Well, I was reading rebelsean's complaint about the signature height (he presumably seemed to remove later on) where we did some research.

In my geek-ish research, I found out that it is technically limited to 125px high.
Someone else, in their legal research discovered the rules say the limit is 125px.

Nonetheless, I'm not going to discuss the fabulous congruence between theory and praxis on this board right now, anyway.

What I'd like to request is:
Increasing the height limit to 150


Wait, don't start typing below yet.
Before you say this would make threads look bad and sigs too big I ask back: Why?

Currently, if the limit was set to 150px, it would be noticeable, but the layout can be slightly tweaked in some ways so that it doesn't make any difference:


Edited: click for full size.


This is Zaher's sig in one of his posts seen on Firefox 1.0.6 with all block elements (here div's and p's) outlined in a way they are not modified, just marked, and a nice ruler I just found in an extension. Units are in 10px.

Firstly, and most important: Zaher's sig is exactly 125px high and still it shows cropped because there is a roughly 12px of padding on the top of the sig's div which causes it to be cropped at approx 113px height. Extending my geek research I found that the sig's div has 10px padding and 1px border, which pushes the sig 11px down.
Appart from this apparent bug, As you see, the ruler sizes 150px height, and this fits into the post, still preserving the top padding and also including some bottom padding. The problem is, that the "IP Address Logged" block uses that space.

In my humblest opinion, that IP address notice, appart from being almost completely useless for non-staff, takes much too much space. Actually, it could be placed over the Timestamp in the postbit or over the sig, to the left of the edited-post notice, when present, or simply below the post body, when not.

I'm posting this because I've made great efforts to fit my new signature to 150px height, which I thought was the most logical and acceptable limit, and I suppose many others also did feeling fustrated by this tight limit.

I hope this can be modified in one of the mentioned ways or any other.

Thanks for reading.

Edit: boredom has no limits

but the problem isn't just space used... if a signature is too big it can be too much of a distraction...  sure my current sigs might be distracting but if they were any bigger i'm sure people would be furious

TBH, we should be allowed to have at least 200px because that is a VERY reasonable size. 150 is VERY small, not to mention that there is already a few peoples signatures that are getting cut off (Omar's for example).

Nevertheless, I doubt that would happen, so I do agree with Keystorm .

I deleted that thread because I read the sig size in the preview thing wrong

Edit: About the IP address logged, I think that should totaly be removed from members view because we dont have access, nor do we need access to see any members IP address.

The only use for it to non-staff I could figure was to warn malicious users about IP's being tracked. But the's already stated in the registration agreement, if I'm not wrong, so this would just work as a reminder.

It certainly has a slight use, but I still think sigs could use that space better and that notice could be moved to somewhere else.

People, read again.

He isnt saying its too small, he's pointing out bugs that cause it to be smaller than 150px and essentially saying to scrap the IP Address: Logged bit.

quote:

---

Originally posted by KeyStorm
The only use for it to non-staff I could figure was to warn malicious users about IP's being tracked. But the's already stated in the registration agreement, if I'm not wrong, so this would just work as a reminder.

It certainly has a slight use, but I still think sigs could use that space better and that notice could be moved to somewhere else.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by XxRebelSeanxX
Why do members need to see something in which we cannot use?

---

IMHO 125 is too small.

Should be upped more.

Blah, good reasoning, nobody doubt of your geek capacity, but is really necessary?

It would compensate the inverted work for these results, would not be a superficial necessity?

Well, I just wanted to give a solid support to my arguments, not that we have to hold a large discussion about why wnd why not. If more argumentable facts appear, I'll try to argument more, but I think I covered all possible counter-arguments, at least the most obvious ones.

Well, the first discussion would be if it is really necessary, isn´t it?

sure... ok you make it so that you can utilise space and stuff more efficiently... but why increase the limit on the sig?

the limit is there for a reason and i think the people who placed it there did think about what they wanted for the forum.

edit: i'm sorry for basically posting the same info again... but i only do it because no one seems to have given a reasonable reply

Ask yourself: Why do I like having a nice and artistic signature?

Is having a sig really necessary? No
Is having that IP Address taking space necessary? No
Do people like bloating their sigs with information about themselves or homebrew creativity? Yes

I'm just claiming some existing space for signatres. It's not a question about vital need. however I find more prioritary the signature space than the IP Address notice, tbh.


