Signature pictures -- resizing request -- 450x200

[Marcus-SanDiego]

Guys, some of our signature pictures are getting pretty large. I want to propose something. I'd like to bring the size of our signatures down a bit.

I also think that pages would load up more quickly if we had smaller pictures in our signatures. But maybe I'm wrong on that point. Perhaps picture size doesn't affect that. Chime in if you have a definitive answer.

What's more, and this is something I will start doing for my own account, when I post a comment in a thread, I will allow my first post to have a signature picture. From then on, I will making sure that I do not include my signature picture again in the same thread.

Personally, I care more about this site loading as quickly as possible. I hate waiting for the site to load. Generally, our site is pretty fast but there are times -- especially in the morning -- when I get a little annoyed by load times (even though it's not exactly slow).

I think that Botond actually has a nice-sized signature picture. But I realize that might be a bit small for most people. See the size of my new signature below (it's 350x232). I'm thinking that, if you could try to keep it about that size, we would all have a better experience around here.

I have limited the signature size to 450x200. That should work pretty well. For those of you who have larger signatures now -- because you were here before the size restriction went into place -- would you mind readjusting the signature size to confirm with the new parameters?

Thanks, guys.

[Alphatek45]

I was waiting for this one. And completely agree for whatever it's worth.

[Marcus-SanDiego]

And it's my understanding that signature pictures only hog bandwidth once. After that, it's a RAM issue. So, reducing signature pictures here will really just reduce the amount of clutter that members have to wade through.

You guys know -- KNOW -- how much I love seeing pictures of my own car. But I'm thinking that my neighbors (all of you guys) don't appreciate seeing it in every post. Also, my signature was getting a bit big, so I apologize for that.

Next week I will manually change the parameters for signature pictures. I am thinking that 400x250 should work.

I doubt many of you guys will care about this change. We all come here for content and camaraderie. We don't come here to look at signature pics.

[Smilez]

IS MINE FINE?

[Marcus-SanDiego]

Under the new restrictions, the right side would get cut off by about 50 pixels. So, you're very close already.

400 pixels wide by 250 pixels tall. That should be a good happy medium.

I know most sites don't even bother consulting their membership. I'm different. We're a small community. I want you guys to have input. I also respect you guys, which is why I bother mentioning this stuff in the first place.

My goal at the site is content first, followed by the speed by which we navigate the site. Anything to make the experience better here is what my goal is.

[az3579]

I agree about the size limitations, but I'm not sure if I can agree with not including the signature in every post.
I use signatures constantly to reference certain members' posts, and to have easy visual reference as to where I am in the thread. Without the signature pictures, it makes it much more difficult to reference posts and where you are in the thread.

Besides, shrinking the sig pic sizes should alleviate a small portion of the bandwidth problem.

[Marcus-SanDiego]

Yeah. I think that's right, BP. I'll be including my signature in each post. Doing a little reading, it does not look like an issue with a signature in each post. The bigger problem is the large signatures in general.

[mimalmo]

Most forums I'm on end up putting the restrictions in place when you upload the sig pic in the user panel. bfc for example gives you an area to work with and if your pic or text is larger than that area, it just cuts it off.

[Marcus-SanDiego]

That's correct, Eli. I would be doing the same thing. I can limit the size from the admin control panel.

[mimalmo]

With my new sig pic, I went wider than your pic Marcus but also went shorter than yours.

[Marcus-SanDiego]

Eli, yours actually looks good.

448px × 164px

I'm thinking that we could go 450x200 and be fine.

[kayger12]

Whatever you need works for me.

I'll check my pixel size when I get on the laptop tonight and square it away if it's too big.

[Marcus-SanDiego]

Keith, yours are already within the parameters.

326px × 181px

[Marcus-SanDiego]

I'm really just trying to avoid spending more money on host/server resources. Still, I do like fast sites. We're on a shared host right now (though we have our own container). Maybe down the road we'll need our own server.

At this point, I am just talking out loud. Don't mind me.

[Mtnman]

Mathmatically, if we are using LxW max size is 90k, and im at 114,124. Illegal. damn. Someone help. im a retard when it comes to posting pics (as u well know marcus). But i think Dane's profile pic gets bigger everyday i see it. its like a baby hippo....:dunno

[az3579]

Mathmatically, if we are using LxW max size is 90k, and im at 114,124. Illegal. damn. Someone help. im a retard when it comes to posting pics (as u well know marcus). But i think Dane's profile pic gets bigger everyday i see it. its like a baby hippo....:dunno


Who said the max filesize is 90KB? I didn't see Marcus mention that anywhere in his post...
Size restriction is OK in my book, but a filesize restriction is tougher to swallow. What if you have a sig pic that's very detailed, is within the physical size limitations, but is over 90KB? That would be a real bummer.

[Mtnman]

i was talking pixels. he said 400x250 somewhere earlier...... thats all. 90k was supposed to be 90,000 pixels.... i shouldnt have abbreviated!

[Marcus-SanDiego]

Mathmatically, if we are using LxW max size is 90k, and im at 114,124. Illegal. damn. Someone help. im a retard when it comes to posting pics (as u well know marcus). But i think Dane's profile pic gets bigger everyday i see it. its like a baby hippo....:dunno

David, no worries.

You are currently hosting your image at ZHPMafia.com. Instead of doing that, host it at a site like Photobucket. There, you can alter the size so that it conforms with the new parameters.

This is what you are currently at: 412px × 277px

You are fine on width. You just need to bring the height down a bit.

As for Dane, haha. Yeah, it does seem to get bigger. But I was just checking his signature out. It's pretty cool looking. I like the ZHP Mafia on the tree.

