Controlling Signature Bloat

Granted, it does seem abit much to put into a reply. Time spent scrolling past all of that could be better spent viewing truly meaningful content. I suspect that all of the extra space used contributes to a slower response time when entering a site. What do you think?

clamping down might be a bit too harsh, how about a sticky notice in the forums by an admin asking all to resize their sigs and limit them to not more than a few lines. a simple request as a matter or courtesty would be nicer than a stifling rule. pictures and GB badges are an important part of our community, but i dont feel a clampdown is neccary, a simple request and guidelines will do.

I do agree that some sigs can be out of hand as long as they are not large. I try and keep my sigs as small as possible, but you can turn off the option to view signatures in your profile..here is a pic of where it is in your profile..



Cheers

Mo

Some guys wont be happy until all sigs are banned & all post counts , Stars & Rankings are eliminated, etc. Sure, lets make the FSM Forums just as bland & boring as most others on the web.

I agree with the spirit of John's original post...and he is NOT saying that all signatures have to go. Nor does he wish to resort to turning off signatures as the only solution. His point is that there are people who feel that just because they MAY post as much as possible in their signatures, they WILL (and do!).

Please, don't get me wrong. As long as FSM allows signatures in any size, I will not tell someone they can't do it...it's not my place to do so. Personally, I've had the signatures turned off for as long as I can remember. So I figured I'd turn them back on for a few and check out the situation...

Goodness! After reviewing about 3 of the larger threads, all I can say is thank you FSM for the option to turn the signatures off! When signatures take up 80% of the page I don't see how anyone can find the forest through the trees. I also understand why people can ask the same question or give the same reply several times in a single thread...clutter.

Many members here have very nice, neat, clean signature blocks that have graphics. Too bad I can't see them every day. For those of you who like the signatures just as big as possible, more power to you. Build them as big as you can. If it makes you happy, great. However, I for one will never see them.

Oh, and by the way...the FSM Forum is far from being bland and boring with the signatures turned off. In fact, I learn something new nearly every day and have a great time doing it.

Enjoy your modeling...

Robert, when I said bland & boring, I should have prefaced it with the word " Visually".

Granted, some of the Sigs are a little much, but as long as FSM is funding the bandwidth, I find them an interesting reflection of the members personality. Since there is the option of turning them off if you don't like them, I really don't understand why there is all the carping about them from a small minority.

If you want a site with no Avatars, no Sigs, no Post Counts, etal., just plain old straight text messages, spend some time on Hyperscale @ www.hyperscale.com

Personally, I much prefer the more visually inspiring FSM Forums, but ,hey, thats just my .

Regards, Rick

First of all, some of you are totally wrong about the bandwidth. Only signatures hosted to the Finescale site will use it's bandwidth. Almost every signature is hosted to another space and therefore does not effect Finescales bandwidth. My signatures are hosted on my own webspace and use my bandwidth everytime a page is opened with my images on it.

Like I said in my previous post, just shut off the option of viewing signatures in your profile and you will have nothing to complain about. But I do agree that some signatures are way out of hand when it comes to pixal size. Signatures really should not exceed 450x100 pixals. This is why I keep mine at or below 200x100.

Cheers

Mo

Yupp cut em off in the CP, I did...well I have selected to view text only sigs...I used to view them all but it has kinda gotten a lot larger(Geesh, never thought I would say that!). Point is if you dont like them you can change it through your control panel. There is a "minority" out there that would like to see them done away with completely, as well as the post counts and anything else that gives the forums a bit more depth and makes it more interactive...Oh well someone will always be pissing and moaning about something!

As already mentioned....the bandwidth arguement is pretty nil...I use picturetrail for any images I might post(though I have none in my sig), that uses my money and thier bandwidth to show the images...which is why a lot of the "free" sites have consistent Red-X syndrome. It has nothing to do with the FSM bandwidth....and even if it did....your not paying for it! THEY ARE! Having said that if they have a problem with it, they will address it, and it has been many times in the past. I can pretty much say they aren't going to change something for a "minority" of people when it does no harm. Wait-actually they did make a change for the "minority"...they allow you to cut off the signatures in your control panel....I would suggest you utilize that function if you dont like to look at sig pics,etc.

