Signatures

Ron Earp

Ron Earp

Administrator
I've noticed a couple of large photos in signatures on the site. Could we turn this feature off? I find it annoying to continually have to see the same picture, quite large in fact, over and over again with a user's posts. Most successful forums do not allow such practices as it uses bandwidth, increases load times, and and disrupts reading flow for long threads.

Ron
 
I think we're going to have to take you out downtown and pay for some services. It clearly has been too long.
 
I've noticed a couple of large photos in signatures on the site. Could we turn this feature off? I find it annoying to continually have to see the same picture, quite large in fact, over and over again with a user's posts. Most successful forums do not allow such practices as it uses bandwidth, increases load times, and and disrupts reading flow for long threads.

Ron [/b]
Click to expand...



colreb.jpg
 
I've noticed a couple of large photos in signatures on the site. Could we turn this feature off? I find it annoying to continually have to see the same picture, quite large in fact, over and over again with a user's posts. Most successful forums do not allow such practices as it uses bandwidth, increases load times, and and disrupts reading flow for long threads.

Ron [/b]
Click to expand...
I agree 100%.

And on a related subject, what's with the oversize, superwide photos that get posted as part of a message that exceed my display's width limits? On my (admittedly older, 4x3 format) monitor running at 1024x768 resolution, these photos carry the text into never-never land (offscreen to the right) as well, forcing me to scroll horizontally to read each line of every damned post that is on the same page as the photo. Talk about disrupting your reading flow!

Is there a switch in 'preferences' that I've missed that automatically resizes this stuff, or wraps text at a max width, for us poor folks running less than state-of-the-art computers? If so, someone clue me in. If not, please... you guys that are posting the photos that are 1600 pixels wide need to learn a very basic computer graphics skill called 'resizing photos'. :D
 
Andy, taht's not a naked chick. Please delete. Or I will come and find you and personally fart in your general direction.
 
I agree 100%.

Is there a switch in 'preferences' that I've missed that automatically resizes this stuff, or wraps text at a max width, for us poor folks running less than state-of-the-art computers? If so, someone clue me in. If not, please... you guys that are posting the photos that are 1600 pixels wide need to learn a very basic computer graphics skill called 'resizing photos'. :D
[/b]
Click to expand...

No, there is nothing you can do but the site admin can. The site admin can set the max picture upload to something like 800x600 or so to fit on everyone's screen.

The large images can be troublesome at first and downright tiring to see over and over again in signatures.

Ron
 
So I'm gathering that the universal concensus is that all signatures shall have a naked chick at a mandatory resolution of 1920 x 1200?
 
Heaven forbid Ron! The Blethems are just TOO photogenic. phil
[/b]
Click to expand...

Still looking for a naked picture of a chick, but can't find one... I may have found a picture of some greg guy wearing a thong though... Does that qualify to replace my old signature?

Raymond "Just tell me next time you are sick of it and I will get rid of it!!!" Blethen
 
New picture coming soon!!!
Championships... Been there done that, I would make a list but no self promotion allowed and keeping the signature short and sweet!!![/b]
Click to expand...

Aren't you contradicting yourself there? Oh, unless of course it's a nude chick pick. :114:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top