Signature Pictures

[IHateMakingNames]

Are pictures in signatures not available anymore (Or have ever been)? The normal way to get them (Put URL here) just gives a link to the image when I try and put it in my signature.

If your curious, I'm trying to put this in my signature. http://tinyurl.com/2o8lp%20

[Mr. Viewtiful]

That's a pretty awesome animation, IHMN. Did you make it yourself?

[On Topic:] Fuitad has said that pictures in sigs aren't allowed anymore, and I don't think he plans on allowing them anytime soon, either.

[Krylo]

Yah, Sig pics aren't allowed anymore... which is too bad, because that's one of the coolest gifs ever.

[IHateMakingNames]

Oh... What a shame...

And no, I did not make it. Saw some people with it on Gaia, and I wanted to use it here.

[Forever Zero]

I don't know where it came from, but I saw it on Gaia too and thought it was awsome. The thing I wonder about though, is the first time I ever saw it was on the ADVENTURERS Forum as someone's avatar, and it had his name at the end instead of the poorly drawn date and other stuff. I wonder which one came first, if he ripped off the Gaia version, or if someone ripped off his version...

[synkr0nized]

That depends.
I'd seen that .gif file circulating a few months ago.
Unfortunately, I couldn't tell you what was at the end of it.

Sorry, on topic: they've never been enabled. Many people feel the forum "cuts the crap out," so to say, without sig images. Also, there are connection concerns (ie those on slower/dial-up vs broadband).

[Krylo]

I'd rather have http://mywebpage.netscape.com/SLVDEEJAY/superbunny.gif in my sig, personally

[dragonglove]

Lots of people in Gaia (which I'm pissed at BTW) are running around with those B&W images in their sig. The problem is that a few people try to put 10 huge images in their signature, effectively making their sig longer than their average post. If any place could put these people in line though, here would be it. Maybe if it was a rule that the image couldn't be over 100 pixels in height?

[Mashirosen]

Pierre doesn't want sig images because of the strain on bandwidth, so unless he changes his mind, you're stuck without 'em. Maybe you could find a site that'd allow you to remote-link to the image, and put the URL in your sig instead? :\

[Stabbitty Death]

I don't like images in peoples sigs because it distracts me from the post and makes things look cluttered. I can live with seeing a sentence or two on everyone's post, but not a big old pic.

[Flarecobra]

Not to mention the bandwidth they suck up. Especally the big ones.

[Krylo]

Mash already mentioned the bandwidth... unless you mean your own, and not the server's.

My question is this, though... if it's remote hosted (using image tags instead of uploading to the forums), doesn't it use the remote host's bandwidth, as opposed to the forums?

I'm only partially computer literate, so I may be totally wrong.

[synkr0nized]

Remote hosted images only use enough bandwidth on the forum server as is needed to add the appropriate image tags as the page is "written" so that the browser can display it.

The actual load, that being the image (much larger in size than a few characters), does indeed come from whereever the image is hosted. However, as I hinted at and Mashirosen pointed out for Fuitad, consider all of the people here logging in. Not all of them have fast connections or want to load all of these pictures. To them, it may seem as if the forums are actually slow.

That is, unless those of you who run servers know something I'm ignorant of that would cause these forums to actually suffer bandwidth issues. Perhaps you had meant signatures stored the same as avatars? That would certainly suck bandwidth.

Anyway, link to the sig (such as how I've done) or stick with text only.

As to the people who have like 353426 pictures in a sig, that's ridiculous... one is enough, and, unless you're at a forum that really lacks structure, there's usually a decent dimensions guideline.

[Steve L.]

Yes I just joined here, and I also noticed that the "IMG Code" was turned off in the sigs... YOU CAN'T HAVE A FORUM WITH THE IMG CODE TURNED OFF IN THE SIGS! THAT'S WHY YOU LIMIT THE SIZE OF THE SIG TO ABOUT 400X100!

[MasterOfMagic]

I have sucky dial-up, so I'm sorta glad there aren't pictures in sigs. It would take me an hour to read one thread.

[CelesJessa]

Yes I just joined here, and I also noticed that the "IMG Code" was turned off in the sigs... YOU CAN'T HAVE A FORUM WITH THE IMG CODE TURNED OFF IN THE SIGS! THAT'S WHY YOU LIMIT THE SIZE OF THE SIG TO ABOUT 400X100!

This forums has done perfectly well so far without the IMG code in the sigs. As MasterofMagic has said, it make's veiwing the forums take a hell of a lot longer. And do we really need those little pictures at the bottom?

Here's an alternative: put a LINK to your banner/sig picture whatever in your sig, then people can still view it without screwing the modem people over.
Or, instead! Take pride in making a clever little quote at the bottom, like many of us. It takes a lot less time and effort to do, and they're more fun to read.

And trust me, complaining about it isn't going to help. The rule is probably not going to change. (I'm not a mod, but I'm pretty sure they are firm on their no-picture sig rule)

[Steve L.]

This forums has done perfectly well so far without the IMG code in the sigs. As MasterofMagic has said, it make's veiwing the forums take a hell of a lot longer. And do we really need those little pictures at the bottom?

Here's an alternative: put a LINK to your banner/sig picture whatever in your sig, then people can still view it without screwing the modem people over.
Or, instead! Take pride in making a clever little quote at the bottom, like many of us. It takes a lot less time and effort to do, and they're more fun to read.

And trust me, complaining about it isn't going to help. The rule is probably not going to change. (I'm not a mod, but I'm pretty sure they are firm on their no-picture sig rule)
True... it's just that I post on many forums, and they all have the IMG code on. And it just suprised me that here they didn't. Sorry everyone, and especially CelesJessa.

[CelesJessa]

True... it's just that I post on many forums, and they all have the IMG code on. And it just suprised me that here they didn't. Sorry everyone, and especially CelesJessa.

Heh. It's alright. I just wanted to make sure you weren't one of those people who would bother the mods to no end just because you don't agree with something. (those people get irritating after awhile, plus, you would get in trouble with the mods) And I'm sorry too, for seeming kind of harsh. ^^;; I'm not a mean person...

[Steve L.]

Heh. It's alright. I just wanted to make sure you weren't one of those people who would bother the mods to no end just because you don't agree with something. (those people get irritating after awhile, plus, you would get in trouble with the mods) And I'm sorry too, for seeming kind of harsh. ^^;; I'm not a mean person...
Yes, I know how they bug, because I am a mod at another forum. :D

[shiney]

Mods here are pretty different from mods elsewhere. :B

Not that I would know or nothin'.

[Foamy]

the thing about linking to the pics is that hardly anyone bothers to look. i would like the IMG code on so that I could put some awesome pics on there. they [mods or whoever is in control of that] just needs to put restrictions on it, then it wouldn't be a problem.

[Mashirosen]

they [mods or whoever is in control of that] just needs to put restrictions on it, then it wouldn't be a problem.

Until people start deciding that they don't have to go by the restrictions, sucking up bandwidth someone else has to pay for and making extra work for the mods. No image sigs = no problem.

Y'all need to sack up and stop crying about this, because at the moment it's extremely unlikely that it's going to change. Not having a blinking dancing can-can line of animated Belldandies seizuring along in your sig is not the human rights violation some of you seem to imagine.

Closing.