I know this has been brought up time and time again by other people, I've tried to stay out of it, but now I understand. It's very frustrating when someone takes down your signature because it's over by a few pixels, or it's a few kb higher. I know it's silly extending the limit, but maybe being less harsh with it. It frustrates me that there are people examining signatures to check their size or limit, I see no point in this at all. Yes, it may be a little bit over, but unless someone makes a fuss over it what is the point removing it. We already have a scroller for huge pictures, and the text loads pretty much instantly, so 3kb over picture hardly is going to crash someone's computer.

And, what's with the code boxes, why not make it into a spoiler.

Edit:I've changed the title because I've changed my stance. Basically someone with a 10/20kb avatar and a 65/60kb signature is using overall 75kb/80kb and gets a bad rating for that. Where as a person with 20kb avatar and a 60kb signature is using 80kb yet goes unpunished. The rule which is there to help people with bad connections, is actually punishing those who use less kb than others. This has very little logic, and seems to me pointless, and if anything, an excuse to punish people for no reason.

Edit: Title changed, hopefully we should make some progress in getting the rule changed now, thanks for the support so far.

Because the loading is still done if it's in a spoiler.
The biggest problem is that if we're 5% lenient with everyone's signature, on the default page setup, that's 20 posts per page. Say that 15 of them are unique people.
5% of 60 = 3.
So that's an extra 15kB anyone has to download if they want to view that page, an extra quarter of a signature. On dial-up, or some internet-enabled phones, that's quite a long time.
Additionally, so we're 5% lenient, that make the 'unofficial' rule 63kB. What if someone has a 64kB sig? Do we allow it? If yes, what about 65kB.
And so on, and so on, and so on?

We've got to draw the line, and that line's been drawn, without causing any major problems as of yet.

65kB is bad? I'm running on 20megs a second so that's 20,000 kb a second, I'm sure I can live with an extra 65kb. I think the idea of limiting it is bad, I don't have any troubles loading any images, and even when they do have trouble loading, the text is the first to appear and always does so instantly.

However I am running at bellow 100KB a second which is mega slow and images slow my compute down a lot, I think the file size limit should stay but the dimentions should go, as long as a sig does not stretch the page by width it is ok to me.

It is I whom checks forum signatures to ensure they're within the limits. I even reported yours the other day. I've been doing it for years and it's become a fun game for me. I'm sorry I frustrate you, but we all need to follow the rules and the staff have already thanked me for my efforts. Although this isn't any reason behind my reports, I have much smaller transfer and bandwidth limits than you. Why should I have to hide all forum signatures and avatars just because you can't lower yours a few pixels? I think 60KiB is pretty generous.

I'm not trying to be insulting, but I find it coincidental that it's always those who recently got their signature removed whom suggest larger limits. As the rules say, decrease the dimensions and compress the image further.

Or stash it in a spoiler if it is only dimensions.

Nope nope nope, that's megabits, not bytes. 8 bits per byte = 2500 KB a second.

And it's not just your internet connection that determines the speed. I have the same speed internet, but when I'm connected to my network with my iPhone, it's incredibly slow loading all the signatures. 60KB is really enough. There's no reason why you should have a signature larger than that.

With my avatar being 10kb lower than the max, but my signature being 5kb over, it seems unfair that I got a positive warn, even though technically I'm overall within the limit.. So if I'm taking the same amount of loading as another forum user could, how come I get get punished and he doesn't? This rule is completely ridiculous, there is no logic behind it what-so-ever. Someone please explain why I get punished, even though what I did was completely acceptable, as it effected no one, and in overall terms, was well within the rules. It seems like a silly rule, one with no basis, just one that likes to punish people, or trip them up. So maybe we should work on removing it, or changing it so that it makes more sense.

Sorry, but it definitely wasn't within the rules. There is no rule that says that having a smaller avatar lets you have a bigger signature. The signature always has to fit within the rules. They clearly state:

You might think it is a silly rule, but the size limit is there to help the people with a slower connection.

And besides, you can save most images in a high-quality JPEG format with very little to no loss of quality, reducing the size by a large amount.

What I meant with well-within the rules is that the rule was to help people with slower connection. Well the rules let me have certain amount for my signature and certain amount for avatar, so lets say for example the total is 110kb, does it matter if the two are 100kb and 10kb, because it goes against the reason for the rule. If the rule is to help people with slow connection, why is it not a rule to combine them? That is why I think it's silly, it's like a mother punishing her child who she gave £120 to spend on shirts, but the child spent £100 on red shirts and only £20 on blue shirts, it really doesn't matter, it's pointless to punish me/child.

It makes little or no sense that that I'm being punished because I'm "making it harder for people to connect" when there are people well within the rules using more kb than me who are making it even harder than I am. Please explain the logic in this, because it's very frustrating that people are being punished with very little reasoning.

