Bigger signatures.......

[danewilson77]

Please...........just a bit......

Maybe?

Now that were on a kick ass server.......please?

I recommend 700 wide x 240 high max.........

Please.

You're the best Marky. If we get slowdowns.....we can go back.

[mimalmo]

I'd rather have smaller sigs and faster page loads. Especially when I'm on my BB or my Sprint wireless card.

[danewilson77]

Sigs don't load via tapatalk or forum runner.

[Marcus-SanDiego]

But the signatures do load on blackberry, which is what Eli was intimating.

Tell you what: everyone should chime in here and tell me if they'd like bigger signatures.

I'll throw my hat in. I like smaller signatures -- and would not mind if they remained where they are.

Weigh in, guys/girls.

[romanred62]

I vote bigger sigs.

[kayger12]

Spend a lot of my time accessing and posting from Tapatalk, so it really doesn't matter to me.

Can the sigs get a little bigger without negatively impacting performance? Or would we have to experiment and then try to put the horse back in the barn?

[Marcus-SanDiego]

Our server is pretty fast. I imagine that we're not worried about performance issues at this point. Instead, were more worried about distractions -- with the size of signatures.

Don't worry about performance.

If someone objects, it's because they don't want to see large signatures.

[kayger12]

Understood. I like whatever makes the site look better. http://www.myemoticons.com/images/flags/animated/q-z/switzerland.gif

[Marcus-SanDiego]

I've voted for smaller sigs. I think they look better.

But I'm all for the people's choice approach.

[Washburn]

I vote for small or medium sigs - certainly not bigger.

[pyreguy]

I wouldn't mind bigger sigs to be allowed though I doubt I would make mine any larger.


Sent from my iPhone 5 using Tapatalk

[C Withers Media]

400x300 to give some of these guys a little room to work with, but I am a photographer and very visual.

[Marcus-SanDiego]

Thanks for chiming in, Big Worm.

[danewilson77]

400x300 to give some of these guys a little room to work with, but I am a photographer and very visual.

400 width is smaller than what we have now.

[romanred62]

I'd rather have more width than height .

[Marcus-SanDiego]

As of right now we have 450 width and 200 height.

[Mtnman]

If we went bigger, i would only want a little bigger, so 500 x 350 or something. I wouldnt want to go really big. Just me 2cents

[danewilson77]

I would go for 600 x 300.....for nice landscaped sigs.

[Mtnman]

Hah! With u dane. Nice pic. There is a pond to the left of my sig that you cannot see....

[danewilson77]

Hah! With u dane. Nice pic. There is a pond to the left of my sig that you cannot see....

Its like the road is 80% of my sig pic.....so..I had to make it so small to see it.

This is perfect size...

http://i1015.photobucket.com/albums/af278/nicee46/Imola%20Bimmer/DSC04047-1.jpg

[Mtnman]

Your car has a great stance dane. Money.

[romanred62]

I think the size of Dane's picture is the perfect size for a sig.

[danewilson77]

Your car has a great stance dane. Money.

About right for DD. You can bet it will be coming down for the meet though.


I think the size of Dane's picture is the perfect size for a sig.

Thanks Roman.

[Mtnman]

Your dd is lower than my dd already! Your gonna be rubbing at the meet!

Sent from my DROID2 GLOBAL using Tapatalk

[Marcus-SanDiego]

Its like the road is 80% of my sig pic.....so..I had to make it so small to see it.

This is perfect size...

http://i1015.photobucket.com/albums/af278/nicee46/Imola%20Bimmer/DSC04047-1.jpg

Dane, show me what 600x250 would look like.

[04ZHP_PDX]

Come on guys...this is AMERICA! Bigger is better! Our big gulps are the size of a damn feeding trough and we have people dding pseudo semi-trucks. What size is a computer screen...that's my vote on how big the signatures should be.

In all seriousness though - I'd take a little bigger, but it won't drive me away from the site.

[Jon D]

I like the current size when not on forum runner big sigs on other forums can be too much

[danewilson77]

600 x 250

http://i1015.photobucket.com/albums/af278/nicee46/Imola%20Bimmer/DSC04047-4.jpg

I would rather have a 650 x 200 limit....if we're talking total footprint.

650 x 200

http://i1015.photobucket.com/albums/af278/nicee46/Imola%20Bimmer/DSC04047-5.jpg

[Rovert]

Coming from a graphic design background that I've been in for just under a decade, the subject of this discussion should not be the physical size of signatures for loading time but the bandwidth/file size that the banner takes. I can easily make a picture that is small in size but surpass the file size in an optimized picture 4 times bigger.

An easy web-based picture resizer and file size optimizer is here:
http://www.webresizer.com/resizer/

I believe if you use that and drop the "Image Quality" part of that site to the lowest you feel comfortable without seeing significant loss in quality, the servers and hosts will have a much happier time! With settings 40-50, your file size will be up to 75% smaller. This way this gives the user a more free way to express their picture with little impact on bandwidth requirements.

