Signatures on the NPF Forum Discussion

[oz1701]

i suppose the the kb size of the avatar couldn't be expanded to allow animated avatars? the current size is a bit restrictive with the average anigif running to 50kb

[Keith Jordan]

25 posts per page means a maximum possibility of 25 different people posting per page with a max of 50kb per avatar means the avatars alone would then account for 1250kb or 1.22MB. That is unacceptable.

[Keith Jordan]

Actually, it is 15 posts per page.

15 X 50kb = 750kb = 0.74MB.

Still unacceptable. That would take about 15 seconds on dialup I think.

[oz1701]

just a thought

[lostplay]

Actually, it is 15 posts per page.

15 X 50kb = 750kb = 0.74MB.

Still unacceptable. That would take about 15 seconds on dialup I think.

how about a very very small sig
maybe a single digit
oh i don't know maybe for example
lostplay would put a single letter in his sig
like AN
<E>
or maybe a number ???
what number ??? hmm i would be open to suggestions



e

[oz1701]

Actually, it is 15 posts per page.

15 X 50kb = 750kb = 0.74MB.

Still unacceptable. That would take about 15 seconds on dialup I think.

how about a very very small sig
maybe a single digit
oh i don't know maybe for example
lostplay would put a single letter in his sig
like AN
<E>
or maybe a number ???
what number ??? hmm i would be open to suggestions





e

nein

[lostplay]

how about a very very small sig
maybe a single digit
oh i don't know maybe for example
lostplay would put a single letter in his sig
like AN
<E>
or maybe a number ???
what number ??? hmm i would be open to suggestions





e

nein

ahhhhhhhhh!!!

any thing the web site killer 9

[jambo]

Actually, it is 15 posts per page.

15 X 50kb = 750kb = 0.74MB.

Still unacceptable. That would take about 15 seconds on dialup I think.

Dial-what now?

And you have heard of the wonderful technology known as caching, haven't you?

[Keith Jordan]

No. Please explain.

[jambo]

Uhh... I'm seriously not sure if you're being sarcastic or not.

If someone looks at the forums and it loads my sig image, then as long as their browser supports persistent caching (and they have the option turned on) every subsequent time my sig image shows up on a page, the file would've already been downloaded into the Internet cache and won't be downloaded again. The browser will check the cache and if it finds the file on the HDD it will simply be loaded from there instead of re-downloading the file.

[Keith Jordan]

Uhh... I'm seriously not sure if you're being sarcastic or not.

I know what caching is, fool!!

[jambo]

Hey, after working in IT for the past few years, I find that it's best to expect people to know nothing about computers. Then if they do, it's a bonus and makes everything just that little bit easier

[henno]

my opinion would be no sigs.....

they clutter the screen, they make it harder to differentiate between posts....

eg if some one posts


and some else posts



there will be lines of crap filler between that usually are looked at to see if they are actual posts.....

and as to the argument of 'you can just turn them off'.... i would argue, sure, 'you can just not have them in the first place'.....

[mosespa]

and as to the argument of 'you can just turn them off'.... i would argue, sure, 'you can just not have them in the first place'.....

Yeah...but to me, that's kind of like saying "you could put someone on ignore...or you could just stop coming to the board entirely."

[PublicImage]

If somebody makes a post that has nothing more than a smiley, it's going to be shit and annoying whether signatures are enabled or not.

and as to the argument of 'you can just turn them off'.... i would argue, sure, 'you can just not have them in the first place'.....

The majority of voters actually want them, yet because a few people find them aesthetically displeasing, they won't be allowed. In spite of that feature being enabled.

If there are more people in favour of them than against it, then I fail to see how that argument holds any relevance. It just favours the minority, which I find ridiculous if there is a higher demand for them to be allowed. I don't understand WHY anybody would vote for 'no' if they can turn it off other than just to spite those who do want signatures to be enabled. It's not like it takes any effort whatsoever to disable them. So 'you can have them in the first place' because there are more people that do want them than there are who don't, and if they can be disabled, it is impossible for them to bug the people who don't. It's very, very simple and I cannot see any logic behind the 'no' vote.

But the whole issue is actually trivial, so I'm not going to debate it any more.