What's new
TerraForums Venus Flytrap, Nepenthes, Drosera and more talk

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENT!

  • Thread starter PlantAKiss
  • Start date
  • #21
[b said:
Quote[/b] (Alexis @ Sep. 28 2006,4:16)]It's do with size too. Copcar's signature (sorry to single you out) takes up 1/3 of my screen width, and I'm on a 21" monitor at work!
Good lord how low is your resolution? I'm on a 17" monitor at 1280x1024 so to me it is a tiny sig. But I'll change it back to one of my smaller ones.
 
  • #22
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]Good lord how low is your resolution? I'm on a 17" monitor at 1280x1024 so to me it is a tiny sig. But I'll change it back to one of my smaller ones.

The width of the signature is 550 pixels; I'm not trying to pick on you, merely explain. I don't think Alexis was complaining about the height so much as the width

550/1024 = over one half. So yeah, it could be said to be wide. I myself don't particularly care, I'm used to forums where dang near everyone has a customized picture in their sig.

Question: Mightn't it be worthwhile to invest some time in to looking in to skins for the forum? That way we could have one for the low bandwidth folks which would eliminate sig pictures, maybe limit picture size, etc, as well as a high bandwidth one?
Don't get me wrong - I was on ISDN with like 5 networked computers for how many years? Well, enough of 'em. However, it may make more sense to make skins to take care of the problem than eliminate all colours because Jack over there wont run his monitor in anything but grayscale.

Viable idea?

--Worst case scenario, for you firefox folks (which is a lot of members by now) remember you can always use adblock if you find an image too big.
 
  • #23
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]because these same rules have severed us VERY well over the past years.

That sounds very ghoulish.
confused.gif
 
  • #24
I'm a member of a LOT of forums and every one of them lets you have a much bigger avatar and sig. Some of them have a 3meg limit on avatars and sigs.

Most other forums cater to broadband users not the 1 or 2 people still stuck on dialup. I don't know this particular forums ratio of broadband to dialup but there can't be that many people left on dialup to cater to them.

My $.02
 
  • #25
What do you mean PAK?

EST: I think there is a way to turn off peoples signatures in your settings... Don't quote me though.

Copcar: You may be correct that there are not MANY people still on dial up. But here we try to cater to all the members the best we can. Not just whatever the majority may be. And honestly, I personally know a few very active members on these forums whom are on dial up. maybe it's just the carnivorus plant topic that brings those out that are not actually "into" the internet I dunno... On my other forums we too have huge pictures... But, I still feel these rules help out a good number of our members.
Andrew
 
  • #26
I wish we had bigger avatars too, but we don't pay the bills.

It would be cool if we could get bigger avatars if we donated like 5 or 10 bucks. just a thought.
 
  • #27
JLAP- I'm pretty sure we're talking about saving the bandwidth of the people on slower connections (or dinosaur computers) not the bandwidth of the forums server.
 
  • #28
OOOH ok. My computer is 4 years old... ancient lol
cool.gif
 
  • #29
Personally I would vote for slightly larger avatars.  
smile_n_32.gif


Regardless of file size and connection speeds, the large sigs take up a lot of space on the screen.  You get less posts per page.  And its just plain irritating to see the same huge pics over and over and over in one topic if someone posts a number of times.  Fancy sigs aren't the point of the forums...its not a forum to display Photoshop talent.  The main function here is discussion.  If you have a pic you really want someone to see in a large format, put it on a server and put a link in your sig so people can choose to look at it 20 times...or not.


Dandy...you said "severed" instead of "served."  "Severed" as in....cut off, chopped off, sliced off.  I'm feeling Halloweeny so everything is looking spooky.  
smile_n_32.gif
 
  • #30
[b said:
Quote[/b] (PlantAKiss @ Sep. 28 2006,12:41)]Personally I would vote for slightly larger avatars.
smile_n_32.gif
Me too... Lets talk about that in the mod forum shal we?
smilie4.gif



Ohhh! I was being spooky wasn't I?!!!
ghostface.gif
 
  • #31
Yes, bigger avatars! Since they're hosted offsite (are there any hosted by TF?), it doesn't increase bandwidth usage for the server. And aren't avatars cached by the browser anyways? So people on dial up would only have to load it once.
 
  • #32
Quick Question.

Here is the rule I'm wondering about.

• Images in signatures must be no more than 55 x 270 pixels at 72dpi = 15k. Reason: Images that are very large must be downloaded repeatedly with multiple posts. Not only is it annoying, it also takes up a lot of screen space resulting in more pages per topic. Signatures can be personally expressive but we have to put a limit on it for the sake of download speed and visual aesthetics.

My Signature photo right now is 55 x 251 pixels but only 5.210 KB but is that still the max pixels size I can have?

Also I did not think the size of the posts made a difference to the number of pages per topic.

thanks
-Jeremiah-
 
  • #33
Jeremiah, the pixil size requirement is there becuase if the image is visably large- it takes up alot of screen. If you have multiple replys on 1 page with a large signature picture the page gets awefully long (or more pages for the topic, i'm honestly not sure how that works). That's why we decided on that Pixel size.
The file size (15k) is for quick download....
 
  • #34
I think it becomes a longer page, but doesn't affect the number of pages.
 
  • #35
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]Me too... Lets talk about that in the mod forum shal we?

Ummm...I believe I brought this up and was told...NO. Hmmmmm???
 
  • #36
smile_k_ani_32.gif
show me! And I will say "Okay, never mind." LOL
 
  • #37
I get it.

JLAP
That's what I thought.

thanks
-Jeremiah-
 
  • #38
Yep, it is 10 replys per page... So rules have had the wording changed on that topic. Now reads:

"Not only is it annoying, it also takes up a lot of screen space resulting in longer topics."

Minor, but thanks for helping us clairify.
smile.gif
 
  • #39
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]And aren't avatars cached by the browser anyways? So people on dial up would only have to load it once.

As are signature images and other images.

I say we kill the buttons below the posts, each one is about ~1.5 kb, most members have at least 4, many have more, that's an additional 6-12kb per post AAAAAAAAAAHHHH. Wait, those're chached, too.
confused.gif
biggrin.gif
 
  • #40
LMAO, that was hilarious.
 
Back
Top