Edit:

quote:

---

Originally posted by gif83
the limit is there for a reason and i think the people who placed it there did think about what they wanted for the forum.

---

sorry for putting this point in for the third time... but the space is not the only problem... your solution claims space for a larger signature... but the limit is there to ensure the signature is not too large... because of reasons including but not soley because of the space it takes up.

edit: after your edit i feel compelled to give some examples of some of the reasons... 

a large signature can be distracting (point already made)

signatures become overwhelming in comparison to post content if too big

edit2:

quote:

---

Originally posted by KeyStorm
What I'd like to request is:
Increasing the height limit to 150

---

I'm trying to increase size limit in a way it would reduce overall height of posts.
Also, remember that for short posts, the occasionally stretching item is not the signature itself, but the postbit*, which can take certainly more than 300px height in most cases.

*The postbit is the left part of your post where a light version of your profile is shown.
Edit: This post is a clear example of what I'm trying to state.

i think there should be more signature space b/c the bottom of my signature gets cut off

but you could make the same changes and keep the same limit...

as for the stretching on the left, that would be a different problem to solve. anyway, stretching on the left only means that there is space between the posts, not making things any harder to read.

keeping a small sig limit would encourage people to have smaller sigs which tend to be better thought out.

anyways, i think the posts i have made basically cover what i have wanted to say...

to wrap up, i reckon keystorm has found a great way of utilising improved formatting to save on space. whether this empty space is unwanted i leave open to debate. sometimes space is needed for breathing.....
what i think would be a bad idea is to use the new formatting to allow larger signatures (i.e. increasing limit). this is mainly due to, in my humble opinion, the way that larger signatures can overwhelm a thread.

thankyoupleasecomeagain

I understand, but usually in most community boards I've been (I hardly dare to say all of them), the limit has been, at least 150px. I'm not requesting some huge 200+px, no. Just 25 pixels more, roughly the size of an emoticon.

I know that this extension of the rule sould be very much accepted among community members who usually find in their signatures an affordable way to publish they minimal artworks.

well your suggestion isn't unreasonable... i gues you will have to leave that up to the people who decided it should be 125px to change their minds.... maybe bribe them?

but remember.. by limiting sig size.. you increase creativity and allow, or even promote young budding artists to become rather inventive...  i say... lets see wehat you can come up with
sig limits can provide great challenges for these members..

I see your point, Keystorm. If you are only using existing space and not creating any more, then what is the problem? Perhaps if you offer nicely to recode the page they might let you
however, if it was my choice, I'd say no based solely on the argument that if you can't manage to convey what you want with the existing limit, you will probably be no more successful with an extra 25 pixels.

If it really bothers you, try making your avatar 150 pixels high. They don't have a limit on the height.

Edit: No, I guess it doesn't work

sigh...

Read the post!

KeyStorm said that the 125 pixels ISNT COMPLETLY USEABLE because of the 'IP Address: Logged' button.

quote:

---

Originally posted by gif83
well your suggestion isn't unreasonable... i gues you will have to leave that up to the people who decided it should be 125px to change their minds.... maybe bribe them?

but remember.. by limiting sig size.. you increase creativity and allow, or even promote young budding artists to become rather inventive...  i say... lets see wehat you can come up with
sig limits can provide great challenges for these members..

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Purity

IMHO 125 is too small

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by KeyStorm
Firstly, and most important: Zaher's sig is exactly 125px high and still it shows cropped because there is a roughly 12px of padding on the top of the sig's div which causes it to be cropped at approx 113px height.

---

code:

---

.signature {
    border-top: 1px dashed #000000;
    padding-top: 10px;
    margin-top: 10px;
    width: 100%;
    max-height: 125px;
    overflow: hidden;
    height: expression(this.scrollHeight>125?"125px":"auto");
}

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by KeyStorm
In my humblest opinion, that IP address notice, appart from being almost completely useless for non-staff, takes much too much space. Actually, it could be placed over the Timestamp in the postbit or over the sig, to the left of the edited-post notice, when present, or simply below the post body, when not.

---

bah, if i have to see it, everyone has to

jk but to be honest, i wouldnt like the max size to be bigger it is good enough as it is. Even if wdz removed that thingy for non-staff, i would hate it to see even bigger images as sigs

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chrono
bah, if i have to see it, everyone has to

jk but to be honest, i wouldnt like the max size to be bigger it is good enough as it is. Even if wdz removed that thingy for non-staff, i would hate it to see even bigger images as sigs

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chrono
one banhammer to rule them all...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Anderton
"it'd be a pain to 56kers"

---

Everything is fine as it is. Adding more space will make people want to make bigger signatures.

