New Rules for Avatars and Sigs

iceman (Mike) · #1 22-03-2005, 08:59 AM

Hi guys.

As our membership increases and the number of threads+posts increases, there's a wider range of avatars and sigs being used by people.

It's getting to the point now that sometimes it's hard to find the post among the signatures, and the amount of bandwidth potentially being consumed by large signatures and avatars is getting too much.

So I've introduced a few new rules to the IceInSpace Forum Posting Guidelines.

Quote:

Avatars must be no bigger than 80x80 and 25k in size. Remember that there could be 20 avatars on a single loaded page, please be considerate and keep them as small as possible.

Please keep signatures to a minimum, and don't have large blocks of text or large images in your signature. Please try to keep them smaller than 3-5 lines in size. Remember that there could be 20 signatures on a single loaded page, and sometimes it's hard to find the post amongst the signatures. Please be considerate and keep them as small as possible.

I'm going to need your assistance in this for now:

1) The change to the avatar size/limit is for people who change their avatar from now on - it will still display large avatars for people who already have large ones. Can those people please change their avatar to meet the new rules. That includes me, because mine currently exceeds the rules (it's 80x80 30k). In a week, I will manually remove the avatars that are still too large.

2) The change to the signature rules is not enforcable via forum admin code just yet. Some code will be written to enforce it in the near future, but for now I appreciate your assistance in changing your signatures to meet the new requirements.

Thanks for your participation in this - i'm not trying to crack down on creativity, but I have to be mindful of the reasons for these forums - it's for information exchange and not for a display of the best signatures or avatars. The bandwidth and page load times (especialyl for dialup users) are also a major concern as we get larger so I have to mindful of this.

Let me know if you have any problems with these new rules. I'm happy to discuss it.

ving (David) · #2 22-03-2005, 09:26 AM

coolies mike, I'll remove the pic in my sig.

is my avatar ok tho? I think its 14k...

Starkler (Geoff) · #3 22-03-2005, 06:09 PM

Good stuff Mike.
My opinion is that we could probably do without signature graphics at all.

Striker (Tony) · #4 22-03-2005, 06:28 PM

I agree......signature graphics is not needed....I'm taking mine off...but dont lose all the other graphics....its nice to have some color.....

I still Blame Ken......lol

trufflehunter (Wayne Robinson) · #5 22-03-2005, 07:37 PM

Mine's done!

(it was Ken, I saw him do it!)

iceman (Mike) · #6 22-03-2005, 07:47 PM

Quote:

My opinion is that we could probably do without signature graphics at all

Ssshh! Don't let mojo hear you say that! He's been badgering me to let him write some php that strips out the [ img] tags out of the signatures so there's no sig graphics!

We'll see how the self-enforced rules go, but if it doesn't change much we'll introduce some code to enforce it and get rid of sig graphics altogether.

But avatars will stay, there'll still be colour!

mojo (Terry) · #7 22-03-2005, 08:53 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by iceman
Ssshh! Don't let mojo hear you say that!

too late. my ears were burning. one vote! that's all i need in my democracy

I'd strip out the smilies, but they're just so damn cuute

Generally the sigs look like a brothel on this forum. In some threads there is more signature content than post content! And with so much graphics, it's sucking the bandwidth out of this server during peak hour.

Hopefully the 30k limit will make for a better experience for non-members browsing the forums who don't have the mad cows, whirling planets and slide-shows cached.

David, get a calf - the cow's too big

janoskiss (Steve H) · #8 22-03-2005, 09:31 PM

I completely agree with mojo.

acropolite (Phil) · #9 22-03-2005, 09:34 PM

Now you've done it Ken........I'm telling Mum!

rumples riot · #10 22-03-2005, 10:03 PM

Don't worry about it, dont agree totally but see the point!!

Howzat (Phil) · #11 22-03-2005, 10:30 PM

If you have firefox + adblock you can right click to block that image from being shown. (also includes smilies)

janoskiss (Steve H) · #12 22-03-2005, 10:43 PM

Size as in number of pixels does not matter so much, but size as in KB does, because it'd be nice if people on slow connections could enjoy the forums as much as everyone else.

Paul, don't leave! Surely this issue can be sorted out.

There's gotta be limits, we just need to sort out what is reasonable. Large avatars (even if they're "small" pics, say 400x400) would get in the way of content and put outsiders off. Ditto, signatures that go on for ever and take for ever to load.

Best thing would be to get feedback from people on dialup. (and not just frequent flyers like Ken, who probably has this whole site cached on his PC).

slice of heaven · #13 23-03-2005, 12:00 AM

I'm on dialup and this computer came standard with the model T. I'm used to slow loading so I just minimize the slow pages and return to them later.
The avatars add a bit of glitz. Don't take the smilies!! they say it all. As for sigs with graphics....well....change them regularly so they dont get boring or dont bother.
The images are the slowest to load..... but dont touch these...... their GREAT . The astro pics are tops. I know when I go to those forums I'm in for a wait, and so be it...Well worth the wait!...Good work guys, keep em coming.

Thats one opinion from a dialup user.

Slice

ballaratdragons (Ken) · #14 23-03-2005, 12:49 AM

It wasn't me, honest injun!

I have dial-up and the only problem I have is loading large photographs.

Some are huge! but I like seeing them.

Avatars give the sight some colour and activity but I'll clean up my sig a bit.

EDIT: Changed my avatar. Looks boring now. Prefer the 150x150 pixel avatars.

Mike, you are still over your own 25k limit.

mojo (Terry) · #15 23-03-2005, 02:30 AM

So this is how rumours start, huh? Mike's not taking the smilies!

Smilies are great especially darth...

Just talking about making the signatures less invasive and the avatars smaller for the sake of bandwidth. Small changes to make a big impact on the speed of the forums and making the threads look more legible.

Ken, IMHO that avatar is better than your last. When I used to see snoopy, I knew it was your post. People just know you as snoopy. You can't get away from it. Sorry

iceman (Mike) · #16 23-03-2005, 06:06 AM

Quote:

I still Blame Ken

It's not Ken's fault, this decision has been in the wind for several weeks now. It's just been getting to the point where some threads looked like we were on a gaming forum, not an astronomy forum.

Quote:

Size as in number of pixels does not matter so much, but size as in KB does

True that's the major reason for the change, but size in pixels was also reduced for aesthetic reasons because everything was pushed out if someone had a 150x150 avatar.

The smilies are not going anywhere, i'm planning to upload more smilies and take away some of the smilies that don't get used.

Quote:

Paul, don't leave! Surely this issue can be sorted out

I'm not sure what that's about, I must've missed the original post.

I knew this wouldn't be popular for everyone, but at the same time I figured most people would understand. As the site grows, so does the consumption of bandwidth. With a few features to be announced in the near future, we're expecting it (usership + bandwidth consumption) to grow even more. So I have to be mindful of this.

We're an astronomy forum, not a gaming forum. So the focus should be on the content and the information, not the pretty signatures or avatars. We already have image posting limits (60k for most forums, 100k for the camera/photography forum), and people are now used to these and adhere to them.

In the big scheme of things, a smaller avatar and signature really isn't a big deal.

Quote:

Mike, you are still over your own 25k limit

You're right, I've amended it now.

Thanks for the feedback everyone, i'm happy to discuss this openly to hear any concerns, or privately via PM if you wish.