[Marcus-SanDiego]

Trevor, thanks for the link.

At this point, we think the server can handle the file size. What we've heard in the past is that signatures are too large, which makes it distracting to those browsing the site. Previously, when we were on a different server, file size was my main concern. Today, my main concern is signature-size distraction.

I'm thinking that 650x200 gives people a lot of freedom; it also keeps the height of the signature to manageable levels.

I like that link you posted. That should help everyone out.

[Mike V]

I vote that bigger sigs are not necessary. I don't even mean for file size; it's just a pain in the butt sometimes to scroll thru a huge sig just to see the next post. No offense to Dane, but his was excessively big before we made the switch.

[Marcus-SanDiego]

Dane's was pretty big before the switch. LOL.

[billschusteriv]

I would vote for a limit that allows a standard resize from flickr. Medium is 500 x while keeping the aspect ratio correct - so 600 x 200/250 is okay by me.

On the other hand its just a signature. I think the photo subforums give us an opportunity to share tastefully shot and edited pictures of our ride.

That said, I always enjoy seeing Dane's updated signatures with his latest and greatest shots.

Smaller signatures could be linked to larger versions of the signature file for sharing purposes....

Just some thoughts... no real definative vote from me either way. I'm flexible.

[mimalmo]

I inserted a hyperlink into my signature pic that takes you to my build thread. Plenty of pics to see there.

[Marcus-SanDiego]

Eli, I like. Nice way to implement Bill's comment.

I'll do the same thing.

[Mtnman]

So has anything changed, or does it stay the same. I thought i was about to see the final answer, and then i got...........nothing! Still pondering on it, Marcus?

[danewilson77]

So has anything changed, or does it stay the same. I thought i was about to see the final answer, and then i got...........nothing! Still pondering on it, Marcus?

Funny that your signature is 454 x 202.......We should call you the antagonizer instead of the enforcer!!!!

[Marcus-SanDiego]

Funny that your signature is 454 x 202.......We should call you the antagonizer instead of the enforcer!!!!

Haha. 4 pixels by 2 pixels too big.

[Marcus-SanDiego]

So has anything changed, or does it stay the same. I thought i was about to see the final answer, and then i got...........nothing! Still pondering on it, Marcus?

A decision will come in the morning, David. Need to bounce this around with the mods.

Decision definitely in the morning.

[danewilson77]

It has been discussed and we have decided new sig size limit is 650 X 200. Thanks for all of the support and comments.

[Rovert]

Marcus I think the decision was made by Dane alone. :P

[danewilson77]

Marcus I think the decision was made by Dane alone. :P

No...we all discussed it.

[Marcus-SanDiego]

Marcus I think the decision was made by Dane alone. :P

Haha. We discussed it behind the scenes -- after you guys weighed in.

Dane, I do believe that Trevor is busting your chops, sir. :biggrin

[danewilson77]

Trevor will be Trevor. I will just give his nasty lil comments grace as that's how I roll.

Sent from my Droid using Tapatalk

[Mtnman]

Funny that your signature is 454 x 202.......We should call you the antagonizer instead of the enforcer!!!!

I like to push the limits! Glad your a stickler to the details dane!
lol

[Marcus-SanDiego]

David, you're spot on now, though. 650x200. Nice! I like it.

[Mtnman]

Ill have to get in there and stretch it by a couple pixels then......lol. Thx Marcus.

[C Withers Media]

I am guessing my tiny little signature takes up as much bandwidth as Trevors .gif file. Its 16 shots compressed. lol.

[Marcus-SanDiego]

I am guessing my tiny little signature takes up as much bandwidth as Trevors .gif file. Its 16 shots compressed. lol.

It's pretty dinky. 41.59 KB (42,590 bytes).

[az3579]

I'd rather have more width than height .

I agree with this.


Personally, I think the current limits are ideal. Quite frankly I'm sick and tired of having to scroll endless amounts to get down a page on other sites, and would be such a shame to me for this site to turn into the same thing...
To me the actual content is worth more than pics that you see every day, so I would assume it to be logical to fit more content than pics that don't really do anything for you.

One thing I do think we should up is the filesizes allowed, to allow more detail.

[Marcus-SanDiego]

I can up the file sizes. I have no idea what the ideal number would be.

Anyone?

[Rovert]

What are the file sizes for? Hosting pictures using the server here?

[az3579]

What are the file sizes for? Hosting pictures using the server here?

I don't think so... it implements a file size limit even if it's linked from an external site like Photobucket.
I know this because I had trouble getting mine to fit and I always link from PB.

[Marcus-SanDiego]

What are the file sizes for? Hosting pictures using the server here?

The file sizes are definitely tied to the server. But I may have them limited for the external pictures as well.

Assuming that I lift those limitations (and make it much higher), what would a fair number be for file size?

