Profile too long?
Profile too long?
What's the character limit for profiles? The 300-some characters in mine doesn't seem so terribly long (and no, I didn't count them, my text editor did.) Any way to adjust the limit?
Your sig is already around 30 lines tall, why would I want to let you make it longer? 
Remember that every character that's part of a URL or IMG tag counts towards the limit. Your URL for that image is pretty long. A service like Tiny URL would help you shorten it if you need more characters to work with.
Remember that every character that's part of a URL or IMG tag counts towards the limit. Your URL for that image is pretty long. A service like Tiny URL would help you shorten it if you need more characters to work with.30 lines tall? I count 7 lines of text.
Yes, I could muck with things and shorten it up a bit, but right now it's at 336 characters, and when I changed the pic link this morning, I had to go back and shorten the file name by 10 characters to get it under the limit. 336 is ok, but 346 isn't? We're talking characters, not megabytes. The image is the same, just a shorter file name.
I guess the bottom line ( ) is that I don't quite understand the logic behind having such a low limit on sig lines. Seems like an antiquated limitation that maybe made sense in the days of dialup connections, but today it just doesn't make sense.
Yes, I could muck with things and shorten it up a bit, but right now it's at 336 characters, and when I changed the pic link this morning, I had to go back and shorten the file name by 10 characters to get it under the limit. 336 is ok, but 346 isn't? We're talking characters, not megabytes. The image is the same, just a shorter file name.
I guess the bottom line (
) is that I don't quite understand the logic behind having such a low limit on sig lines. Seems like an antiquated limitation that maybe made sense in the days of dialup connections, but today it just doesn't make sense.7 lines of text followed by an image approximately 23 lines tall. 
The software may not count image size as anything, but my eyes do when looking at a thread/post.
I wish the software gave me finer control over signatures, but it doesn't. If I could put constraints on picture sizes (in terms of either pixels or file size) used in sigs I'd be a moderately happy camper. Though if I had that sort of control you guys might not be able to use IMG tags in sigs at all, tbh.
I consider your sig to be entirely too large as it stands. It consumes about the same amount of space as a whole other post in a thread, thus making for more scrolling to see everything posted. Maybe I'm archaic in that sense, but I find boards that are littered with huge sig pics everywhere to be very difficult to read. I'm very glad that phpBB at least allows us to hide sigs from the various indexing services. It makes for far more accurate search results than what you get from a lot of other forums.
The long and short of it is I don't see how increasing the character limit for signatures would help improve anything here. It's currently set at 350 characters, and has been at that level for quite some time. Can you convince me to increase it? So far, I'm not persuaded.
The software may not count image size as anything, but my eyes do when looking at a thread/post.I wish the software gave me finer control over signatures, but it doesn't. If I could put constraints on picture sizes (in terms of either pixels or file size) used in sigs I'd be a moderately happy camper. Though if I had that sort of control you guys might not be able to use IMG tags in sigs at all, tbh.
I consider your sig to be entirely too large as it stands. It consumes about the same amount of space as a whole other post in a thread, thus making for more scrolling to see everything posted. Maybe I'm archaic in that sense, but I find boards that are littered with huge sig pics everywhere to be very difficult to read. I'm very glad that phpBB at least allows us to hide sigs from the various indexing services. It makes for far more accurate search results than what you get from a lot of other forums.
The long and short of it is I don't see how increasing the character limit for signatures would help improve anything here. It's currently set at 350 characters, and has been at that level for quite some time. Can you convince me to increase it? So far, I'm not persuaded.
Like I said earlier, the image size (dimension and file size) was the same before and after changing the file name; I simply deleted ten characters from the file name to make the system happy. The character limit is archaic.
If you don't like sig pics, whatever; turn them off. I find some of them mildly entertaining and feel that the extra scrolling is worth the occasional laugh. I can understand how some might be annoyed by an extra couple of inches of scrolling, but I don't consider that to be my problem; so far, I'm not persuaded either.
I'm not trying to convince you to change anything, just trying to understand the logic behind the limit when the limit has zero practical effect on limiting the physical size of the sig.
If you don't like sig pics, whatever; turn them off. I find some of them mildly entertaining and feel that the extra scrolling is worth the occasional laugh. I can understand how some might be annoyed by an extra couple of inches of scrolling, but I don't consider that to be my problem; so far, I'm not persuaded either.
I'm not trying to convince you to change anything, just trying to understand the logic behind the limit when the limit has zero practical effect on limiting the physical size of the sig.
-
mooseheadm5
- Beamter
- Posts: 23035
- Joined: Apr 08, 2009 10:30 PM
- Location: Charlottesville, VA
- Contact:
Might. Not likely though. Even with the arbitrary 340 character limit, I could make my sig line 339 lines tall, like this:mooseheadm5 wrote:Without a limit, some people will include a list of cars that they have seen once in their life in their signature or insert an excerpt from their novel.