And what's so important about signatures aside from showing off your Photoshopping or text aligning abilities? Nothing. It doesn't help anyone.

Tbh, images with 70px of height are already too tall in a signature. I don't even want to mention a 150px image...

Cheers!

Hi Leo

Your signature measures roughly 80px height.

To why it should be increased: Most boards have 150+px height. If I create a sig for those, it will be a pain in the ass to specifically create one for these. As I said, I misleadedly thought this board allowed 150px height. So I created a signature of 500x150, because this was the usual limit I found elsewhere. As I read RebelSean's post I noticed it wasn't, so I felt personal frustration. Later I was thinking in a way to solve it. Many use 150px high signatures (which is btw not too much, there's plenty of boards, as said, that allow 200px), so it would be good to find a workaround in the board, so that the sigs don't stretch the post down, which was for me the primary counter-argument I may have found.
I people don't want to see sigs because they have a low resolution or a slow connection, they can always disable them from the CP.

About the code:
I'm no CSS expert either, but as I see, Opera has a different concept of 'height' as Mozilla.
Disregarding which may be right and which one wrong I suggest the following:

Post template

code:

---

<div class="sigholder">
<div class="sigbody">
<!--Signature goes here-->
</div>
</div>

---

code:

---

.sigholder{
    border-top: 1px dashed #000000;
    padding-top: 10px;
    padding-left: 0px;
    padding-right: 0px;
    margin-top: 10px;
    width: 100%;
}
.sigbody {
    border-size: 0px 0px 0px 0px
    padding: 0px 0px 0px 0px;
    margin: 0px 0px 0px 0px;
    width: 100%;
    max-height: 125px;
    overflow: hidden;
    height: expression(this.scrollHeight>125?"125px":"auto");
}

---

I wouldnt mind the extra pixels in height...

56kers? they still exist?

Why does it need to be bigger? Its bad enough already, that when I go to forums and try to read through the post, only to find that every post has a signature attached, which is 2-5 times larger than the post....

What's wrong with 125px? Are people who make signatures too lazy to set the canvas size in Photoshop (or w/e u use) to 125px heigh? Its not hard...

I want to read the posts, not spend half an hour loading, and browsing through signatures....

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fourjays
I want to read the posts, not spend half an hour loading, and browsing through signatures....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by KeyStorm

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fourjays
I want to read the posts, not spend half an hour loading, and browsing through signatures....

---

1. HTML loads before images, and in proper browsers it should show before.

2. Signatures are usually cached.

3.It's as difficult to set canvas to 125px as to 150px, so please leave stupid arguments out.

4. I'm just asking for a 20% more, not dozens of times higher. Even I'm suggesting a way so that the post size does not increase, so you are seing the same space anyway. And yes, there's also some 'air' in between.

5. Actually if you yourself, Fourjays, post only one line, your signature will be 5 times higher than your post. And still, your postbit will be higher than the whole other.

---

I've presented a way it does not impact thread's view (heck it will even save space!). It seems you didn't read the reasons on the first post and why I didn't request 200 or 300 pixels straight along.

Thanks

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fourjays
What's wrong with 125px? Are people who make signatures too lazy to set the canvas size in Photoshop (or w/e u use) to 125px heigh? Its not hard...

---

I totally agree with the fact that we should not see the ip logged thing because it is no use to us. However comes the problems for admins. They will see no change, and will therefore not want to change something they won't even be able to test out themselves

quote:

---

Originally posted by XxRebelSeanxX
He is not asking for a increase in signature sizes, he is asking for the REAL size to be implemented, 150x in heighth (sp?). ATM the limit is 125px in height because of the IP Address: logged line.

