Spoilers in signatures

[kk.]

I know that VIPs have a larger size for a signature image, as well as donators, I don't think I'd mind if all members were able to have any size image (within reason, maybe 700x700) if it's contained in a spoiler. The same as YouTube videos. The embed player doesn't load until the signatures clicked I don't think.

Maybe it could be a feature for just VIPs and donators?

Thoughts?

[Black_Apalachi]

What's the point of having a spoiler in a signature at all? I for one would never bother clicking it. I think it's best to keep tools such as spoilers for their intended usage anyway.

[kk.]

Which is? I use them to not have big images on show? Which is what this would be used for

[GommeInc]

Having a spoiler in a signature hiding images ruins the whole point of a signature. It could be abused too, having huge great images hidden away under spoilers which will be loading anyway (as they did in vb3). Might as well just keep text, quotes and images in signatures, and stuff like spoilers out.

[Jamesy]

Having a spoiler in a signature hiding images ruins the whole point of a signature. It could be abused too, having huge great images hidden away under spoilers which will be loading anyway (as they did in vb3). Might as well just keep text, quotes and images in signatures, and stuff like spoilers out.

I agree with this.

[kk.]

Having a spoiler in a signature hiding images ruins the whole point of a signature. It could be abused too, having huge great images hidden away under spoilers which will be loading anyway (as they did in vb3). Might as well just keep text, quotes and images in signatures, and stuff like spoilers out.

The user would chose whether to have a signature with a spoiler, as well as us deciding whether to click it. It's just to give users the option of having a bigger image, or video in the signature. It wouldn't be massive, 700x700. It's annoying finding an image or making one, and discovering it's like 700x303 :l

[Seatherny]

The user would chose whether to have a signature with a spoiler, as well as us deciding whether to click it. It's just to give users the option of having a bigger image, or video in the signature. It wouldn't be massive, 700x700. It's annoying finding an image or making one, and discovering it's like 700x303 :l

Surely people can trim down 3 pixels, not really hard...

[kk.]

Surely people can trim down 3 pixels, not really hard...

its harder and annoying if its an image off the internet, and if its more like 350, it can distort the image quite bad. When browsing on TSR, they can have anysize image they want, and as many as they like, even without a spoiler, and the forum loads fine :S

[Seatherny]

its harder and annoying if its an image off the internet, and if its more like 350, it can distort the image quite bad. When browsing on TSR, they can have anysize image they want, and as many as they like, even without a spoiler, and the forum loads fine :S

The people on there are sensible enough not to have 4 images with a total height of 2000px

[kk.]

The people on there are sensible enough not to have 4 images with a total height of 2000px

http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showpost.php?p=24122160&postcount=1148

which is why i said maybe just impose a slightly larger limit 700x500/700, and allow people to have videos in the signatures

[Nixt]

It's not only forum loading that is an issue, that's a relatively minor issue to be fair. It's all to do with the fact that if you have absolutely ridiculously huge images in a signature, even in a spoiler, it can cause great problems for our members. It's really annoying when people have huge signatures that can stretch the screens, slow loading times for an individual computer or laptop and such. I see your reasoning behind potentially putting bigger images or videos in a spoiler, but in fairness I think on the whole it is somewhat unnecessary. Our signature limits are reasonable and fair, and it's never been a massive issue before. If done properly most images can be resized appropriately, anyway.

[FlyingJesus]

You can link to a video in your sig if you want, which would basically be the same as having it in a spoiler as you'd still have to make that massive effort of one extra click.

[kk.]

It's not only forum loading that is an issue, that's a relatively minor issue to be fair. It's all to do with the fact that if you have absolutely ridiculously huge images in a signature, even in a spoiler, it can cause great problems for our members. It's really annoying when people have huge signatures that can stretch the screens, slow loading times for an individual computer or laptop and such. I see your reasoning behind potentially putting bigger images or videos in a spoiler, but in fairness I think on the whole it is somewhat unnecessary. Our signature limits are reasonable and fair, and it's never been a massive issue before. If done properly most images can be resized appropriately, anyway.

why arent people reading what im saying? I said you could limit it. So not so its 2000x2000, just so it can be 700x500, and being able to have a video

You can link to a video in your sig if you want, which would basically be the same as having it in a spoiler as you'd still have to make that massive effort of one extra click.

so basically we should just get rid of the youtube feature all together, i mean, it is just one extra click away in a thread anyway...