. ... but I don't, even though I'd like to, just to make a point.
-
mooseheadm5
- Beamter
- Posts: 23035
- Joined: Apr 08, 2009 10:30 PM
- Location: Charlottesville, VA
- Contact:
davintosh wrote:Might. Not likely though. Even with the arbitrary 340 character limit, I could make my sig line 339 lines tall, like this:mooseheadm5 wrote:Without a limit, some people will include a list of cars that they have seen once in their life in their signature or insert an excerpt from their novel.
. ... but I don't, even though I'd like to, just to make a point.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Too bad we can't do tables, then I could list my cars vertically alongside my sig pic. That would be awesome (and still manage to annoy certain individuals, I'm sure.)
Or... I got an idea...
Edit: There; implemented, and my sig is now five lines shorter. Something tells me it's still not enough to please some, but too bad.
Or... I got an idea...
Edit: There; implemented, and my sig is now five lines shorter. Something tells me it's still not enough to please some, but too bad.
Re: Profile too long?
I know this is like 
, but really? I just bumped into this again, and cannot believe that in 2017, with broadband available almost every-frickin where there is human activity, that character limits are still a thing for sig lines. Good grief. Limits like that are relics from the days when a 2400 baud modem was considered high-speed. 
Today I can upload files from a wireless connection in my kitchen in Germany to a server in Spokane, WA, at a faster rate than I was able move files around on the LAN at work back in 1990.
As I've said before, I can totally understand why a height limit would be imposed on sig lines, but that's not what's being limited here. Right now it's at 400 characters, which is higher than the 300 character limit that existed five years ago when I first complained about this issue, but sig line character limits do not equal sig line height limits. It makes absolutely no sense.
Can you please lift the character limit, and instead just ask people to use common sense in setting up their sig lines?
, but really? I just bumped into this again, and cannot believe that in 2017, with broadband available almost every-frickin where there is human activity, that character limits are still a thing for sig lines. Good grief. Limits like that are relics from the days when a 2400 baud modem was considered high-speed. Today I can upload files from a wireless connection in my kitchen in Germany to a server in Spokane, WA, at a faster rate than I was able move files around on the LAN at work back in 1990. As I've said before, I can totally understand why a height limit would be imposed on sig lines, but that's not what's being limited here. Right now it's at 400 characters, which is higher than the 300 character limit that existed five years ago when I first complained about this issue, but sig line character limits do not equal sig line height limits. It makes absolutely no sense.
Can you please lift the character limit, and instead just ask people to use common sense in setting up their sig lines?
Re: Profile too long?
I really don't see what the problem is and also, your signature image should be 1/4 that size. I do kinda like what Bimmerforums did where you could have 800,000 lines of stuff in your signature, but the area that displays it will only show like 7. That said, it doesn't seem like a widespread complaint and really how much stuff do people need to put in their signatures?
Re: Profile too long?
Come on, Chris; in a group focused on 30+ year old automobiles, do you think "need" really ought to enter the discussion? None of us "need" the headache of dealing with old machinery, but we do it anyway. True, I don't "need" more characters in the sig line, but the original purpose behind such a limit is no longer valid, and the reasons given for not allowing more characters is a farce. At this point it's just a certain site official being stubborn.
Your perceived purpose for the limit which you created in order to further your own argument may no longer be valid, but my answer remains unchanged. I'm still not persuaded. What, exactly, are you prevented from doing by the current character limit? What would raising that limit allow that would increase the quality of the board as a whole?davintosh wrote:the original purpose behind such a limit is no longer valid, and the reasons given for not allowing more characters is a farce.
Turning off signatures is a poor solution to overly large signatures since most people list the car they're talking about there without mentioning it specifically in their postings. Without it people have no idea what they're referencing. I still see no benefit to doing what you're asking.
Jeremy wrote:7 lines of text followed by an image approximately 23 lines tall.
I wish the software gave me finer control over signatures, but it doesn't. If I could put constraints on picture sizes (in terms of either pixels or file size) used in sigs I'd be a moderately happy camper. Though if I had that sort of control you guys might not be able to use IMG tags in sigs at all, tbh.
I consider your sig to be entirely too large as it stands. It consumes about the same amount of space as a whole other post in a thread, thus making for more scrolling to see everything posted. Maybe I'm archaic in that sense, but I find boards that are littered with huge sig pics everywhere to be very difficult to read. I'm very glad that phpBB at least allows us to hide sigs from the various indexing services. It makes for far more accurate search results than what you get from a lot of other forums.
The long and short of it is I don't see how increasing the character limit for signatures would help improve anything here. It's currently set at 350 characters, and has been at that level for quite some time. Can you convince me to increase it? So far, I'm not persuaded.