Unless something's changed that I've missed, if you have an oversized signature, you'll only get a verbal warn which accounts for nothing other than 'start the month counter again for a warn review'. It's only if you put back an oversized signature when you've recently had one removed that anything more will happen. Imo, the punishments given out are perfectly fair and you'll only be 'punished' if you're unable to double check when you put something back.

We all make mistakes, it's the stupidity of putting back something oversized without checking that gets me.


It means extra work when checking manually.

They're also checked separately when added - avatars are checked to be under 25k when they're uploaded and signatures should be checked to ensure they're under 60k (but whatever it is that's doing the checking doesn't work very well). There's also the problem of dynamic signatures or image rotators that can change without the user knowing - there's certainly more leniency with dynamic signatures since they're slightly 'out of control'.



In most cases, dropping the 'quality' of the signature makes no visual difference, but has a dramatic change in filesize. It's a case of 'be sensible' as much as anything - I could have left my current signature as a PNG with a ~85k filesize, or I could have compressed that PNG to become ~63k, or I could save it as a 100% quality JPG with a ~37k filesize, or 95% quality at ~23k, but really there is nothing wrong with it being a 83% quality JPG with a 14k filesize.

Save your images in a sensible format and you will have no problem with the rule. Save them in unnecessarily 'high quality', the wrong format or have annoying anigifs and clearly the filesize will be larger. Is it too hard to be sensible?

I'm sorry if it seems like it's hard work, but is the excuse of punishing someone for this that the one enforcing the rules are too lazy? From what I've read in this thread, the people reporting the signatures go our of their way to do this, but when the rule is so flawed, is it really right to punish people who in common sense terms, done nothing wrong? I'm not trying to attack the moderating team, because they do a great job, but the roots of this rule seems to be flawed, and I personally think I've been unfairly targeted by a pointless rule.



Likewise, you can't expect people to be an expert on this, I for one use paint and only understand how to save on .png. I've read the guide but it's not very clear on how to save on paint, and from past experiences It radically decreases the quality. Anyway, this is besides the point, the rule is there to make the forum run faster, but in common sense the forum could run slower by using max avatar and signature usage, which is well within the rules.



I admit I made a mistake because I didn't understand until recently how to measure file sizes, anyway the fact is the rule seems to be a silly one because the purpose of the rule is not exactly achieved by enforcing it.

Generally when someone has an oversized signature they head over to the graphics forum where someone lowers the size for them.

And if you were told not to use the signature, why did you go and put it back?

Oh, and ignorance isn't a good excuse. If a cop pulls you over for speeding, saying you didn't know what the speed limit was isn't going to help.

Rules are rules. Sometimes you just need to learn to abide them, rather than arguing with them.
Yes, it is a little harsh, but if the mods are lenient with everyone then it can make a difference. Just go to the Graphics forum and get it resized. No big deal.

Has the last 3 posters read what I've written? I've seen alot of posts trying to distort or move the topic along, I'd rather someone address what I'm saying because it's not very helpful when people are avoiding the content of this thread. I want the reason why there is rule allowing people to use more bandwith and get away with it, where as those using less bandwidth, get punished, please someone tell me the logic, because the only counter argument I've been told is that the moderators can't be bothered to check both the signature and avatar.

And will people stop trying to make it personal, this topic is of the universal rule, I'm just frustrated that I was punished by a flawed system. Of course I should have known better, and I'm taking full responsibility, but when the moderators and admin can't tell me what I've done wrong, I'm very concerned. So please, can someone sensibly address the topic, not my character.



I didn't, I went to the trouble to make a new signature that I thought was within the rules, but regardless, it doesn't matter, because that is not what the point of this thread is about, it is the source of the thread, but not the point of the thread.

That has to be the stupidest comment I've seen. You know what you've done wrong.

Anyway, like I said; rules are rules. Avatars and signatures are two seperate entities of these forums and thus, have two seperate rules. It takes next to no effort to go into the Graphics forum and request that your signature be resized.

Yeah, but I've never gotten a legibly-sized image to fit in JPEG and be under 60kB. If I do, it's some ridiculously low quality (like, under 30%), and it looks like crap.

With a PNG, I can manage about 62kB under similar conditions in a 16- or 24-bit. If I'm lucky. To get it under 60kB, I have to go down to 8-freaking-bit, which, like the low-qual JPEGs, looks like crap. And then I even have knocked the file size down to like 8kB for no apparent reason.

Knowing that you're one of the graphics types around here, maybe you know how to circumvent this, but I have no clue.

A rule is there to punish people for doing something wrong. The signature rule is stop people using excessive bandwidth so there is a limit. I was 5kb over, and 10kb under on my signature and avatar, so I was using the same bandwidth as someone else who is perfectly fine. So please, please, tell me what I was doing wrong, and how this hurt the forum. You are arguing that there is a rule so we all have to follow the rule like sheep, but when the rule makes little sense, it is right for me to argue that it needs to be changed.