I'd say that Dane and I were offenders of having large signatures. There were no rules put in place before this, though, so no big deal.

[Marcus-SanDiego]

Who said the max filesize is 90KB? I didn't see Marcus mention that anywhere in his post...
Size restriction is OK in my book, but a filesize restriction is tougher to swallow. What if you have a sig pic that's very detailed, is within the physical size limitations, but is over 90KB? That would be a real bummer.

I am not limiting the file size. Absolutely not. Just dimensions.

[Mtnman]

ill change it to photobucket tonight when i get home. I like dane's sig pic too, the sneaky zhp mafia in the tree is cool. had to give him a little ribbing though, cause it does seem to grow!
Im going to have to figure out how to be creative. the rest of the mafia is showing me up big time! haha.

[Marcus-SanDiego]

David, our group is so talented that I am now thinking about learning how to do photoshop.

[danewilson77]

450 doesn't allow for much of a landscaped sig....

Changing mine now....

[Marcus-SanDiego]

That's true, DW. But it's the size that makes sense for the site.

We'll just have to get creative, partner.

[Tampa330i]

Signature updated. From what I know, the file size is the determining factor on how fast the image loads, not the dimensions. It just so happens with larger dimensions you get larger file sizes - more information because of the extra area. In fact, you can force a resize of an image in html so it's displayed smaller, yet the entire image has to be downloaded for you to see it - same amount of bandwidth, but you see a smaller version when the page loads. I could be wrong, I haven't written any html in a while or know in-depth how a browser reads html these days. I'm pretty confident when a website requests an image load, you need to download the entire image, making file size the most important part of the image concerning loading times.

[danewilson77]

That's true, DW. But it's the size that makes sense for the site.

We'll just have to get creative, partner.

Aight...you made that sig yourself?

Kinda partial to this....600 pixels wide and/or 240 pixels high...but I will abide.

[Marcus-SanDiego]

I just resized a photo that I had over at photobucket. Casey took the picture. I just changed the size of it.

[danewilson77]

Wow....you're a fast learnerererer.............

[Marcus-SanDiego]

Thanks, DW. I know the size restrictions suck but I'm glad you guys understand.

[danewilson77]

Yup.....blood in, blood out. Whats best for the site should be in our interest.

[Marcus-SanDiego]

You got it, pal. We're a tight-knit group here. We always do what's best.

[kayger12]

Keith, yours are already within the parameters.

326px × 181px

Good deal- thanks for checking.

[Marcus-SanDiego]

You are welcome.

[Tampa330i]

If you guys want to check your image size before uploading, right click the file you want to use, click properties, go to the details tab, look under 'Image' - 'Dimensions'. This is for windows 7, similar for previous versions.

[Marcus-SanDiego]

On my iPad, the signatures look large, even with the new parameters. Very nice.

[danewilson77]

Fix'd....finally

[zhp43867]

Aww I thought I was being conservative with my sig. :( I'll fix it...

[Marcus-SanDiego]

You were conservative. Blame me and Dane for being outrageous. Haha.

[zhp43867]

I remember I hosted your signature picture before. Sorry I don't remember your user name or I'd PM you. I got you bro :wub

http://img816.imageshack.us/img816/8500/zhpsig2.jpg

[zhpnsnv]

I'm with you on this 100%, Marcus. I absolutely hate scrolling through some text and then gargantuan sigs, especially the same ones over and over again. We get it - that's a sig - can we read the content now?

If a byproduct of making the site more readable is making it load quicker, then I can't see a negative with it whatsoever. Creative expression is why we have the photos forum!

So - is mine reasonable enough?

[Marcus-SanDiego]

Marc, if you could bring the width in -- to 450 pixels -- that would be perfect. Right now you are at 600x125.

Also, I really appreciate the graciousness that all of you have exhibited. It sucks to have tiny signatures.

[Marcus-SanDiego]

Guys, I've noticed that a good number of us still have rather large signatures.

If you'll please adjust your signatures to 450x200 or less -- that would be great.

Thanks, peeps.

[pyreguy]

Sorry it took so long to catch up. I haven't been able to log in as much lately cause its been a busy short week at work. Got mine adjusted finally :biggrin

[Marcus-SanDiego]

Thanks, Lance. Looks good.

Hopefully you have some time off now, so you can relax.

[pyreguy]

Yes indeed, 4 days. And relaxing I will do! I may install my euro plate or fool with the new wiring harness harness for the Rag, but mostly I will be doing nothing but playing with the kids.

[Marcus-SanDiego]

Beginning tomorrow, I will be putting a note in each signature that exceeds 450x200. I'd rather not do that, though.

If your signature exceeds those parameters, I'd appreciate it if you'd reduce it to something at 450x200 or lower.

Thanks, guys.

[Marcus-SanDiego]

So I've notified everyone that is still not in conformance with 450x200.

Thanks in advance for reducing the picture sizes, guys. Much appreciated.

[C Withers Media]

Marcus, for us flickr users this is a very challenging request as flickr uses a 500x280 format or a 240x135 which is a pretty significant drop off. I understand the space considerations, just letting you know why this may be a recurring issue as the forum grows.

[Marcus-SanDiego]

Ahh, good to know, Casey.

Flickr doesn't allow you to resize pictures? With Photobucket I just edit the picture and make it 450x200.

[billschusteriv]

Flickr automatically provides resizes of your full resolution pictures to a number of "standard" web sizes.

You can manually edit your pics to any size - its just another step.

I'm just keeping my sig pic smaller rather than having to edit.

[Marcus-SanDiego]

Thanks to all of you for getting your signatures down to 450x200. Much appreciated.