... Images should be allowed in sigs!

But wait, this has a difference.
1) You are limeted to ONE image
2) It can't be animated
3) It has to be 350x19 px (size of a user bar)!
4) there is also a file size limit

So, wha'da'ya think?

Yeah,it would be fun...TEXT SUCKS*screams insaely*

In my opinion: NO!

They slow the page-loading down horribly, often don't fit in with the forum colour scheme (retro purple) and generally don't do anything to improve the forum.

Due to current limitations in vBulletin (although this may change in vB3.6), the images have to be externally hosted - so how would you block animations? Only allow JPEG and PNG images through and block GIFs? GIF is often used for still images too.

Also, how could you limit the file size with an externally-hosted image?

Finally, remember that smilies count as images with the IMG tag (as far as vB is concerned), so you would only be able to have one smilie in your sig OR one image.


Some of the most easy-to-view/read forums I visit are ones that have text-only sigs.


Leave the sigs as they are! Or maybe make them a bit shorter :p

I have to agree with thomasp, we have avs, that's enough.

Hm...well for that reason then.

I propose:
--Lower the sig size to 1 line of text.
--Disable smilies in sigs.
--Lower size of avatars to whatever it was before (50x50 pixels I think)

I still think you should change back to that HGG sig (NOT AV), bonz!

i dont want pics in sig, it makes the forum look f*cked up.
And avs are good size like this, keep it this way.

I agree, the forum doesn't need them and it's better off as it is. But just to play devils advocate,
Due to current limitations in vBulletin (although this may change in vB3.6), the images have to be externally hosted - so how would you block animations? Only allow JPEG and PNG images through and block GIFs? GIF is often used for still images too.Also, how could you limit the file size with an externally-hosted image?
Mods can change sigs, (I think). So just set a limit and some rules, have a thread to report sigs that break them, and remove the offenders. A bit more on the mods time, but it's not like this forum is the biggest on the net.
--Lower the sig size to 1 line of text.
--Disable smilies in sigs.
--Lower size of avatars to whatever it was before (50x50 pixels I think)
But even if someone didn't want a sig image, they would only be allowed one line? That seems a little unfair. A better option would be a limit on the size of signatures in pixels, so they could have text, images or both.

Mods can change sigs, (I think). So just set a limit and some rules, have a thread to report sigs that break them, and remove the offenders. A bit more on the mods time, but it's not like this forum is the biggest on the net.

No we can't. Only admins can. And that's a lot of work for Sel, who already has quite a bit to do. And, I don't think Sel wants me and AT to be admins, as that would be too much responsibility.

Very well then. If there's no policing of sigs images except by admins, then they're not an option; too much potential for abuse. I don't know if mod powers can be extended or not.

Very well then. If there's no policing of sigs images except by admins, then they're not an option; too much potential for abuse. I don't know if mod powers can be extended or not.
Not really - as far as I know, to edit a user's profile (including sigs), you need access to the AdminCP, which you only get as an administrator, and I don't think you can allow mods to have certain admin features - you can probably make them admins and take "permissions" away, but that's a lot of work.

They don't slow page loading down at all. Text will still load at the same speed but the images show when they are ready.

We will simply ban people who can't make nice signature pics =)

I don't want to have any images in posts and I don't like signatures at all.
Just look at ThomasP's previous post. Half the height is used up by his 9-line sig.

If you need to, you can write all the info in your UserCP.

Certainly not. It clutters the forum up horribly, and is fairly pointless anyway.

There's a way to disable sigs. I know this because I have sigs disabled right now.

There is also no reason to have image sigs, other than your name with some kick-azz photoshop effects on it, or an ad for your way-cool site.

No reason? They can look good, and that's reason enough.
There is no reason for this forum to have a nice template, it could all be ascii text with the exception of avatars for quick identification..

I have had some terrible experience with image signatures. Back when I had dial-up, I simply gave up loading some other forum's pages because they took too damn long. There were image sigs 3 times as large as the post themselves sometimes. At least.

I'm fine with text sigs, as they are text, and they're easy to ignore because you just don't have to read it.
Image sigs can get annoying, as they are larger than avatars and take up the entire bottom of a post, which blurs the margin between posters.

Though the forums at void city allow image sigs, every single member at that forum is sensible, so they don't annoy me. I'm not so sure about these members. :p

They don't slow page loading down at all. Text will still load at the same speed but the images show when they are ready.
So my internet connection just seems to like loading pictures slower than everything else, then?

I'm going with Thomasp.
Picture sigs aren't all that needed, when you have an avatar. It's pretty much like 2 avatars, just one shows up under your post.
Also, why not have text for an avatar, then? It would be the same thing, would it not? I'm against it.

Also, why not have text for an avatar, then? It would be the same thing, would it not?
Was that serious? I can't tell.
Avatars make it really easy to tell who's posting what by a glance. Pictures project into our minds faster than text.
Hence why picture sigs can get annoying; they're always going into your brain.

No reason? They can look good, and that's reason enough.

Except that we already know most sigs here would include a badly drawn sigworm with the name in an extremely fancy and detailed halo font with a crappy photoshop made fire, run trough every possible photoshop effect, or something along that line.

... Images should be allowed in sigs!
Sorry guys, but this won't happen.