Re: Profile too long?
To be honest, the limit doesn't prevent me from doing anything, but there are times when I want to do something with the sig line and can't because of the character limit, so it's mostly just a nuisance that forces me to work around it. It doesn't change what I plan to do, it doesn't shorten the visual height of what I'm going to do -- which seems to be your biggest concern -- it just takes me longer to accomplish what I want to do. The most recent time the issue jumped up and bit me was when I was putting the current C.S. Lewis quote in there, and it ended up being too long; I had to drop a sentence from the quote. Not a huge deal, but a nuisance. Other times, an image URL was too long so I had to change the file name; again, not a game stopper, but a nuisance. Yes, I'm probably the only one who's complaining about this issue, but it wouldn't surprise me if others bumped into before but just didn't say anything. Let me ask you this; what would likely happen if you did lift the limit entirely? I'd predict pretty much nothing.
If I remember correctly, you work in the medical field; if so, you spend considerable time in some kind of charting software where you work. I know for a fact that most database apps in use in medical facilities are continual works in progress; bugs are found by the users, and lists are made & prioritized for what needs to be fixed. And I'll bet money that you run up against a glitch or bug or software limitation that gets in your way and makes you jump through a hoop or two to get your job done; you report it, but it doesn't get fixed for way too long. Irritating, isn't it. It's even more irritating knowing that a limitation is intentionally imposed, but for a reason that no longer makes any sense, and could be removed with a little effort by the right person.
The character limit on sig lines just makes zero sense in today's world of high-speed Internet access. The phpBB software was written at a time when 2400 baud dialup was still prevalent, and limiting the number of characters in a sig line probably made a difference in loading a busy page with a lot of comments. But even with 56k modems, that was even less of an issue, and today, I'd bet money that you can't find a single person who is active on the board who still uses dialup for access.
The way sig line parameters are set up now, I would think a bigger issue would be people linking overly large images; there was a time when an image in a signature could be no taller than 200 pixels, but I just tested an image in my signature that is 1280 x 819 pixels, and got zero alerts. Heck, I could put a 20MB photo in my signature line, and it wouldn't stop me; I guarantee that would generate some complaints from people loading threads.
Keeping this limitation in place is like putting governors on car engines to keep people from speeding, or capping the engine output. Speed limits with occasional enforcement are much less intrusive (and less nannyish); similarly, with sig lines, it would make more sense to post guidelines to using sig lines, and then contact offenders when needed rather than impose a character limit that is effectively useless in limiting the height of a sig line.
For what it's worth, I do keep my signature height in mind when I change it, and if I know that multiple comments of mine will appear on a single page, most of the time I'll turn off the Attach a signature option on subsequent comments so that they don't unnecessarily clutter up a long page.
I hope you're having a happy birthday! Here's to many more!
If I remember correctly, you work in the medical field; if so, you spend considerable time in some kind of charting software where you work. I know for a fact that most database apps in use in medical facilities are continual works in progress; bugs are found by the users, and lists are made & prioritized for what needs to be fixed. And I'll bet money that you run up against a glitch or bug or software limitation that gets in your way and makes you jump through a hoop or two to get your job done; you report it, but it doesn't get fixed for way too long. Irritating, isn't it. It's even more irritating knowing that a limitation is intentionally imposed, but for a reason that no longer makes any sense, and could be removed with a little effort by the right person.
The character limit on sig lines just makes zero sense in today's world of high-speed Internet access. The phpBB software was written at a time when 2400 baud dialup was still prevalent, and limiting the number of characters in a sig line probably made a difference in loading a busy page with a lot of comments. But even with 56k modems, that was even less of an issue, and today, I'd bet money that you can't find a single person who is active on the board who still uses dialup for access.
The way sig line parameters are set up now, I would think a bigger issue would be people linking overly large images; there was a time when an image in a signature could be no taller than 200 pixels, but I just tested an image in my signature that is 1280 x 819 pixels, and got zero alerts. Heck, I could put a 20MB photo in my signature line, and it wouldn't stop me; I guarantee that would generate some complaints from people loading threads.
Keeping this limitation in place is like putting governors on car engines to keep people from speeding, or capping the engine output. Speed limits with occasional enforcement are much less intrusive (and less nannyish); similarly, with sig lines, it would make more sense to post guidelines to using sig lines, and then contact offenders when needed rather than impose a character limit that is effectively useless in limiting the height of a sig line.
For what it's worth, I do keep my signature height in mind when I change it, and if I know that multiple comments of mine will appear on a single page, most of the time I'll turn off the Attach a signature option on subsequent comments so that they don't unnecessarily clutter up a long page.
I hope you're having a happy birthday! Here's to many more!
Re: Profile too long?