People aren't allowed to have 85kb signatures without avatars, so why should you be allowed the same except to a lesser extreme? It's like saying you should bend every rule to suit your needs.

What I don't understand is that, according to Neo, you must have been given a verbal already for an oversized signature for you to have gotten warned. How can you possibly be mad that you were warned if you were specifically told not to do it?

Will the last 3 posters read the thread, you are all ignoring what I'm saying. I'm saying the rule is wrong, me being punished for rule is slightly irrelevant. You are all arguing that it's a rule, a rule with no reason, but a rule, so we should follow it like sheep. If a rule has little sense then it should be changed, that's what I'm arguing here, not one person has told me why it shouldn't be changed, so if you want to have a good argument, tell me why the rule shouldn't be changed, because the last 3 posters are stating the obvious.

I agree with Choccy, the last time I got punished for my siggy was because I was 13 pixels over. 13 pixels is hardly going to cause internet problems. You could at least allow siggys to be about 5kb or 25 pixels over the limit.

That's not what I'm saying, I'm saying it should be an umbrella rule with avatar and signature having a combined limit.

I don't know what software you use, but I've never had to go below ~90% to get a signature under 60k.


Problem is, there are ways to automatically check them individually when they're added (you can't upload an avatar over 25k), but nothing that I've seen which lets you set a limit for the two combined. If it's a combined limit, you'd also need to be able to have an 85k avatar and no signature to make it fair - tada, you've just opened another can or worms!

Well if you're not going to change the rule, why not design a system that won't allow you to upload a signature that is over the limits, like there is with avatars.

I'm sure the answer to that is simple, set a pixel size limit for the avatar so we don't get giant avatars. If your talking about file size I don't understand your problem, because it should be the same loading, the only objection I could see is this website not wanting to upload bigger avatars. Anyway, if you admit that the rule isn't perfect, then why is it still so heavily enforced? The limit for the two would be set like a rule, it just means that if someone has a tiny avatar, they can maybe make their signature a bit more quality. Or maybe a rule letting signatures be larger if the avatar is smaller. Either way, signatures shouldn't be taken down if the avatar is much smaller, I'm sure right clicking on 2 images, is much simpler than right clicking on 1 and creating a report, then for the admin/mod to edit/remove the signature.

Anyway, thanks for getting back to me, I hope we can work a way around this.

What about we extend the size limit by 0kb, scrap the dimensions as long as it doesn't stretch the page and the problem is: 60+kb and 10kb loads slower than 21kb and 60- kb.
I do think sigs need a change by scrapping dimensions but file size we keep.

If we changed it to say...100kb then someone alse would moan saying "omg i have only 1kb ova siz3 limittz! 101 kb wn't make a dffrence lulllll" and then it'll go on and one to say a megabyte and that will really fudge up your internet if you have dialup. /topic. I see where you're getting at though.

Didn't she suggested to make the two filesizes of the avvy and sig combined? Personally I think it's a great idea
'omg that would be impossible to do'
Everything's possible.
'we will have to check two images instead of one' *
Check my signature, what's the filesize of that? and it could check automatic?

Wasn't one of your signature images like 171k?

I'm pretty sure my second one was around 65k, I have no clue about my first, it was just a cropped image, but yes, that was bad, but this topic is about the second signature, the one I got the warn for. But yes, I take full responsibility for the first one being of stupid size. However, my case is still irrelevant, what I'd prefer is that the rule gets changed for other people, because I'm obviously not going to get my warn redeemed.

Rules are here to keep order, not to punish people. If the admins truly wanted to punish people, they would do it for no reason. You punish people for breaking them, not following them.

Yeah sure, Just imagine someone having a signature this big, bad idea.

@Ambo: check file size? Way over 60kb

^ 59.67 KB ^

So how about that it checks if your sig is within all the limits with combined size limit of sig and avvy?

With the imminent update to the forum, I don't see the point in finding or developing a modification right now. Bring it up again after the update and I'm sure you'll have a better chance.

Well surely while we are waiting, it would make sense not to remove signatures when the avatar and signature are combined within the limit?

I'm sorry, just struggling to understand what your saying. Am I right in saying that they shouldn't be combined because It would be giving the person an extra 10-15kb to use? But if they are already aloud to use 10-15kb extra, then what is wrong with this?

I have to agree with the rule on this one. I am running on a 100 megabytes per second, so I don't really care how big the signatures are, but I may be one of the few. Some people might have much slower connections, and we're not going to make it impossible for them to view sals just because you can view it anyways..