---

* Sigs are signatures!, not full blown art works and even not banners!. They can be "a piece of art" or they can contain a small banner, but the purpose of a sig is not to be highres "artwork" or a full blown site banner.
* Complaints about sig space are mostly done by people who don't seem to be able to put the text/art/whatver they want in a small size. Learn to be creative, use a decent graphic editors, use your imagination. 75% of all sigs I see can be made much smaller, yet containing all the visual elements as the original and be as good looking (or even better).
* People who say they need +200px height sigs need to learn how to create appealing graphics and need to learn what a sig is. Sorry to be so blunt, but this needs to be said.
* Large sigs can be (heck, they always are) very distracting, and a forum isn't an art gallery. The main purpose of a forum is to read posts, not to stare at massive sigs made in paintbrush and to scroll constantly to read 3 posts.
* Small sigs encourage creativity.
* Signatures become very overwhelming in comparison to post content if too big.
* In case of 1 line posts, it is a big no-no if sigs enlarge the total used space for a post even more. But this doesn't mean there is currently space available. True, if you use the maximum allowed avatar height, the userbit table is the biggest element. But as it is now, the total size of an average sig vs. the average userbit table is perfect.
* The empty space before/after a sig is very welcome, and as Gif83 has said, is very welcome for a "breather". Not everything needs to be crammed together.
* Many sigs are just 1 big word or couple of words. Why do they need to be so high???? We do can read normal print too, we are not blind.
* Why do you _have_ to use all the available space for a sig???
* Do people like bloating their sigs with information about themselves or homebrew creativity? Yes. But that doesn't mean limits should increase at all. It means those people need to learn how to be creative and even how to link to a page with their bloats if needed. Are such bloated big sigs usefull? Absolutely not and they even cause more aggrivation to the serious reader than causing "joy" to the "spammer".


------------------

examples:

MR_5_MR:
http://shoutbox.menthix.net/showthread.php?tid=50...d=530509#pid530509
You could easly make that sig 10 even 20px or more smaller and still have all the visual impact it has now. Even if you don't want to do that, the space between the topsticker and the logo can also be decreased.

mandorallen:
http://shoutbox.menthix.net/showthread.php?tid=50...d=530475#pid530475
No offense though, but your sig is a nice example of 1 word sigs, which could easly be made smaller. (So, I'm not saying yours is too big, cause it isn't, it's just a nice example of 1 word sigs)

John Anderton:
http://shoutbox.menthix.net/showthread.php?tid=50...d=530678#pid530678
Another example of 1 word sigs with a "lets make a massive size background just for the heck of it". This one will loose nothing of its appeal if it is even simply cropped by a few pixels. (Again, no offense, and yours isn't too big at all. It is just to show some complainers that you can crop down sigs without loosing anything.)

How bad it can get:
Look on mess.be. Without throwing mud to mess.be or the admins/mods, but the "sig policy" there is one of the reasons that mess.be is hard to read for a serious poster and the allowance of sig massive sigs just increases the feeling of "spamming" also. I don't have anything against such stuff on some forums, but is mess.be suppose to be a spam forum or a informative forum? Luckaly it has been approved a bit by the new policy, but still... What I mean is, on a forum which has no real purpose and is mostly used to chitchat, I don't have any problems with massive sigs or even spam for that matter, but not on forums which are suppose to be informative. If I want to chitchat/spam I don't care about massive sigs either, if I want to learn/research/whatever, I don't want a 500px height sig with no usefull info what-so-ever besides the user's name in big bold to stare at me.


------------------

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lee Jeffery

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Anderton
"it'd be a pain to 56kers"

---

that just doesnt make any sense at all, as sigs that are too big are simply hidden but they still load :/

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by KeyStorm
To why it should be increased: Most boards have 150+px height. If I create a sig for those, it will be a pain in the ass to specifically create one for these. As I said, I misleadedly thought this board allowed 150px height.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by KeyStorm
If people don't want to see sigs because they have a low resolution or a slow connection, they can always disable them from the CP.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by KeyStorm
1. HTML loads before images, and in proper browsers it should show before.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by KeyStorm
2. Signatures are usually cached.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by KeyStorm
4. I'm just asking for a 20% more, not dozens of times higher.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by CookieRevised
But the space in front of a sig shouldn't be touched IMHO

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by CookieRevised
* Sigs are signatures!, not full blown art works and even not banners!. They can be "a piece of art" or they can contain a small banner, but the purpose of a sig is not to be highres "artwork" or a full blown site banner.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by KeyStorm
Ask yourself: Why do I like having a nice and artistic signature?

Is having a sig really necessary? No
Is having that IP Address taking space necessary? No
Do people like bloating their sigs with information about themselves or homebrew creativity? Yes

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by WDZ

quote:

---

Originally posted by XxRebelSeanxX
He is not asking for a increase in signature sizes, he is asking for the REAL size to be implemented, 150x in heighth (sp?). ATM the limit is 125px in height because of the IP Address: logged line.