[Seatherny]

http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showpost.php?p=24122160&postcount=1148

which is why i said maybe just impose a slightly larger limit 700x500/700, and allow people to have videos in the signatures

And that guys signature is ugly.

[kk.]

And that guys signature is ugly.

i was merely pointing out that you said theyre too clever to have such large signatures. And not only that, but maybe i think your signatures ugly, or garions is, i have no choice really do I, other than to disable it, and even then, i may want to see other peoples

[Special]

...I thought that 'spoilers' were suppose to hide something that would 'spoil' something, not to hide signatures

correct me if im wrong

[Hecktix]

...I thought that 'spoilers' were suppose to hide something that would 'spoil' something, not to hide signatures

correct me if im wrong

That would be the spoiler being used correctly :P

I don't think there's any point to it really, in all fairness people complain about people having huge signatures within the regulations, so if we started letting people break the regulations more people would moan too.

I think the purpose of a signature is to look nice, and a signature with:

hi my name is oli

will just look ugly, there's absolutely no point for this to be honest. In reference to you saying "its annoying finding an image thats 700x303", sorry but we aren't the third reich, I'm pretty sure any Super Moderator in the right mind would let three pixels slip, 3 pixels arent even gonna be noticable to the human eye.

[kk.]

I don't think there's any point to it really, in all fairness people complain about people having huge signatures within the regulations, so if we started letting people break the regulations more people would moan too.

will just look ugly, there's absolutely no point for this to be honest. In reference to you saying "its annoying finding an image thats 700x303", sorry but we aren't the third reich, I'm pretty sure any Super Moderator in the right mind would let three pixels slip, 3 pixels arent even gonna be noticable to the human eye.

the spoiler would hide the image, i just dont see what people are getting at lol

and im pretty sure a moderator would pick up on it, and you'd get warned, where would you say the cut off point is, because you may as well just change the rules to that if youre willing to allow people to go over...

[Hecktix]

the spoiler would hide the image, i just dont see what people are getting at lol

and im pretty sure a moderator would pick up on it, and you'd get warned, where would you say the cut off point is, because you may as well just change the rules to that if youre willing to allow people to go over...

The rules are 700x300 for VIPs, all I said is 3 pixels may be let to slide depending on the moderator? You clearly haven't been contacted regarding breaking profile rules recently if you think warnings are how we go about it.

[kk.]

The rules are 700x300 for VIPs, all I said is 3 pixels may be let to slide depending on the moderator? You clearly haven't been contacted regarding breaking profile rules recently if you think warnings are how we go about it.

we get PMd to remove it in 24 hours yeh. But you cant say that some moderators will let it slide, its either a rule or not, you cant say, 'oh well, you can go to 703x303 if you like.' then another moderator comes along and says remove it. How can you define rules if youre gonna let things slide everytime it gets broken just a tiny bit. and i hope you like my signature :rolleyes:

[FlyingJesus]

so basically we should just get rid of the youtube feature all together, i mean, it is just one extra click away in a thread anyway...

Don't see why not, I was never for implementing it anyway and as far as I'm aware it's only on here because it came with vb4


will just look ugly, there's absolutely no point for this to be honest. In reference to you saying "its annoying finding an image thats 700x303", sorry but we aren't the third reich, I'm pretty sure any Super Moderator in the right mind would let three pixels slip, 3 pixels arent even gonna be noticable to the human eye.

That shouldn't be the case at all, obviously most people don't go around checking that every sig is exactly within the limits but if one does rightly get reported for being too large it ought to be acted on as I thought was the way it worked.

