Signature rule

[Guest ScirosDarkblade]

I think there should be a general rule that if ever, your signature is larger/longer than your post, there is a problem. Either your posts need to be longer, or your signature is out of control, or both. I am friggin tired of 2-line posts followed by signatures 500 pixels in height. I don't know about you.

[MissWem]

[COLOR=DarkRed]Good point. But aren't there already certain restrictions placed on the signature size?

It gets to be a pain for me though, I still use a dial-up connection.. takes waaaay too long to load the really full on signature 0_o Maybe I should turn it off, although it's half the fun.[/COLOR]

[Brasil]

Well, there's already [url=http://www.otakuboards.com/rules.php?#signature]a 300-character signature-length[/url] limit, so for the most part, the signatures are kept fairly small. I mean, there isn't too much one can do with 300 characters, unless they get creative or put everything on separate lines.

Regarding the size of a post versus the size of a signature, well, it reminds me of the "OMFG liek i t0tali luv tat shoooww!1!! itis tah k00lst!11!" versus "I watched an episode of it last night, and it was pretty good, I suppose. The dialogue was good and the direction was handled well."

Those are the same number of sentences there, but I think it's clear which is the more acceptable post, even though they're both short ones. Similarly, a long, rambly, incoherent post will little to no point to it will also be subject to scrutiny, while a post with the same length but thoughtful and well-developed points would be fine.

Post-wise, it's quality, not quantity, so I don't really see how the post length relates to what the signatures should be.

[Guest ScirosDarkblade]

It's not just post quality, Siren. It's the signature quality. Some people take the 300 limit and spread it way, way out. The signature becomes gigantic. It's not even that a signature exceeds the length of the post as much as that the signature is just too huge, period. I can't think of any examples off-hand, but I run into them often enough.

[Brasil]

Okay, so then posts aren't really an issue here at all, or a focus of any type whatsoever. They really have nothing to do with the signatures or reactions to the signatures.

If you were to run a search in this forum, I believe, for threads about signature rules, you'll find that there are some guidelines in place, and particular little things that the Mods encourage (like no clashing neon texts, no multi-line lists, etc).

Hell, it's gotten a lot better over the past year, too. I remember some signatures were absolutely outrageous and would have constituted the member getting slapped with a dead trout.

[Dagger]

I see Sciros's point, and to me it pretty much makes sense. There are times when I still mention the "post > signature" rule of thumb to someone whose signature is obviously way out of control. I can't remember having seen nearly as many awful sigs since the 300-character limitation was implemented, but maybe I've just become desensitized or something. :p

~Dagger~

[Sol-Blade]

[SIZE=-3]I can see what you are talking about, there are sometimes when the signature is at least twice, maybe three times as large as the actual post.

I would know, because I've hit that 500 character limit a couple times. But that was way back then when I had a bunch of quotes in my signature, not anymore. It's a relatively decent size now, don't ya think?

Anyways, the new 300 limit is for the better though. Also, I know people like doing this, but...is an AIM conversation really signature material? lol[/SIZE]

[James]

[color=#707875]I remember that when we introduced the 300 character limit (and the one image only limit, which was a while ago), so many people didn't like that and felt it was too restrictive.

I'm reluctant to lower the limit any further, simply because it will restrict people who want to include links and stuff like that. I think that the current restrictions help to avoid insanely huge signatures most of the time...but I guess there are always going to be people who will try to stretch it out as much as possible, by adding heaps of spaces or something.

So, all we can really do is suggest that people keep their signatures reasonable. I think this is a bit like myOtaku or something -- within the limits we set, people can do some crazy things. There's nothing we can do to stop someone using eye-killing colour combinations for instance. Know what I mean? All we can really do is advise people and set reasonable limits.[/color]

[Gavin]

[SIZE=1]Interesting, most interesting.

I can see where Sciros is coming form with this, considering I'm working off a 16.8 Kbps connection at the moment there's nothing I hate more than a 500x100 pixel image in a signature. In saying that I also agree with Siren, just because a post is short does not mean it isn't relevant, however grammer and spelling do play and important part.

In this instance I agree with James, it's down to the user themselves to make sure their posts are up to scratch as well as having their signature at a reasonable length. I remember back in V3 before the avatar restriction we put in place people would have huge avatars, one that comes to mind would be Sephiroth's Sephiroth avatar which was about 100x500 pixels in size. [/SIZE]

[TheShinje]

[QUOTE=Kane][size=1]
I remember back in V3 before the avatar restriction we put in place people would have huge avatars, one that comes to mind would be Sephiroth's Sephiroth avatar which was about 100x500 pixels in size. [/size][/QUOTE]
Wasn't the insanely huge avatar thingy mod-exculsive?

[Epitome]

[size=1][color=orange]I also agree with you Sciros, but James is right. Even though I also hate it when people have a longer signature than their normal post length, they cant really do anything else about it.

But I do agree with you...[/size][/color]

[Baron Samedi]

[size=1]If their signature is too long, then the mods will PM a person, or you yourself could PM them and ask them to lower it. As for a 500x100 banner, that isn't a problem, even on dialup. I mean, how many people here would be working at much less than 48.0kbps? 2? Maybe 3? And that would be both unfortunate and temporary [one would hope]. Now, how many people here are on dialup? We'll be generous and say 70%. Which means, really, that banners and their sizes are not a problem, for most people. And text takes next to no time to load.

I'm sure that most of the older members were newbies with massive signatures at one time or another. Let other people have the same liberty to grow and mature as well. I think that the limits are already well-enforced.[/size]

[Inu500]

I've seen some signatures that were longer than posts. Maybe there should be a rule about the images too in the signatures. No big images just small ones. You know something like that. :D

[Sara]

[quote name='Inu500']I've seen some signatures that were longer than posts. Maybe there should be a rule about the images too in the signatures. No big images just small ones. You know something like that. :D[/quote][color=#4b4b79]Signature images [i]are[/i] limited. Members may only have one image (excluding OB-hosted smilies) in their signature, and it may be no larger than 100 pixels tall (and 500 pixels wide).

the homecoming queen's got a gun,
Sara[/color]

[Semjaza]

Signatures in general are annoying. I've turned them off in my profile. If it's that much of an annoyance, I encourage others to do the same... but I guess not everyone likes to make them disappear entirely.