Either way this subjects been brought up time and time again....and nothing has really changed. So give it a rest folks...

QUOTE: Originally posted by rjkplasticmod If you want a site with no Avatars, no Sigs, no Post Counts, etal., just plain old straight text messages, spend some time on Hyperscale @ www.hyperscale.com

Wow, that's a scary thought. If FSM keeps giving into these complaints by a few , I guess that is where we are headed. As noted elsewhere, sig images are hosted by other sites and don't use FSM's bandwidth. FSM should stop working to be like other sites and realize that, the vast majority real enjoy the site as is.

It is bandwidth regardless -- it doesn't matter where the images are stored because I have to wait for them to arrive on my machine (& I have hi-hi speed) and that is my bandwidth, if you will.

Shutting off signatures completely is throwing out the baby with the bathwater, as I said in my original post.

Maybe my post will lead some folks to reconsider their signatures.

The only problem I have with sigs is when there is a huge picture in it. Most are fine, but there are one or two out there with pics that take my dial-up connection a long time to load.I don't care if they take up a bit of room, as long as they don't take me half an hour to download. They make the site alot more interesting. Those lists are annoying though, I don't really want to find out the next ten kits they're gonna build everytime I see one of their posts. If you want a list like that, put it in your profile.

Hey Jratz,

All right then, I've listened to you and have accordingly changed my 'bloat'... Hope you like it better... And sincere apologies to whom my bloat offended/annoyed...

BTW, the 'guy' has a 'handle' you know..?

And indeed it is a privilege... I could have listed the 294 kits stored away awaiting the 'right' time...

Have a good day.

Due to the lack of a clearer policy on this matter, I always make it a personal rule to send a sample of the sig images (or a combination thereof) to DVOSS for checking if it is acceptable as far as bandwidth is concerned.

Personally, I believe that since no such clear-cut policy is available, it would not be proper to criticize others for what they do with their sig. I personally would just e-mail that member (or members) if I believe his/her/their sig images are too large or something and perhaps just request him/her/them to try to tone the sig images down.

As Dwight suggested, for those of you who don't care for some of the sig tags out there; privately email, rather than make this forum a potential battleground for dispute. Personally, until Dave tells me otherwise, I'll continue to keep mine as is. I enjoy participating in the hobby, and if I can display that joy, then I'll be doing it on my sig line, as well as in posts. Those that don't care for it, as has been mentioned several times, may simply turn off the the graphics viewing on their particular PC. My two cents worth...............Regards, Ed

QUOTE: Originally posted by Woody QUOTE: Originally posted by rjkplasticmod If you want a site with no Avatars, no Sigs, no Post Counts, etal., just plain old straight text messages, spend some time on Hyperscale @ www.hyperscale.com Wow, that's a scary thought. If FSM keeps giving into these complaints by a few , I guess that is where we are headed. As noted elsewhere, sig images are hosted by other sites and don't use FSM's bandwidth. FSM should stop working to be like other sites and realize that, the vast majority real enjoy the site as is.

i have waited on this one, not wanting to inflame this anymore than i have to. now is time to offer my opinion on this subject. as i look through the forums i see many many sigs. pics, quotes, tags, and combinations. when i look i realize that my sig is one of the largest on the forums. saying that i want to make myself clear. i wont change mine. the reasoning. everyone here is an individual and has a personality, my online personality includes the slideshow, the group builds i have entered, toasting, and the lem sig tag. i cannot in clear conscous ignore nor can i supress the them. they are a part of me. if i were to ignore them or supress them i would be losing a part of my personality. no matter which forum i am on my sig is very similar. where possible i post the slideshow and the lem banner. most i also post my favorite line about the most glaring mistake of the pearl harbor attack. these things are part of my online personality. part of who i am.


thanks for reading.

joe

I think the sig-tags reflect a person’s personality.

I do find signatures that take up more than one screen quite annoying, but hey if DJ wants to list his 294 kits, I can always turn off the option to view signatures. By the way, his signature was quite informative and I thought it was a good idea until I had to scroll through it for the 5th or so time. Actually, I find the fact that most sig-tags are now longer than the posts they accompany to be quite funny.

