Signature Character Length Requirements

[Famine]

So... I'm updating my signature, which is pretty info-packed as you can see, and I get a message saying that signatures cannot be over 500 characters in length.

"Oh", thinks I.

So I copied my intended signature and pasted it into Word, to see how many characters I'd need to pare off. It said:

Characters (no spaces): 546
Characters (with spaces): 617

Yikes!

But hold on a moment... My new signature isn't significantly longer than my old one. The new one read "Julius Caesar wasn't born by - and is not the origin of the phrase - Caesarian Section.", whereas the old one read "The largest living organism on Earth is a fungus.". Put the old one into Word and you get:

Characters (no spaces): 516
Characters (with spaces): 578

Well, even without spaces, that's over the 500 character limit. Yet it was accepted without a problem.

Hmm. Perhaps the vBcode isn't counted, thinks I. Edit it out of the old one and you get:

Characters (no spaces): 392
Characters (with spaces): 454

Ah! That must be it. Spaces are counted, but vBcode isn't. So, I input the new signature to Word without the vBcode and I get...

Characters (no spaces): 422
Characters (with spaces): 492

But... that's under the 500 character limit if spaces are counted but vBcode isn't...


So... what's up? If every character is counted, my old sig shouldn't have worked. If spaces aren't counted but vBcode is, my old sig shouldn't have worked. If spaces are counted but vBcode isn't, my new sig SHOULD work and if neither are counted my new sig should work. But that's not the case - it must work some other nefarious way I can't fathom out.

I've had to adopt a slightly truncated version of the new signature, which is 452 with spaces... This makes me sad.

 

[donbenni]

Bored at work are we?

 

[Famine]

And how!

 

[Touring Mars]

You should link to this thread as your fun fact of the week! 💡

 

[Jordan]

I don't know off the top of my head, but I sent the question to the developers to see what they say.

 

[the_undrtaker89]

Can we add sig pics too our signatures!

Limit the size of it to keep it nice and tidy, like about 250x30, I think it'll livening the threads up a bit.

 

[VT]

Jordan has already stated his opinion on this several times.

The answer is no.

Matter of fact, here's Jordan's response from about 3 years ago asking the same thing.

No, I'm sorry, Powerman. Personally, I hate browsing other forums that have images enabled in signatures.

 

[the_undrtaker89]

Jordan has already stated his opinion on this several times.

The answer is no.

Matter of fact, here's Jordan's response from about 3 years ago asking the same thing.

I understand what he is saying, I think, I don't like it when guys have huge pic sigs either loading is a *****. But what I'm saying is have a preset size that is only 200x30. That is about this size or smaller even.

It won't make that much of a dif. Obviously not everyone will get one, with that on top it will make a very small difference loading time, heck even limit the image size. Just like with our avatars.

 

[GilesGuthrie]

I understand what he is saying, I think, I don't like it when guys have huge pic sigs either loading is a *****. But what I'm saying is have a preset size that is only 200x30. That is about this size or smaller even.

It won't make that much of a dif. Obviously not everyone will get one, with that on top it will make a very small difference loading time, heck even limit the image size. Just like with our avatars.

It's not really a matter of page load time (although that is a factor to dial-up users). It's more to do with the fact that it's almost impossible to create a nice-looking thread view with images in signatures. The sheer scope for changing size, colour and style just makes the whole thing look like a mess.

If you hadn't guessed already, I'm with Jordan on this one.

 

[Duke]

And I'm with Giles and Jordan. I hate big sigs even if they're text; it's too distracting to read through a thread and get interrupted every 3 column inches by somebody's over-designed and over-garish sig.

Pictures only make that worse.

 

[Jordan]

I'm sorry, undrtaker, but I will not allow images of any size in signatures. People browse forums to read the discussions and get information - not to see how cool of an image somebody can make.

 

[the_undrtaker89]

Aww rats....

How about increasing the file size of our avatars!
100kb-200kb? I'm just wondering if that will effect loading time? Most of the threads here aren't very 56k friendly....so it wouldn't make that much of a differance would it?

