Jump to content
Sal's RuneScape Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Choccy

Signature & Avatar's Combined Rule

Recommended Posts

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. :box:

 

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. :wizard:

Edited by Choccy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. :wizard:

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. :wizard:

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.

Edited by Choccy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. :wizard:

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.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Edited by Choccy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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, I know people like power, but this is just over the top...

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:

Signatures appear below each of your posts, and may contain any amount of text (including links), spacing and images as you like, as long as it fits within an area of 500x200 pixels, and 60kb. Essentially, you can have multiple lines of text, and multiple images, but they must not exceed the total dimension limit, or the total filesize limit.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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, I know people like power, but this is just over the top...

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:

Signatures appear below each of your posts, and may contain any amount of text (including links), spacing and images as you like, as long as it fits within an area of 500x200 pixels, and 60kb. Essentially, you can have multiple lines of text, and multiple images, but they must not exceed the total dimension limit, or the total filesize limit.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
just one that likes to punish people

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.

 

If the rule is to help people with slow connection, why is it not a rule to combine them?

It means extra work when checking manually. :wizard:

 

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If the rule is to help people with slow connection, why is it not a rule to combine them?

It means extra work when checking manually. :wizard:

 

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.

 

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?

 

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.

 

just one that likes to punish people

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 over-sized without checking that gets me.

 

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.

Edited by Choccy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If the rule is to help people with slow connection, why is it not a rule to combine them?

It means extra work when checking manually. :wizard:

 

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.

 

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?

 

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.

 

just one that likes to punish people

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 over-sized without checking that gets me.

 

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.

Edited by redmonke

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rules are rules. Sometimes you just need to learn to abide them, rather than arguing with them. :wizard:

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stop using the argument that you were unfairly punished.

You were punished according to the rules, meaning you should either read them better, or you should've made this argument before you got warned.

 

~Razorlike

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stop using the argument that you were unfairly punished.

You were punished according to the rules, meaning you should either read them better, or you should've made this argument before you got warned.

 

~Razorlike

 

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.

 

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

 

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.

Edited by Choccy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

That has to be the stupidest comment I've seen. :wizard: 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.

Edited by Kemosabe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

That has to be the stupidest comment I've seen. :wizard: 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.

 

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.

Edited by Choccy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

That has to be the stupidest comment I've seen. :wizard: 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.

 

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. :box:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

You didn't follow the rules! Understand it! The rule is not a total size, but two seperate ones, since otherwise checking signatures is too much of a pain.

 

~Razorlike

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. :wizard:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines and Privacy Policy.