Pinky, please read the thread. The connection speed would still be within the rule, so the maximum you can use between signature and avatar can be used now within the rules, however I would like to merge the rules so that if the avatar is much bellow the max, the signature size can be increased. In theory your using the same amount of bandwith as the person who is using the 2 max signatures and avatars, so I can't see what's wrong with this.

While you make a valid point regarding the total file size, there is a very simple reason that we aren't going to change the rule to a total between signature and avatar: inconvenience for the staff. It is already enough of a pain to check signatures as they are, and adding in avatars to that would just make it even more of an inconvenience. If a board mod existed that would automatically limit you to X kB combined between signature and avatar then I could see the rule being modified in the future, but until then it simply isn't going to change.

And, quite frankly, to say that "This has very little logic ... and if anything, an excuse to punish people for no reason" is completely outrageous. It is incredibly obnoxious to suggest that the staff is just looking for excuses to punish people without reason.


Images in a spoiler still load when the page loads (regardless of whether you can visually see the image or not), so putting a 100kB image in a spoiler will not help the issue of file size. The easiest solution is to throw it all into a code box.

I'm sure the extra 10-15kb can be used for bigger or higher definition pictures, if the 10-15kg doesn't make any difference then in that logic we could all have 1kb signatures and it would all be the same. Or am I missing something?




I can understand that it would be harder work, but their are signatures with 2,3,4 photo's, I know my old one has about 6 mini-pictures, I'm sure right clicking on one extra picture is not very hard. While It may be a bit of an inconvenience, the inconvenience of spending hours making signature, to find it's a few kb too big is frustrating too. I'm not sure how the system currently works, if normal members check, or if moderators go through the user list. Maybe we could find a simple way of getting round this, like those using less on avatar and more on signature putting a simple asterisk in their signature, but I'd rather we come to a solution than just leave this like it is.



I'm sorry if you understood me differently when I said "excuses to punish people". What I meant was the only possible excuses are so outrageous that this rule must be just overlooked by accident. It was merely an a example to say that I can not understand how this rule is in place. In other words, I would never suggest the staff are power hungry maniacs, because that would be just silly. Although, I do agree (reading back) I worded it very bad so I'll edit that, sorry for the confusion. I also agree I got a bit lost in this thread, at first I was annoyed/angry , but I've changed my position throughout the thread to one that is more constructive.

And I used the words very little logic, because the rule seems to contain very little logic, if 2 people are doing the same thing, and one gets punished and the other doesn't, it's clear to see what gone wrong, but people failed to grasp that, which is why I used these words.

Having spend a few years using PhotoShop, and having had my signature removed multiple times in the past for it being oversized, I've learned that it isn't THAT difficult to get a signature to under 60kB (in PhotoShop, anyways). What I usually do is save it as PNG, and if that ends up being too big then I'll save it as JPG, usually at around 96 quality (I don't know what the 96 represents. There is no visible difference between saving a signature at 100 quality on JPG, 96 quality on JPG, or saving it as a PNG. I'd offer to downsize your signature's file size myself, but PhotoShop crashes most of the time when I try to open it so I'm not sure if I would be able to.


This rule was not overlooked by accident; I'm pretty sure that this suggestion has come up in the past. And it's come up for good reason: at first glance, you have a very convincing argument. It doesn't seem logical that someone with a 5kB avatar and 70kB signature could be punished, but someone with a 20kB avatar and 60kB signature wouldn't. But then when you look deeper into the situation, there is very good logic for the rule being set up the way it is: moderators don't have an infinite amount of time to dedicate to this forum, so to make them check another image's filesize is just a waste of their time - time that could be used doing other moderation of the forums.

Changing the rule from its current state would possibly let you have a slightly larger signature (which is unnecessary since you can already bring it down to under 60kB relatively easily as it is), but would create extra work for the staff. Leaving the rule as it is leaves less work for moderators, but annoys a couple of forum members. The choice seems somewhat obvious.


Without right clicking to check the file size, can you tell which of these is 57kB and which is 70kB? I can't.


(This signature was made by Arrogance.)

I went back to see when this was previously discussed, and found this topic. I didn't read through it so I don't know what the outcome of the discussion was (beyond the fact that the rule never was changed).

I'm going to be honest, I'm not so sure on the technical side of things, so I'll take your word for it. I still struggle to understand how it works, seems very magical haha. But yes, I guess if that's possible then your right, however I'm not sure how to do that, nor do I think atleast, other forum members, so it'd be nice if someone can add that to the signature guide, because I doubt the majority of the community will know how to do that. As for the combined rule, It is perhaps a bit hard to check up on all signatures and avatars, but perhaps relaxing the punishment for those who are under combined limit, or possibly leaving the signature if both are under, unless someone prompts you to do so?

Anyway, I'm glad this is finally progressing a bit faster.

If someone wants their signature resized, they can go to the graphics section and ask for it to be resized.