Some Things I'd Like to Share Part II
Administrator
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 20,274
Likes: 4
From: Toronto, Canada
Well first, there are no non-paying members. Second, only members have sigs thus any rule about sigs applies only to paying members. Third what i meant was there were no specific rules about sig size or content except the what's in your sig must meet the same criteria as the posting policy. Fourth, it's not what but who gives the moderators the right to determine if a sig is to big, offensive, annoying or whatever. That who is me. I gave them the right to do so. Fifth and finally, you asked for a rule to be stated and so I stated it. 2 inches tall and must not cause horizontal scrolling when viewing the site in a window 800 pixels wide.
By that measure your signature is still too tall. If you want that rule strictly enforced then fine but i warn you that what you ask for you may not want. I don't find your current signature to be a problem, it's in that "a bit bigger than it needs to be and should be but it's not anything to be pissed about" stage. If you want the mods to act like robots and not use common sense and judgment that's up to you but that's not how it works at present.
I've seen nothing to indicate that any moderator made any kind of poor judgment or mistake in this case. If your sig is too big now it was way too big before. I do see you making a federal case of the issue which I don't see as being necessary.
Everyone says they want things black and white except in cases where they fall somewhere in the middle. You don't want black and white I can assure you so we have to live with varying shades of grey. How black and how white those shades are is in the eye of the viewer. If you want some frame of reference I'd say your sig as I see it now is about 20% black. Black is bad.
All we're asking for is that members be courteous and conscientious about reducing the volume of noise. It may come as a shock but nobody visits this site to see your list of mods. When that list starts to get in the way of the actual thread content then we have a problem. How much is too much? Look around and you tell me.
We want to deliver as much hard content as possible in each page. That's why only members have signatures and why yours is only shown once per page, to reduce the clutter. It's also why we make efforts to control signatures which in our opinion are too large for their own good. We could have said no sigs at all but I like them in moderation. We could have said no images in sigs but images aren't really the problem. The problem is screen real estate and aesthetics. Big ugly sigs are bad, small pretty sigs are good (did I mention that already?).
By that measure your signature is still too tall. If you want that rule strictly enforced then fine but i warn you that what you ask for you may not want. I don't find your current signature to be a problem, it's in that "a bit bigger than it needs to be and should be but it's not anything to be pissed about" stage. If you want the mods to act like robots and not use common sense and judgment that's up to you but that's not how it works at present.
I've seen nothing to indicate that any moderator made any kind of poor judgment or mistake in this case. If your sig is too big now it was way too big before. I do see you making a federal case of the issue which I don't see as being necessary.
Everyone says they want things black and white except in cases where they fall somewhere in the middle. You don't want black and white I can assure you so we have to live with varying shades of grey. How black and how white those shades are is in the eye of the viewer. If you want some frame of reference I'd say your sig as I see it now is about 20% black. Black is bad.
All we're asking for is that members be courteous and conscientious about reducing the volume of noise. It may come as a shock but nobody visits this site to see your list of mods. When that list starts to get in the way of the actual thread content then we have a problem. How much is too much? Look around and you tell me.
We want to deliver as much hard content as possible in each page. That's why only members have signatures and why yours is only shown once per page, to reduce the clutter. It's also why we make efforts to control signatures which in our opinion are too large for their own good. We could have said no sigs at all but I like them in moderation. We could have said no images in sigs but images aren't really the problem. The problem is screen real estate and aesthetics. Big ugly sigs are bad, small pretty sigs are good (did I mention that already?).
Registered User
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 7,584
Likes: 1
From: Baton Rouge, LA
Originally posted by cthree
Well first, there are no non-paying members. Second, only members have sigs thus any rule about sigs applies only to paying members. Third what i meant was there were no specific rules about sig size or content except the what's in your sig must meet the same criteria as the posting policy. Fourth, it's not what but who gives the moderators the right to determine if a sig is to big, offensive, annoying or whatever. That who is me. I gave them the right to do so. Fifth and finally, you asked for a rule to be stated and so I stated it. 2 inches tall and must not cause horizontal scrolling when viewing the site in a window 800 pixels wide.
Well first, there are no non-paying members. Second, only members have sigs thus any rule about sigs applies only to paying members. Third what i meant was there were no specific rules about sig size or content except the what's in your sig must meet the same criteria as the posting policy. Fourth, it's not what but who gives the moderators the right to determine if a sig is to big, offensive, annoying or whatever. That who is me. I gave them the right to do so. Fifth and finally, you asked for a rule to be stated and so I stated it. 2 inches tall and must not cause horizontal scrolling when viewing the site in a window 800 pixels wide.
) would fall in way under your same 2" standard.if you're going to set a standard of sig size, then you should set it in a globally clear and readily interpreted fashion. for example, if you're viewing on a standard 17" monitor at 1024x768, then 2" represents approximately 170 pixels tall. so, that would mean that the sum total of a sig (in both text and images, not including official S2ki badges)) should be less than 170 pixels in height and 800 pixels in width. personally, i think that would be quite small - but hey, i'm not the dictator around here.
if for some reason you're not sure what your 2" standard would interpret to in pixels, i'd be more than happy to throw in and help determine that size.
Administrator
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 20,274
Likes: 4
From: Toronto, Canada
Originally posted by PJK3
i can't help but point out that your standard of measure is meaningless cthree.
i can't help but point out that your standard of measure is meaningless cthree.