SIG file restriction...?

[fastpat]

I have a number of cars that I'd like to post linked thumbnail photos to in my sig. Naturally, these take up a lot of the character limit of 350, in fact I can barely squeeze two of them in that space.

With the reduced cost of band width and so forth, might the administrator/owner consider increasing that to 700 characters or thereabouts?

[BKCowGod3]

Actually, I really like Pat's sig. I second the motion.

[C.R. Krieger]

I have a number of cars that I'd like to post linked thumbnail photos to in my sig. Naturally, these take up a lot of the character limit of 350, in fact I can barely squeeze two of them in that space.

With the reduced cost of band width and so forth, might the administrator/owner consider increasing that to 700 characters or thereabouts?

How about shortening your filenames?

[BKCowGod3]

CR - the file is called 4view-th.jpg (or something...)

the problem here is that the character limit kills the ability to put in the code to link to the files in the first place.

[BKCowGod3]

jut FYI:

this block of text is 350 characters. as you can see it is really quite limiting. if we were to change to 750 instead, it would open up a few more options. i don't think many people would use this new ability for causes of evil. as spiderman's uncle said, with great power comes great responsibility. i think we are ready for that responsibility.....

[Justin_FL]

Just use a text link instead of making a click able thumbnail that launches an image, you'd have considerably more characters to work with since your URLs are quite long.

That's what I did on my sig; clicking on the text link opens a picture if someone is so inclined to look at my cars. I dislike long, drawn out signatures that take up multiple lines and make quick browsing of threads difficult. Two lines of text without photos keeps it short and sweet.

Jeremy has the final say, but my vote is NO to increasing the character limit for the above reason. 255 is the phpBB default, so it has been increased already. Unfortunately there is no way to make the logic treat BBcode URLs differently than regular text. It is what it is. Keeping the limit short should help force people to think about what goes there, regardless of it being plain text or fancy BBcode. But there is no way to make it discriminate between various items. Maybe the upcoming phpBB v3 is smarter? I don't know...

My signature is 344 characters and I think it works just fine. No need for eye candy under every post of mine but the photo links are there for the curious.

[C.R. Krieger]

CR - the file is called 4view-th.jpg (or something...)

the problem here is that the character limit kills the ability to put in the code to link to the files in the first place.

Maybe he needs to find a different host. Mine is only 240 characters, leaving me room to either add another image or make it a clickable link.

He could pose more than one vehicle in the same photo ...

[fastpat]

This is what I want to do.
'87 535is '98 Z3__'90 325i Cab '00 540i Touring Sport__'88 911 Targa

[Shawn D.]

Sorry, Pat, but a signature formatted like that would be an eyesore. Why not combine the pics into a single wide pic and label the cars underneath?

[fastpat]

Sorry, Pat, but a signature formatted like that would be an eyesore. Why not combine the pics into a single wide pic and label the cars underneath?

Because I don't like that format, it's an eyesore.

Are you trying to tell me that this forum has developed an "art policeman" these days?

Really, Shawn, I'm embarrassed for you.

[C.R. Krieger]

Sorry, Pat, but a signature formatted like that would be an eyesore. Why not combine the pics into a single wide pic and label the cars underneath?

Because I don't like that format, it's an eyesore.

Are you trying to tell me that this forum has developed an "art policeman" these days?

Really, Shawn, I'm embarrassed for you.

Well, Pat, on my screen, your proposed sig wraps to a second line, which I think even you should agree looks like hell. Not that mine is anything great, but it fits on one line and both pictures are reasonably presentable at that size. I do not have plans to add my Jeep, Jaguar, or my Ford 8N tractor, though.

[wkohler]

I do not have plans to add my Jeep, Jaguar, or my Ford 8N tractor, though.

'
Whaddabout Da Big Ugly Truck? Doesn't matter whether your towing or empty. 8 is whatcha get from Da Big Ugly Truck.

[fastpat]

Sorry, Pat, but a signature formatted like that would be an eyesore. Why not combine the pics into a single wide pic and label the cars underneath?

Because I don't like that format, it's an eyesore.

Are you trying to tell me that this forum has developed an "art policeman" these days?

Really, Shawn, I'm embarrassed for you.

Well, Pat, on my screen, your proposed sig wraps to a second line, which I think even you should agree looks like hell. Not that mine is anything great, but it fits on one line and both pictures are reasonably presentable at that size. I do not have plans to add my Jeep, Jaguar, or my Ford 8N tractor, though.

Well, C.R., ignoring your implication that my Porsche is a tractor, what your sig file looks like is beyond my comment.

Most folks are using at least a 15 inch screen, that's what I'm using at the moment on a laptop, and the sig file does NOT wrap to two lines. Needless to say, it doesn't do that on the 17 and 24 inch screens I have on the desk tops either.

I don't know why you have such a small window open, perhaps you should do some fine tuning on your technique, maybe even use tabbed browsing.