---

What? No, that's not correct.

The limit for signature height is 125px, not 150px. The IP Address text has no effect on the signature size limit. It is not inside the signature <div>. However, removing the IP text would save a bit of space, space that could be used to justify increasing the maximum signature height limit.

---

No, Sean, he means that the limit is still 125px. However, due to an issue with the CSS on Firefox it does show only like 114px of your sig.

The IP Adress does not take space from the sig nor cover it partially.

quote:

---

Originally posted by KeyStorm
Anyway, I could be quoting all the day but there's nothing else to say from my part, so well...

Hope that issue gets fixed and hope I lose some laziness in my life...

---

quote:

---

.sigbody {
border-size: 0px 0px 0px 0px

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by WDZ
What's that? I don't think it's a valid CSS property... O_o

---

KeyStorm, don't you mean "border-width: 0px"?

quote:

---

Originally posted by KeyStorm
No, Sean, he means that the limit is still 125px. However, due to an issue with the CSS on Firefox it does show only like 114px of your sig.

---

Well, I finally put my new sig.

Will it be removed? Who knows...

quote:

---

Originally posted by KeyStorm
Late-edit: You were right, it's border-width, but now I doubt that 4-side setting is possible with border as it is in margin and padding.

---

quote:

---

Well, I finally put my new sig.

Will it be removed? Who knows...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by KeyStorm
I doubt that 4-side setting is possible

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by WDZ
BTW, I didn't even modify the signature template yet... :lazy:

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lou_habs
That means you will?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ShawnZ
It is. Border-top,-left,-bottom,-right are valid properties.

---

code:

---

border-width: <top> <right> <bottom> <left>

---

code:

---

border-width: 0px
or
border-width:thin

---

TESTING

My sig is 125 pixels high, and the whole thing is showing, right? I tried it in Opera, IE, and FireFox and it looks good...

Hm.. great. Thanks

Thanks WDZ, and thanks KeyStorm for making a good arguement & good reasoning. 

Good work guys Now i can see the entire sig
Btw i just came on the forum after a few days and i was wondering why i couldnt see the dotted line thingy between the post and the signatures. They were looking like one big text and it was sooooooooo dodgy
So i came here to tell u that if thats the solution then it sucks but the line re-appeared
Any ideas ???

Btw .... KS <3 ur new sig and i understand how you did it Btw that fade out thing looks awesome with the bluish background

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Anderton
Btw i just came on the forum after a few days and i was wondering why i couldnt see the dotted line thingy between the post and the signatures. They were looking like one big text and it was sooooooooo dodgy
So i came here to tell u that if thats the solution then it sucks but the line re-appeared
Any ideas ???

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by WDZ
TESTING

My sig is 125 pixels high, and the whole thing is showing, right? I tried it in Opera, IE, and FireFox and it looks good...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The sig

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by WDZ
You probably had the old CSS file cached, although I updated the CSS like 24 hours before I updated the template...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lou_habs

quote:

---

Originally posted by WDZ
TESTING

My sig is 125 pixels high, and the whole thing is showing, right? I tried it in Opera, IE, and FireFox and it looks good...

---

lol. Shows up perfect!

Its an awesome sig

quote:

---

Originally posted by The sig

---

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Anderton
Yeah i know it was so tough to make that sig .... dz has so many diverse styles

---

quote:

---

And why does dz use the images/member folder to store his sigs

---

quote:

---

Get ur own server

---

dubya deezee?  How about when you click on the image, lets say it's suppose to be 200 px hight.  but it gets cropped,  how about when you click it shows the fullsize sig.   Just a side suggestion.  java script?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Purity
dubya deezee?  How about when you click on the image, lets say it's suppose to be 200 px hight.  but it gets cropped,  how about when you click it shows the fullsize sig.   Just a side suggestion.  java script?

---

Signatures are not cropped in member profiles, so just go there.

No, that's gay.  Just have a lil text link, not even. or a + sign.

Comeon, is that too much work for you? : <!!

Sorry if i didn't read the whole threads but where did the dashed line go?   I hate forums that flow posts straight into sigs.

its still here for me.

quote:

---

Originally posted by fluffy_lobster
Sorry if i didn't read the whole threads but where did the dashed line go?   I hate forums that flow posts straight into sigs.

---