 

[Duke]

Aww rats....

How about increasing the file size of our avatars!
100kb-200kb? I'm just wondering if that will effect loading time? Most of the threads here aren't very 56k friendly....so it wouldn't make that much of a differance would it?

Give it up. The forums are lean and clean as is. Adding extra junk would be bad.
👎
If you want to see just how bad it gets with big avatars and picture sigs, visit that Protege forum with the world-famous GI-Owned thread. It's damn near illegible for all the giant sigs, scrolling text, etc. There's a link in DQuan's thread on the Rumble Strip.

Even leaving the language out of it, we do not want that look at GTPlanet.

 

[sn00pie]

Also, most signatures and avatars (and combinations) suck enough as it is.

 

[xcsti]

And how!

Famine aka don hertzfeld?

I agree with everone before me. It is nearly impossible to tell who is saying what on the protege forum because it is so cluttered and the load time for my pos 56k was horrid.

 

[VT]

Famine aka don hertzfeld?

I agree with everone before me. It is nearly impossible to tell who is saying what on the protege forum because it is so cluttered and the load time for my pos 56k was horrid.

Exactly. I used to think it was a good idea until I checked out a forum that allowed that. I couldn't read a thing and then I promptly closed the window.

The forum is neat and clean as it is, why "fix" it if it isn't broken?

 

[G.T]

Aww rats....

How about increasing the file size of our avatars!
100kb-200kb? I'm just wondering if that will effect loading time? Most of the threads here aren't very 56k friendly....so it wouldn't make that much of a differance would it?

Wow, that size is quite big. I don't want long page loading times. 👎

I view 40 posts per page. If everyone had 200kb avatars, that's around 8mb to download so it will take awhile for the page to load. 👎

 

[TwinTurboJay]

As they are, best forum on the net...only could use more female members !

; )

 

[Swift]

Give it up. The forums are lean and clean as is. Adding extra junk would be bad.
👎
If you want to see just how bad it gets with big avatars and picture sigs, visit that Protege forum with the world-famous GI-Owned thread. It's damn near illegible for all the giant sigs, scrolling text, etc. There's a link in DQuan's thread on the Rumble Strip.

Even leaving the language out of it, we do not want that look at GTPlanet.

yep yep.

I've only seen one forum do pictures correctly and that's over at IDM. but we have a restriction on size and animation.

I've been to forums where the members have 3-5 animated images in their signatures. Man, you never read anything because your eyes keep looking at the motion. I'd hate to see that happen to GTP.

 

[the_undrtaker89]

Fine....

how bout.....nevermind......

 

[daan]

Shot down in flames, eh?

And it should be "You're" in your avatar.....

 

[NoQuarter]

And it should be "You're" in your avatar.....

 

[VT]

Shot down in flames, eh?

And it should be "You're" in your avatar.....

OUCH!

Thats almost as funny as GI getting owned. Well, now that I think about it, it nothing can touch that.

Yeah .. you're an idiot Undertaker.

 

[Jordan]

Aww rats....

How about increasing the file size of our avatars!
100kb-200kb? I'm just wondering if that will effect loading time? Most of the threads here aren't very 56k friendly....so it wouldn't make that much of a differance would it?

200kb avatars? Not only would that be extremely slow loading for dial-up users, it would be an absolute torture test on our server. The site would slow down for everybody as database connections were left open for prolonged periods of time, hogging up that precious commodity to push out big, fat, goofy animations that nobody really wants to see. Also, don't forget about the bandwidth I have to pay for. Even with our current avatar restrictions, those small little images consume around 20-30 GB per month. I'd hate to see what it was like with larger sizes.

 

[the_undrtaker89]

My bad, I thought it was like 100 bytes already....whops just being an idiot today. I messed up on the bytes already allowed......sorry.

Undrtaker89 <------- (that was a loaned avatar ok....)
Have your laughs, I deserve it,