Sig limits... does it matter and why punish the "privelged" to "aid" those behind

ZU has some of the strictes signature rules I have heard of. The primary justification for such has been that it helps those on 56.6k and lower, however fewer and fewer people are using dialup. Previously the sig size limit had been 250k, now it is 100k, something i consider rediculous for the above said reasons. The physical size limit of signatures is also somewhat absurd. 150px high is scarcely acceptable, 200 would be more reasonable. I could understand the notion of it distorting the forum to an extent, but still that general doesn't affect much, one can still scroll down. I can agree with limiting wallpapersized and otherwise large graphics, but really this is for the most part too far. Yes another part would be the umber of images, two is very limiting, one could align the exact same graphic to be configured from one image or several smaller images and have them take no more room(aids in image linking etc.) yet ZU disallows this even if it takes less bandwidth. I am not asking for anything radical, but I am requesting somewhat more reasonable limits... the limits are there for a reason, to provide a reasonable limit to what is allowed, yet time has changed what is reasonable, it isn't '95 anymore and most can have an entire page(or many more) on ZU rendered faster than ZU's server can toss it out.

below are several arguements and counters:

I am on 56.6k isn't unfair to me to change the limits?
not necessarily, in many cases, people won't even go past them, there is a certain point where if larger images look poorer in terms of costmetics so that fact should "protect" you to an extent. Also, often after loading an image for the first time, an image is cached, it is stored in your computers memory and is simply simply read off your computer as opposed to downloading it again. Further more, ZU has this wonderful option...

if load time is too significant for you, bypass signatures.

won't this create more scrolling
To a limited extent yes, though it wouldn't be too significant compared to the scrolling induced by the template on here by defualt and the scrolling caused by text. It shouldn't stretch or distort anything too much. if it would be too much of an issue, a mod can be installed which set a scrollbar on sig space if it passes a point

Wouldn't more people be defered from ZU due to a slightly longer potential load time?
Such is highly unlikely, most people have at the very least DSL, many have faster connections than that. And, by example of such, I could show you several rather large forums with increadibly lax signature rules which are significantly larger than ZU yet started well after ZU.

I don't want to view larger/more images, why should I have to?
good point... view the following illustration



I will add more to this if needed...

I think the sig rules are a load of bull****.
Bigs sigs dont hurt anyone.

If you have a slow dial up you can choose toblock the sigs.

Well, I agree with you with sig size, it should be bigger but not too much bigger. I also find it ironic that I have dial-up and only 5% do, that makes me feel unwanted.

Understand this: The purpose of the signature size limits is not to be kind to the 56k users, although that could concieveably be contributed. The purpose is that with many large, signatures all over the place, threads get very cluttered, and it gets rather annoying scrolling past sigs. Have you ever been to Gaia? I know I cite that place a lot for crappy things, but it is a good example. Their signatures are all freaking huge, and it's annoying to scroll past, and I don't mean taking the time, I mean seeing them.

I do not want to see something like that here. That's nice that you know how to take screenshots and circle options. It's nice, really, to see that you have some capacity for thought. However, these signature rules will not be lessened. It is irrelevent that the signatures can be blocked. Not everyone is aware of this, and not everyone wants to see no signatures. Some signatures are nice to look at. Huge ones are not.

And there is no filesize limit for signatures, only area. If you want huge ugly signatures, go somewhere else for all your image-whoring needs.

I find nothing wrong with the current sig limits. You really don't need to make a sig over 400x150. Then it just becomes ulgy and takes up more room. And if you are unlucky enough to be running at a lower resolution such as 800x600 or even 1024x768. You will notice the sigs are quote large enough as they are.

GKn, you are far from unwanted. I trust me when I say that I am not proposing every image to be a 1meg, fully-animated image, but I assume you could tell. I just feal the rules should be less estricitve, even people on dial-up such as youself agree atleast to an extent.

EDIT: I do run at 1024*768(horid monitor) and am also used to 800*600, when I used my old computer it hardly had the resources for 800*600. you have to realize that such a limit does restrict what can be done, in many cases 400*150 IS sufficient, though whaat's wrong with a 100*300(for example) image? if done well, they can be nicer than 400*150 images and are typically less bandwidth intensive.

EDIT2:

Originally Posted by Scott

And there is no filesize limit for signatures, only area. If you want huge ugly signatures, go somewhere else for all your image-whoring needs.

I had heard it was 100kb, one of my patrons has to have me remove than animation from their sig because of a "filesize limit" as well.

For someone so good at editing images, you have a hard time cropping them down to acceptable levels.

Seriously man. Seriously. You and a few others may like to orgy over massive brushed images in every single one of your posts, but for a large number of users, we simply don't care. If you want to look at graphics, go stare at your desktop or go to a forum devoted to graphics.

A signature image is for the most part useless, and having a huge signature with tons of fancy (but easy-to-make) effects doesn't make you look smarter, or cooler, or whatever. They can in many cases be an eyesore. I don't mind your image so much, because at least it's tasteful, but there are so many which are just painful to look at and serve absolutely no purpose. Why do you have a picture of the Prince or Link in it? Are you trying to tell people something? I hope to God that people are won over by actual post content rather than flashy banners.