So you want me to give everyone more rope to play with so that I can talk to them more when they create obnoxiously large signatures?
Tell me more about how I can make your life incrementally easier while creating more work for me!!
I do appreciate the lengths you go to make sure your signature isn't overly large or cluttering of a topic thread. Past experience tells me that others are not nearly so concerned, however. Honestly, if I could easily grant a triple-word-count signature to just one person, I'd give it to you.
Don't get me started on medical EMR systems. They're awful, but not because the limits are artificial and dumb. It's just that they were designed by the lowest bidder who never had to use the damn things, are generally implemented/administered by people who have no clue what they're doing or how the system works, and used by people who can barely use a mouse and type using literally one finger. Now even two.
Tell me more about how I can make your life incrementally easier while creating more work for me!!
I do appreciate the lengths you go to make sure your signature isn't overly large or cluttering of a topic thread. Past experience tells me that others are not nearly so concerned, however. Honestly, if I could easily grant a triple-word-count signature to just one person, I'd give it to you.
Don't get me started on medical EMR systems. They're awful, but not because the limits are artificial and dumb. It's just that they were designed by the lowest bidder who never had to use the damn things, are generally implemented/administered by people who have no clue what they're doing or how the system works, and used by people who can barely use a mouse and type using literally one finger. Now even two.
Re: Profile too long?
How often do you have to talk with others about obnoxiously long sig lines now with the 400 character limit? If they are doing it now, do you really think things would get worse by bumping the limit higher or removing it altogether?
Re: Profile too long?
Honestly? Not as often as I should or have been tempted to. I don't like "policing" the board, I think it sets bad precedent and is anathema to the principles on which is what founded. There are a few people on my list right now that I should contact about the size of their sigs.
I've had to do it less since most of the younger generation has moved to platforms such as Facebook. Somebody else created the "BMW e28 Group" on Facebook, then handed the admin duties off to me. I tried to corral them for a short while, then realized it was completely pointless and it was simply frustrating me, so I left the group quietly to others. I see the group has over 18k members now. I don't even look in. I guess that makes me old.
I do owe you a thank you though, Dave. I hadn't actually looked at the signature settings in a while, it'd been Justin that had allowed more characters. It turns out that phpBB has added features while I wasn't paying attention. I can now control things like disallowing IMG tags in signatures (evil cackle), but more importantly there are settings for allowable image width and height. I'll have to play with those and see what happens. If they actually work, then increasing the character count is within the realm of possibility.
Any thoughts on what a reasonable image width or height for a signature image might be? Yours is 500x140, but I think we could be a bit more lenient than that.
I've had to do it less since most of the younger generation has moved to platforms such as Facebook. Somebody else created the "BMW e28 Group" on Facebook, then handed the admin duties off to me. I tried to corral them for a short while, then realized it was completely pointless and it was simply frustrating me, so I left the group quietly to others. I see the group has over 18k members now. I don't even look in. I guess that makes me old.
I do owe you a thank you though, Dave. I hadn't actually looked at the signature settings in a while, it'd been Justin that had allowed more characters. It turns out that phpBB has added features while I wasn't paying attention. I can now control things like disallowing IMG tags in signatures (evil cackle), but more importantly there are settings for allowable image width and height. I'll have to play with those and see what happens. If they actually work, then increasing the character count is within the realm of possibility.
Any thoughts on what a reasonable image width or height for a signature image might be? Yours is 500x140, but I think we could be a bit more lenient than that.
Re: Profile too long?
You're welcome. And thank you for only joking about disallowing img tags. (you were joking, weren't you? 
)
As for reasonable image size, when I make a browser window as narrow as possible without getting a horizontal scroll bar, a 640 pixel image fits easily inside a thread page, so how does 640 x 300 sound? The 200 pixel height limit that used to be in place seemed a bit restrictive, but the standard 640 x 480 is too tall. I don't know...
Would there happen to be a setting that controls how many times a sig line is displayed in a thread? That would be sweet if it only allowed a user's sig line to show up once on a page or in a thread.
(you were joking, weren't you? )As for reasonable image size, when I make a browser window as narrow as possible without getting a horizontal scroll bar, a 640 pixel image fits easily inside a thread page, so how does 640 x 300 sound? The 200 pixel height limit that used to be in place seemed a bit restrictive, but the standard 640 x 480 is too tall. I don't know...
Would there happen to be a setting that controls how many times a sig line is displayed in a thread? That would be sweet if it only allowed a user's sig line to show up once on a page or in a thread.
Re: Profile too long?
I made changes tonight. I'm not entirely sure that they work, at least they don't appear to have an effect on existing signatures. The new rules might only apply to changes from here forward. Could you test it out for me and let me know what you notice, Dave? I know you enjoy pushing the signature limits, so I figure testing might be right in your wheelhouse.