[Hecktix]

we get PMd to remove it in 24 hours yeh. But you cant say that some moderators will let it slide, its either a rule or not, you cant say, 'oh well, you can go to 703x303 if you like.' then another moderator comes along and says remove it. How can you define rules if youre gonna let things slide everytime it gets broken just a tiny bit. and i hope you like my signature :rolleyes:

Sorry? People moan at us for being too strict? Now you are saying if some moderators are lenient with something such as 3 pixels that's wrong? I really don't see your point here?

All I'm saying is 3 pixels are less likely to get noticed... and if they don't get noticed a moderator isn't going to send you a PM?

Edit:

To illustrate:
http://uploads.shizzlenizzle.biz/images/1268410595_303.png

http://uploads.shizzlenizzle.biz/images/1268410587_300.png


The point is our mods are familiar with signature sizes, 3 pixels are hardly visible so it's less likely to get found, it's all I was saying.

Anyway, to expand on my point earlier, look at the size of the above image, isn't that big enough for a signature? Why would you need a spoiler with a larger image in it?

[kk.]

Sorry? People moan at us for being too strict? Now you are saying if some moderators are lenient with something such as 3 pixels that's wrong? I really don't see your point here?

All I'm saying is 3 pixels are less likely to get noticed... and if they don't get noticed a moderator isn't going to send you a PM?

Edit:

To illustrate:
http://uploads.shizzlenizzle.biz/images/1268410595_303.png

http://uploads.shizzlenizzle.biz/images/1268410587_300.png


The point is our mods are familiar with signature sizes, 3 pixels are hardly visible so it's less likely to get found, it's all I was saying.

Anyway, to expand on my point earlier, look at the size of the above image, isn't that big enough for a signature? Why would you need a spoiler with a larger image in it?

im saying that you cant have some moderators following one set of rules, and others following another set of rules. As far as i know, and this is what i would do anyway, you would be checking the image size by right clicking and clicking properties. That way it tells you the size. Id do that if an image looked close to teh 700x150 barrier.

As for them being large enough, yes, they are quite large, but if people wanted a squarer image, they have to have 300x300, or even 150x150 for non VIPs.


As for youtube being disabled, the forum voted 2:1 in favour of the feature..

[Hecktix]

im saying that you cant have some moderators following one set of rules, and others following another set of rules. As far as i know, and this is what i would do anyway, you would be checking the image size by right clicking and clicking properties. That way it tells you the size. Id do that if an image looked close to teh 700x150 barrier.

As for them being large enough, yes, they are quite large, but if people wanted a squarer image, they have to have 300x300, or even 150x150 for non VIPs.


As for youtube being disabled, the forum voted 2:1 in favour of the feature..

Most images are checked, depends on the moderator, but you're more likely to get away with a 700x303 than a 700x380 etc

If you want a more "square" image you could cut down to 500x300, which isn't exactly square but it's a pretty reasonable size, 500x500 is too big for this forum, especially for users with horizontal postbits.

[Seatherny]

If we get a PM saying our avatar / signatures are too big, do they get put in the usernote?

[kk.]

Most images are checked, depends on the moderator, but you're more likely to get away with a 700x303 than a 700x380 etc

If you want a more "square" image you could cut down to 500x300, which isn't exactly square but it's a pretty reasonable size, 500x500 is too big for this forum, especially for users with horizontal postbits.

youre beginning to say contradict yourself. You said moderators are less likely to notice, then say moderators check it. Im not agreeing with you on this one sorry, you cant specify 700x300, and then let it slide if someone has a 700x303. It goes completely against what its there for.

Would i get told to remove it if i go and put a 700x303 image in my sig right now?

[Hecktix]

If we get a PM saying our avatar / signatures are too big, do they get put in the usernote?

As a usernote is a record of a conversation between a Moderator and a member, yes. Again, I feel the need to highlight the point that a usernote is a record of communication. If we didn't record the PM, if a moderator came along an hour after a moderator had sent a PM, you could end up with another PM? And that would be messy :P

@ Josh, if you had a 700x303 image in your signature and a moderator came across it, you would be PM'd and asked to resize it, afterall it takes nothing to chop 3 pixels off an image. If a moderator didn't come across it, you wouldn't get asked to do anything, obviously.