[Rovert]

A normal JPG with the size limits of what have been discussed can easily be 100KB and clear. What is the limit now? I'd suggest topping out at 300KB.

My once large 600x175 animated GIF is clear and it is 266KB which consists of 37 individual pictures.
My single frame version of the 600x175 JPG is even clearer and is 45KB.
My newer smaller 450x131 animated GIF is 188KB.

All these versions are fully optimized for the best quality possible before the file size decrease makes the picture look pixelated and grainy.

[Marcus-SanDiego]

A normal JPG with the size limits of what have been discussed can easily be 100KB and clear. What is the limit now? I'd suggest topping out at 300KB.

My once large 600x175 animated GIF is clear and it is 266KB which consists of 37 individual pictures.
My single frame version of the 600x175 JPG is even clearer and is 45KB.
My newer smaller 450x131 animated GIF is 188KB.

All these versions are fully optimized for the best quality possible before the file size decrease makes the picture look pixelated and grainy.

Cool. When I get back to ZHPMafia.com headquarters I will adjust accordingly. Thanks, Trevor.

[Rovert]

Take into account that most people here aren't in graphics design and may not be able to optimize their images right down to the last kilobyte. I think 300KB is a good number but if you have means of number crunching then maybe you can afford 400KB or a bit higher. But if the limits stay low, I know that a signature is someones "identity" and they will find a way to make it work so they can express themselves to the world. Plus we've got a good group of people to help with that here. Noone will be left behind in the dark.

[Marcus-SanDiego]

Take into account that most people here aren't in graphics design and may not be able to optimize their images right down to the last kilobyte. I think 300KB is a good number but if you have means of number crunching then maybe you can afford 400KB or a bit higher. But if the limits stay low, I know that a signature is someones "identity" and they will find a way to make it work so they can express themselves to the world. Plus we've got a good group of people to help with that here. Noone will be left behind in the dark.

Exactly. No one will be left behind. I will play with numbers when I get home.

[danewilson77]

What are the file sizes for? Hosting pictures using the server here?

Ideal file size for sigs is what I think is what we're after.

[Marcus-SanDiego]

I took pictures to 410KB.

[pyreguy]

Is mine too big boss?

[Rovert]

Width fine..height not fine! Poor Berry users would have to scroll for an extra day just to pass a tall signature. LOL.

With that picture you're either going to have to photoshop extra content on the right or left to squish the picture down to close to 1/3rd of the height. Or find another picture with more background so that you can crop it wide and short.

[kayger12]

Lance, you're at 356 px on the height-- 200 is the limit.

If you want to email me the pic, I'll do some cropping for you and see what we can do.

[pyreguy]

Fixed?

[kayger12]

Perfect. You want me to work on the one you PMed me?

[pyreguy]

Sure. Show me whatcha got. I'm always willing to learn something new.

Sent from my iPhone 5 using Tapatalk

[Mtnman]

is that your southern plantation lance? you holding out on us????

[pyreguy]

Oh that old thing? That's just my weekend place.


Yeah, not so much :biggrin
It's Chef John Folse's plantation. Its used nowadays to host catered events. And as a backdrop to my attempt at purdy pictures.

[pyreguy]

So is having two pictures in my sig too douchey? I can't decide on one at the moment...

[Rovert]

Well you said it. Hahaha. Post them both. We'll decide! Sometimes you need a 2nd opinions. Everyone has two just like underarms. And they usually stink!

[Marcus-SanDiego]

Doesn't bother me at all. Just you expressing yourself.

[danewilson77]

Put em both in there.....

Sent from my Droid using Tapatalk

[mimalmo]

Anybody want to make me a sig? I suck at it. I have a bunch of pics that could be used. PM me if you have skillz.

[danewilson77]

Anybody want to make me a sig? I suck at it. I have a bunch of pics that could be used. PM me if you have skillz.

PM sent. I'll play.

[danewilson77]

It has been discussed and we have decided new sig size limit is 650 X 200. Thanks for all of the support and comments.


Is mine too big boss?

yes..it is too big.

You have two pics.....one is 423x200 and the other is 510 by 200....for a total of 933x200. Either one is fine by itself though.

For comparison....my sig is at the exact limit.....

[pyreguy]

I thought the height was the main issue in loading a page. The width is the same whether it's filled with an image or blank, no?


Sent from my iPhone 5 using Tapatalk

[otto99]

I'm a day late and a dollar short, but I thought they were fine the way they were. However, if someone want a killer banner, let me know, as I do this for a living.

[danewilson77]

A lot of thought was put into the established sig size limit. I can only tell you the established limit is 650x200.

[Marcus-SanDiego]

I'm a day late and a dollar short, but I thought they were fine the way they were. However, if someone want a killer banner, let me know, as I do this for a living.

Actually, we went bigger. They were 450x200. Now it's 650x200.

I know someone was just asking for a signature this morning. I think it was Eli.