I just don’t understand what the problem is here. You have the option. If you don’t like the long sig-tags then turn them off.

Personally, I see keeping signatures small as a courtesy to other modelers who have slower connections.
IMHO, big signatures also distract from the actual posts and the info carried therein, I normally automatically
deactivate avatars, signatures, etc when I join a new list.

My personal Opinion aside if a forum has no rules to limit signatures sizes than we cannot complain about big ones.

Edog,

It's something very easy to 'forget' you know. I thought too that my list was informative, all the more because it's always rapidly changing. I'm interested in what people here are building, but also in their future plans. Mine are always changing and you never know, you might get a kick out of such a list, or be able to share tips and experience. But then I do not read my own posts very often..! I got the idea from other members of this Forum, but I have to admit, after reading this, that it must have been annoying after a while...

Jratz may not be the most tactful member, but he had a valid point.

Leave it be and just turn off the option to view if you don't like it. I personally have them off because it takes too long to load, but occassionally I'll change the option just to see what is on. As Fightnjoe says its part of an individual's forum personality.

Kind of odd that nobody from FSM has checked in on this with an official position.
As far as I'm concerned the signature size doesn't bother me (I have a DSL connection)
but I can see where someone on dial-up would be bothered by it.

QUOTE: Originally posted by nicholma Leave it be and just turn off the option to view if you don't like it. I personally have them off because it takes too long to load, but occassionally I'll change the option just to see what is on. As Fightnjoe says its part of an individual's forum personality.

But this is like Jratz's comment about throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Many users have very good information in their signatures. Like mine is a link to a website I maintain photographs of modern US Army equipment. Others have similar "valuable" links to good reference sites.

Some of the multitude of banners, icons and images in some signatures really made up a lot of clutter. It was hard to read some of the posts. I did not want to turn off the signatures for reasons stated above so I just avoided threads where the posters had "signature bloat".

Nothing against you personally djmodels1999, but I started avoiding your posts when your signature block took up more screen space than all the text of the thread combined. I didn't find it interesting, just cluttered.

I don't think signature banners should be stopped or the option set to "off". We, the users of the forums, just need to keep them within reason.

Thank God that someone brought this up. I'm all for rankings and signatures, but SOME restriction has to be placed. Not too certain about other forums, but the Armor one has some users that just plain and simple have TOO MUCH. What is it that you're trying to prove?
There were some users that had ridiculously large images in their signature. I can appreciate a good 1/72 scale build, but I don't need to see it blown up to 1/24 proportions. That's just too much. That and the addition of users listing 20 different projects that they're working on. Even though text is OK, since it's not large, it just seems to be a childish gloat "Hey, look at me, look at what I'm doing".
Please, lets have something done about this. I'm on a high speed network (couple of T3 lines) at work, and even here some threds just take a ridiculous amount of time to load.
And don't forget that the size of the image isn't the only thing. The more links you have, the more packets have to be sent through the network to get those links loades.
Can you tell I'm P.O.ed at this?
There should be a forum-wide announcement urgint people for some restraint.

I like the signatures, personally. I don't think that members here are gloating when they add text on what they are building or what is next, but that's me. I think we should all have the freedom to place whatever we want on our sigs...makes for some interesting reading!

Regards, Dan

I personally agree, I like the signatures too... especially what people are working on... there's aircraft I didnt even know existed until I started reading them... (thank you KJ200)

I agree 4 or 5 large pics in a sig gets annoying when a user only posts two words... but by and far that is an exception rather than a rule...

I do agree if you dont like it, turn off the sigs... if you feel you are missing something then turn them back on to read them then disable them again... Like fighnjoe.... I always enjoy seeing his sig... it has style... tells me a little something about him. djmodels... I know something about at least his modelling persona through his sig... ME for example... you know one, I like aircraft. I like them in WWII especially, I was in the Navy or have leanings toward the Navy etc...

I say everything in moderation, including self control... so if they wanna go out and put pics on their sigs then fine! I'm not paying for the FSM bandwidth... (ok I am because I subscribe but diff story haha) ...if I was on dial up I am sure I would disable them... BUT... it comes down to: when does the right to view this forum, and view it with sigs... and view it FAST, interfere with the right or people to personalize their sig?

