> I don't know why you are getting such horrible artifacting -- what
> did you use to save that crap??
>
> In any case, I can see SLIGHT differences among those, but the 30k
> one looks great -- and even the 10k one seems decent to me (especially
> for a sig image) -- and the 12k one, at less then 1/4 the size of
> your original, seems great to me.
>
>> I understand what you're saying, but my primary reference was to
> sigs
>> that are going 150+k.
>
> Oh, I know -- and agree with you -- you mean the "really big ones"
> -- but I still find it a bit ironic is all.
>
>> Anyone saving in a lossy format should not be making files several
>> hundred kbs in size.
>
> Agreed -- I'm just not convinced that people need absolutely lossless
> for a simple sig either.
>
>> People saving in lossless formats have to be
>> aware of what they're doing.
>
> Agreed -- which is why you clearly need an image processing application
> where the author knew what he was doing -- because whatever you are
> using now clearly has trouble saving as JPEG if that is what you're
> getting at 15.4k (or even over 18k).
>
> Don't get me wrong -- I think it is fine if you want to use that image
> -- I'm just saying that I agree with you: lots of people should look
> at their sigs, no matter what size, and see if they could do much
> better without any huge changes in image quality.
lol, I am a dummy. I use Photoshop and its "save for web" feature all the time for everything related to sites, but I haven't been using it on my sigs.
I'd blame it on being sick, but I've only been sick for three days.
It's one of those things that would have bitten if it had teeth.
A worthy Gogganization indeed.
| invisibleink
| | #17 posted July 6, 2009 at 9:06pm (EST) |
sk8rjason wrote:
> bill wrote:
>> [full]
>
>
your sig is quite possibly the most terrible one on gtz. tard
| monkbonk
| | #18 posted July 6, 2009 at 9:10pm (EST) |
wat?!
T.A.P.E. FORUM | invisibleink
| | #19 posted July 6, 2009 at 9:12pm (EST) |
not even your mighty name can redeem it
| monkbonk
| | #20 posted July 6, 2009 at 9:20pm (EST) |
now my bologna tastes funny
T.A.P.E. FORUM |
Topic Page Hits: 1 today (3 in the last 30 days) |
Rules Help 
- Twitter 
- Facebook 