[Catzsy]

im saying that you cant have some moderators following one set of rules, and others following another set of rules. As far as i know, and this is what i would do anyway, you would be checking the image size by right clicking and clicking properties. That way it tells you the size. Id do that if an image looked close to teh 700x150 barrier.

As for them being large enough, yes, they are quite large, but if people wanted a squarer image, they have to have 300x300, or even 150x150 for non VIPs.


As for youtube being disabled, the forum voted 2:1 in favour of the feature..

No all signatures over the limit are reported and Super Moderators can use their discretion for the odd pixel here or there. If there wasn't any discretion in moderation members would be accusing us of being somewhat anally retentive.
In any event I thought the new video rules said that videos weren't allowed in signatures. :S

[kk.]

@ Josh, if you had a 700x303 image in your signature and a moderator came across it, you would be PM'd and asked to resize it, afterall it takes nothing to chop 3 pixels off an image. If a moderator didn't come across it, you wouldn't get asked to do anything, obviously.


Sorry? People moan at us for being too strict? Now you are saying if some moderators are lenient with something such as 3 pixels that's wrong? I really don't see your point here?

So first you say you'd be lenient and let 3 pixels slide, then say that we'd get a PM. k cus this is making sense..


In any event I thought the new video rules said that videos weren't allowed in signatures. :S

Which is why i was suggesting being able to use the spoiler feature to display videos in signatures

[Seatherny]

Sorry? People moan at us for being too strict? Now you are saying if some moderators are lenient with something such as 3 pixels that's wrong? I really don't see your point here?

All I'm saying is 3 pixels are less likely to get noticed... and if they don't get noticed a moderator isn't going to send you a PM?

Edit:

To illustrate:
http://uploads.shizzlenizzle.biz/images/1268410595_303.png

http://uploads.shizzlenizzle.biz/images/1268410587_300.png


The point is our mods are familiar with signature sizes, 3 pixels are hardly visible so it's less likely to get found, it's all I was saying.

Anyway, to expand on my point earlier, look at the size of the above image, isn't that big enough for a signature? Why would you need a spoiler with a larger image in it?

Maybe its the red but top image really does look bigger. Usually I check all big images as 300px is huge so I can PM a super mod.

And even if someone goes 1px over the limit, it shouldn't be allowed. Otherwise a super mod might think "meh, its only 3px" and then a different user might get a pm for just 1px.

[Hecktix]

So first you say you'd be lenient and let 3 pixels slide, then say that we'd get a PM. k cus this is making sense..



Which is why i was suggesting being able to use the spoiler feature to display videos in signatures

I'm not even going to argue with you, if you were PM'd regarding a signature 3 pixels oversized, as Catzsy said you'd probably call moderation anal, so I guess there's no way of winning here. There's nothing wrong with the way signatures are moderated so I feel this conversation is somewhat pointless.

You still havent highlighted the need to have a youtube video in your signature in a spoiler...

[Seatherny]

You still havent highlighted the need to have a youtube video in your signature in a spoiler...

Probably for the sake of having it there?
Whatever the argument is, I honestly hope it is never allowed.

[Catzsy]

Maybe its the red but top image really does look bigger. Usually I check all big images as 300px is huge so I can PM a super mod.

And even if someone goes 1px over the limit, it shouldn't be allowed. Otherwise a super mod might think "meh, its only 3px" and then a different user might get a pm for just 1px.



Why do you pm when you could just report? :S KK, I don't see the point of putting a signature into a spoiler as they are for show aren't they?

[kk.]

I'm not even going to argue with you, if you were PM'd regarding a signature 3 pixels oversized, as Catzsy said you'd probably call moderation anal, so I guess there's no way of winning here. There's nothing wrong with the way signatures are moderated so I feel this conversation is somewhat pointless.

You still havent highlighted the need to have a youtube video in your signature in a spoiler...