What's wrong with having only avatars, anyway? We get the idea: you like Link, or Master Chief. We don't need to see his face everywhere, and why you need a large banner with lots of tech-inspired lights flying all over the place that would give anyone a seizure were it in motion, is beyond my understanding. I suppose kids just like shiny things: that's why shows like Jackass are so popular with...well, the target audience.

It's true: large signatures are ugly. I don't like bricks. Something sleek is alright, but why on Earth would you want an image that takes up nearly 1/5 of the average person's display? Some signatures are tasteful, but a lot of them are just dumb.

On file sizes, you don't need to have an uncompressed JPEG everywhere. The majority of people will not be able to tell the difference between an image at 40% compression and one at 0%. Why you need to have some stupid lens flare flashing in someone's eye is beyond me. It sounds to me like people who want this kind of stuff have serious competency issues and need to make up for their lack of personality with flashing lights.

The fact of the matter is, if you care more about what a person looks like than what they're thinking, then you don't belong in a community devoted to discussion. You belong in a gallery.

Big banners are ugly. 'Nuff said.

Originally Posted by Radek

Big banners are ugly. 'Nuff said.

Quoted for truth...and just to demonstrate this, I went off and made one of them huge banners. I love it: it's huge, it has fancy bloom effects, and anime. And yet, it's absolutely empty and devoid of purpose. What am I trying to say in it? What does that quote even mean?



Yeah, you like that, don't you? Now you imagine everyone with something like that and you understand just how dumb it is.

Originally Posted by SearanoX

On file sizes, you don't need to have an uncompressed JPEG everywhere.

That is why there are other ways to conserve images, you can have a high qaulity .jpg and not many people could see the high-quality, for any of the above posted reasons. But a .gif is basicly the same, just less quality, but really compresses the size of the image.

Originally Posted by SearanoX

The fact of the matter is, if you care more about what a person looks like than what they're thinking, then you don't belong in a community devoted to discussion. You belong in a gallery.

I have been looking around ZU, 1 or 2 posts. Yeah, know where they are usually at? The new members board, or at the signature shops, so before you start judging ZU as just a discussion based area, think again. I support zelink all the way.

Originally Posted by PS2178

That is why there are other ways to conserve images, you can have a high qaulity .jpg and not many people could see the high-quality, for any of the above posted reasons. But a .gif is basicly the same, just less quality, but really compresses the size of the image.

You don't know your image formats, buddy: a GIF features absolutely no compression artifacts, but instead is restricted to 256 colours. That means if you produce anything but monotone, colourised signatures (something you shouldn't have to worry about) then you should be just fine, but anything with an actual palette will suffer horribly for it.

Originally Posted by SearanoX

Quoted for truth...and just to demonstrate this, I went off and made one of them huge banners. I love it: it's huge, it has fancy bloom effects, and anime. And yet, it's absolutely empty and devoid of purpose. What am I trying to say in it? What does that quote even mean?



Yeah, you like that, don't you? Now you imagine everyone with something like that and you understand just how dumb it is.

that image in iteslf is ugly, the brushing on it is ill applied, it is very mono and it needs more properly applied, blending/filtering to tie in the render a bit more. The text is also lacking. I will however agree that in general that large sigs can be cosmetically soore, though what is wrong with a 150px high image with a 15pixel small baner below it? perhaps a variation in which no image may be taller than 150px unless it should be narrower than 200(or something of the sort) vertical sigs are often better aesthetically as more of the render can be implemented into it, horizontal sigs generall lack much of the render and if they don't, then the render takes up TOO much room.

Originally Posted by xelink

that image in iteslf is ugly, the brushing on it is ill applied, it is very mono and it needs more properly applied, blending/filtering to tie in the render a bit more. The text is also lacking. I will however agree that in general that large sigs can be cosmetically soore, though what is wrong with a 150px high image with a 15pixel small baner below it? perhaps a variation in which no image may be taller than 150px unless it should be narrower than 200(or something of the sort) vertical sigs are often better aesthetically as more of the render can be implemented into it, horizontal sigs generall lack much of the render and if they don't, then the render takes up TOO much room.

You entirely missed my point. The purpose of the signature was to illustrate that massive, brick-sized images are ugly no matter what. I don't care if something exhibits a great degree of skill and the guy who made it is the best "graphic artist" ever: it's a block and is stylistically unsuited to an Internet forum in which the primary mode of communication is text.

Of course, just thinking outloud here, we could just get rid of allowing images in signatures all together, and furthermore just only show someones signature once on a page.

/me goes off to ponder

Originally Posted by Zachery

Of course, just thinking outloud here, we could just get rid of allowing images in signatures all together, and furthermore just only show someones signature once on a page.

/me goes off to ponder

I'm all for the first option, as are several of the staff, but we know that nobody else on the boards save a few would jump for it.

I like signatures. I do not like glowing beveled grunge-style brushed boxes of mediocrity.

Common, you are fighting over the size of signatures!!!! I mean common do we even need sigs, I had mine made because it was a nice idea but not because I needed it.

Sigs are a luxury and a privilage that do not need abuse.