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

Signature & Avatar's Combined Rule

Recommended Posts

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.

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

 

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:

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! :box:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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:

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! :/

 

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. :box:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. :wizard:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. :wizard:

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?

Edited by Roy

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.

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.

Edited by Choccy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

 

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

 

 

googiw_wallpaper_cat_-1.jpg

 

 

 

Edited by Ambo100

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
@Ambo: check file size? Way over 60kb

 

33yggf5.jpg

 

 

 

^ 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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
@Ambo: check file size? Way over 60kb

 

33yggf5.jpg

 

 

 

^ 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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
@Ambo: check file size? Way over 60kb

 

33yggf5.jpg

 

 

 

^ 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?

Edited by Choccy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No since the extra 10-15 kB you gain, does nothing for the quality. You might as well make both of them under their kB restriction.

 

~Razorlike

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No since the extra 10-15 kB you gain, does nothing for the quality. You might as well make both of them under their kB restriction.

 

~Razorlike

 

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? :wizard:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Edited by Choccy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No since the extra 10-15 kB you gain, does nothing for the quality. You might as well make both of them under their kB restriction.

 

~Razorlike

 

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? :wizard:

No, I'm saying there is no need to get an extra 10-15kB for your signature, since it doesn't maky any difference in quality.

It only makes it harder to check.

 

~Razorlike

Edited by Razorlike

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

 

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

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, I'm saying there is no need to get an extra 10-15kB for your signature, since it doesn't maky any difference in quality.

It only makes it harder to check.

 

~Razorlike

 

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?

 

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

Edited by Choccy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

 

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.

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.

 

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.

 

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.

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. :wizard:

 

No, I'm saying there is no need to get an extra 10-15kB for your signature, since it doesn't maky any difference in quality.

It only makes it harder to check.

 

~Razorlike

 

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?

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

313rr4m.jpg

jokerjg0.jpg

(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).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. pfft.gif

 

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. :box: 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. :wizard:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. pfft.gif

 

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. :box: 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. :wizard:

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. pfft.gif

 

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. :box: 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. :wizard:

The underlying point that hasn't been tacked is that, with the "guaranteed" one-month reduction (given good behaviour, of course) on warn levels, verbal warns have become something less than a nudge and one full warn has become half a slap on the wrist. It's not as if one warn will ever do anything to anyone, especially if you've behaved well (and you did), and, moreover, they do nothing permanent at all - relaxing the punishment would effectively nullify it completely...

 

...I wouldn't be opposed to this suggestion at all. But frankly, it's a pain in the upper thighs already to check signatures - adding avatars to the mix seems..irrational to say the least, bar any automatic way to check (we do have such a mod installed, but it apparently does not work).

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.