Not be able to use a wide signature do to bandwidth restrictions, cost, or some other technical difficulty is one thing; refusing to so so on "artistic" grounds is simply an overweaning control issue, and in my opinion that's an activity in which the "Beemters" ought not be engaged.

[Jeremy]

The Beamters aren't really engaged in "art critiquing", but they are concerned with things that impede the readability of the board.

Your current sig is too large, please resize it. There's no reason for anyone's sig to be that large. In response to your other "request", which you are becoming increasingly belligerent concerning: increasing the character limit may be convenient for you, but it's only useful for those who want to use code. These people are very few and far between. Too many people will fill it with nonsense or long winded things that have nothing to do with the board at all and make reading threads even more difficult than it already is. Personally, I could do without seeing every single car you own in every single post you make.

It is neither this board's fault nor this board's problem that your URLs are each over 70 characters long.

Jeremy

[Skeen]

Really? Is this what we want to argue about? Pat, we are not disallowing the sig because the beamters voted it ugly. And BTW, this post is not from a Beamter, just another member of the board. Personally, I don't care about changing the character limits; what bugs me more is when someone uses a picture that's 600 pix tall, or lists thirty lines of mods. What you've gotten here is a pretty decent list of suggestions for formatting: Justin showed you how clean clickable text links are, Shawn pointed out how difficult it is to read your format, and CR pointed out the fact that it won't look the way you anticipated on some screens. Take everything with a grain of salt and don't get so easily offended. You can accomplish the same thing in a different way under the existing controls.

[Shawn D.]

Sorry, Pat, but a signature formatted like that would be an eyesore. Why not combine the pics into a single wide pic and label the cars underneath?

Because I don't like that format, it's an eyesore.

Are you trying to tell me that this forum has developed an "art policeman" these days?

Really, Shawn, I'm embarrassed for you.

Well, Pat, on my screen, your proposed sig wraps to a second line, which I think even you should agree looks like hell. Not that mine is anything great, but it fits on one line and both pictures are reasonably presentable at that size. I do not have plans to add my Jeep, Jaguar, or my Ford 8N tractor, though.

Most folks are using at least a 15 inch screen, that's what I'm using at the moment on a laptop, and the sig file does NOT wrap to two lines. Needless to say, it doesn't do that on the 17 and 24 inch screens I have on the desk tops either.

Pat, your proposed sig wraps on my 19" screen at work and on my 18" screen here at home, both of which are at 1024x768, with the browser (Firefox) maximized, and with tabbed browsing.

[slave2school]

Not to be nit picky, but any screen (physical size) run at 1024x768 will appear to have the same "real estate" on it since you are telling it how many pixels to run.

I don't know how folks can run an LCD in non-native resolutions (unless of course these are very specialized 19" and 18" monitors).

1280x1024 is more or less the minimum internet "standard" now. Sucks for me on my old laptop, but I deal with it. On the desktop not a problem since I run native resolution on the 21.5" widescreen.

Most operating systems have provisions for the visually impared to increase the font size if that is the problem. (not being a jack ass here! I have adjusted all the computers in my shop at work to have larger font for the "older" folks so I don't suffer with blurry screen syndrome/crap forum performance running the 17" monitor @1024x768), so all are happy.

[Shawn D.]

Not to be nit picky, but any screen (physical size) run at 1024x768 will appear to have the same "real estate" on it since you are telling it how many pixels to run.

Yeah, I knew that. I was making that point, but didn't word it very well!

Most operating systems have provisions for the visually impared to increase the font size if that is the problem. (not being a jack ass here! I have adjusted all the computers in my shop at work to have larger font for the "older" folks so I don't suffer with blurry screen syndrome/crap forum performance running the 17" monitor @1024x768), so all are happy.

So, are you suggesting to go to a higher resolution, then increase the font size? That would reduce the pic size, but wouldn't do anything to unclutter a sig. FWIW, there are certain applications at work that require me to run 1024x768, so changing just for internet use wouldn't be practicable.

[slave2school]

That is exactly what I was trying to say. Sometimes it comes out less than clear on my end too.

That sig really doesn't look cluttered up to me, but that is in the eye of the beholder (and the monitor aparently)

We have nothing so specialized in my shop that requires a specific resolution. At home the only thing I can think of that likes a certain resolution is the ETKA.

My personal feelings on signatures? No pics. Save the time for poor dial up users and limit them to 200 characters then no arguments about size. Force people to update their profile (for that matter can we put "vehicles owned" as a category for the profile?) with a list of "rides" if they feel the need to list the kubota et al.
Hyperlinks to an external site work well enough for anyone that cares what another guys car(s) looks like

Probably not a popular viewpoint, but that is my $.02 to be taken with a grain of salt.

[fastpat]

For enlightenment only, the display on this laptop is running at 1280 x 854, and is a 15 inch monitor.

[Skeen]

(for that matter can we put "vehicles owned" as a category for the profile?) with a list of "rides" if they feel the need to list the kubota et al.

I love that idea.

[marks]

Me, too. Lemme list all the rides I've owned in the last 30 years...