Scratch

Maybe 450x450?

468x60. That's standard banner size.

technoguyx wrote:

coolstuff wrote:

468x60. That's standard banner size.

Oh well, I was fairly near 

I support 468x60.

Yes, you were extremely close.
I think that a heigh of 60 is a bit too low - maybe 100 is a better idea?

DawnLight wrote:

archmage wrote:

Honestly, some of the sig pictures are way too big. There should be a limit.

If we have giant signatures then it will take longer to scoll and I hate that.

... which is why he made this thread. There is an option (profile > display) where you can turn off images in signatures, but that sort of defeats the purpose altogether.

DawnLight wrote:

coolstuff wrote:

DawnLight wrote:

If we have giant signatures then it will take longer to scoll and I hate that.

... which is why he made this thread. There is an option (profile > display) where you can turn off images in signatures, but that sort of defeats the purpose altogether.

True that but if there was a size limit we will be all good.

... which is why I wholeheartedly supported and contributed to (in a way) this decision.

cheddargirl wrote:

Agreed. I find some of the signature pictures to be much too big.

Maybe if the profile section was manipulated to remove [url]tagging and allowed for uploading of banner images with size and dimension restrictions? Or maybe if mods had a right to remove banner images that do not fit a certain set of image size and dimension restrictions?

Well, seeing as moderators already have the right to edit signatures that are inapropriate or overlarge (there was once an image in somebody's signature which I found truly annoying - it was at least 2500 pixels high).

archmage wrote:

I think it would be funny if someone made a  super large sig picture that said "Please put limits on sig pictures". Not that I am implying that anyone should do that.

What's wrong with your signature? It doesn't show the "Super Smash Scratch" banner? About what you said: That will (If happens) be funny!

Do we need images at all?  :-)

Quick survey of signatures images on this forum: Most of them have just text. But very large and fancy text.  Most of which could be said as well with plain text and links.

Notice when you search on google.com?  The ads on the side are just plain text.
Before Google's ad program, most (if not all) internet ads were images- many had huge flashing text.
It became a contest on who could make the biggest flashy ads.

People were annoyed by these, and became good at ignoring them.
Bigger and flashier became less effective.
Simple, honest, to-the-point, plain text became more effective.

So Google is and continues to be very successful with their plain, simple text ads.

[added after reading Mozaz's post below. :]
Also image/flash ads overall have become more pleasant and effective.  Advertisers have learned that bigger and more colorful is not always better.  The point often is to express the personalty and branding of the company...  They usually want to be seen as pleasant and helpful- not loud and annoying.
[]

The occasional huge ones bother me.  I'd support a size limit, or just text banners, but I'm also ok with how it is now.

Last edited by AddZero (2009-05-20 12:29:08)

I support this (although I have images in sigs turned off).

I agree with the limit. It's annoying how everyone has the 50 km big signature "Brawl cards" from Super Smash Bros, or Mariokart.
I'm unsure about the size x es.

MyRedNeptune wrote:

Mozaz wrote:

MyRedNeptune wrote:

I support this (although I have images in sigs turned off).

Is that such a good idea? Since you're a forum moderator shouldn't you be looking out for bad signatures 

It still shows an <image> link in place of the picture, so I have no problem with that. 

I know most of the Scratchers who have pictures in their sigs... you have to post 50 times until you can get a sig, so by the time they get their signature I've already seen them enough to remember their username. 

I mean if the person has an inappropiate picture in there signature.

Fair enough.