Answer... never! this is not a democracy here, not an autocracy etc... it IS... it exists and we must learn to adapt...

ive just seen one by Armorman. it take the P**s

http://www.finescale.com/fsm/community/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=29690

I dont want to turn off my sigs but having 6 large photos of a plane being built is going too far
here are the photos in his sig the other ones in there are ok with me






and a list of what hes going to make
"Gee, sir, I was thinking them depleted uranium shells would speed his journey to his maker; so I fired a lot of 'em! "
*Shelved:
Tamiya 1/48 P-47 Bubbletop
Esci 1/72 F-35 JSF
Monogram 1/48 F-15E
Revell-Monogram 1/48 F-14D
Academy 1/48 F-14A
*On the Bench:
Hasegawa 1/72 F-18E Super Bug

See, now how can you make a valid argument that sigs should be left as is.
Don't you think that the above case is just too excessive. I can concede the in-progress lists, as it is just text, but 6 UNCROPPED FULL images?!? Isn't that just going too far. If anything, at least learn how to use a scanner properly, and crop and resize. This isn't rocket science.
Tell me something, if we find someone like this, would it not be prudent to at least tell them that this is a form of excess? Or should we just leave them be?
See my problem is, I don't WANT to turn off sigs, I DO want to see works in progress in form of lists and links to good sites, but I don't want to see the above.
How about a data-size cap on sigs. Something like 100k. That would be decent enough for some text and a few small, reasonably sized images.

QUOTE: Originally posted by zokissima See, now how can you make a valid argument that sigs should be left as is. Don't you think that the above case is just too excessive. I can concede the in-progress lists, as it is just text, but 6 UNCROPPED FULL images?!? Isn't that just going too far. If anything, at least learn how to use a scanner properly, and crop and resize. This isn't rocket science. Tell me something, if we find someone like this, would it not be prudent to at least tell them that this is a form of excess? Or should we just leave them be? See my problem is, I don't WANT to turn off sigs, I DO want to see works in progress in form of lists and links to good sites, but I don't want to see the above. How about a data-size cap on sigs. Something like 100k. That would be decent enough for some text and a few small, reasonably sized images.

ahhh see here is where I agree with you... what I see is a lack of knowledge of posting pics... I know where those pics came from and it was from a group build question... instead of posting them in the message he mistakenly put them in his sig... I agree... post to him explain how to do it right!! email him.. again, explain... but to cap the sigs... to get rid of the sigs is throwing the baby out with the bath as mentioned by someone else earlier...

this should be a self-policing thing... in fact I was going to mention something to the individual... not out of exasperation... but out of concern for others on dial up etc... personally it doesnt bother me that bad....

So yes.,. there is a median...

just my opinion... caps and rules ring of an arbitrary system where pics of a new build might be less clear because of the cap... rules... that takes the freedom out of the internet... we can self police ourselves and be fine. most here are a fine bunch and wont be upset... If someone tells me my sig is bad... yeah I might get my feelings hurt.. but hey, its not the first time I'll get over it... maybe a email so it's private... something open on the forum might not be recieved as well...

QUOTE: Originally posted by Captain Caveman ive just seen one by Armorman. it take the P**s http://www.finescale.com/fsm/community/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=29690 I dont want to turn off my sigs but having 6 large photos of a plane being built is going too far here are the photos in his sig the other ones in there are ok with me and a list of what hes going to make "Gee, sir, I was thinking them depleted uranium shells would speed his journey to his maker; so I fired a lot of 'em! " *Shelved: Tamiya 1/48 P-47 Bubbletop Esci 1/72 F-35 JSF Monogram 1/48 F-15E Revell-Monogram 1/48 F-14D Academy 1/48 F-14A *On the Bench: Hasegawa 1/72 F-18E Super Bug

i posted the above post just becouse it took the page up when they where loading, and it P***ed me off, i have nothing against Armorman, i dont think ive seen him on the boards before
Armorman has removed the photos from his sig
it didnt make sence to put them in his sig so it might have been as tho9900 said that it was a mistake