But then you'd refer to the rules and say it clearly states the exact size you can use..

Is there any need to have images in peoples signatures? In fact, theres no need to have avatars, or any signature. I dont need to see your signature image, i mean, whats with all the extra space youve used?


@Rosie, I dont really care how i show my signature, if people want to click a spoiler then fine, they see whats behind it, if they dont, then thats there choice, and my fault for putting it in a spoiler

[Seatherny]

Why do you pm when you could just report? :S KK, I don't see the point of putting a signature into a spoiler as they are for show aren't they?

Sometimes I report, sometimes I PM. Doesnt really matter which I do ... :S

[kk.]

Probably for the sake of having it there?
Whatever the argument is, I honestly hope it is never allowed.

what difference does it make? Its slightly larger than an image, and it doesnt load the player until you click the spoiler

[Catzsy]

Sometimes I report, sometimes I PM. Doesnt really matter which I do ... :S

No not at all but reporting takes about 3/5 seconds and you are a busy man! :P :D

[Seatherny]

what difference does it make? Its slightly larger than an image, and it doesnt load the player until you click the spoiler

Youtube videos in signatures look extremely ugly. Something I dont want to see a lot tbh. You will now argue that some peoples signatures are ugly ...
I am guessing you use adblock plus? For those who do anyway, simply block the image :).

[Hecktix]

In my time in the moderation department, I haven't seen anybody treated injustly in regards to signatures or avatars. I think it's incredibly stupid arguing over the sake of a few pixels.

You are correct in saying there's no need for signatures or avatars, but it's nice to have a signature/avatar but I don't see why we'd need to allow larger signatures in spoilers, and I think in regards to loading times, this is quite a valid point, as if people have videos hidden in their signatures, it is going to increase them.

I just don't see any need for users to be able to post larger images/videos in a spoiler in their signature, I just don't get it :S

[Seatherny]

In my time in the moderation department, I haven't seen anybody treated injustly in regards to signatures or avatars. I think it's incredibly stupid arguing over the sake of a few pixels.

You are correct in saying there's no need for signatures or avatars, but it's nice to have a signature/avatar but I don't see why we'd need to allow larger signatures in spoilers, and I think in regards to loading times, this is quite a valid point, as if people have videos hidden in their signatures, it is going to increase them.

I just don't see any need for users to be able to post larger images/videos in a spoiler in their signature, I just don't get it :S

I have :P The avatar page said I was allowed a avatar sized larger than I really was :P So I put that sized avatar. I got a PM saying my avatar is too big. I provided screenshots of the page, the person agreed and asked the Admins to fix it. Still got a usernote for having a larger avatar when the person doing the settings messed up ...

[kk.]

In my time in the moderation department, I haven't seen anybody treated injustly in regards to signatures or avatars. I think it's incredibly stupid arguing over the sake of a few pixels.

You are correct in saying there's no need for signatures or avatars, but it's nice to have a signature/avatar but I don't see why we'd need to allow larger signatures in spoilers, and I think in regards to loading times, this is quite a valid point, as if people have videos hidden in their signatures, it is going to increase them.

I just don't see any need for users to be able to post larger images/videos in a spoiler in their signature, I just don't get it :S

fine then ill go make a signature thats over by 1px if people arent going to do anything about it. At this rate, in the year 2050, ill be able to have a signature image of 310px with this inflation!

It'd be nice for me to be able to post a video.. I swear people are contradicting themselves. seriously. let me check.. ah it was garion that said it..

It's not only forum loading that is an issue, that's a relatively minor issue to be fair.
As i said, the player ONLY LOADS WHEN THE SPOILER IS CLICKED. in any case, i think the video player is a bit on the large side anyway. Have you thought about having it so the height is 300px :P

I dont get what people arent seeing either :S

[Catzsy]

I have :P The avatar page said I was allowed a avatar sized larger than I really was :P So I put that sized avatar. I got a PM saying my avatar is too big. I provided screenshots of the page, the person agreed and asked the Admins to fix it. Still got a usernote for having a larger avatar when the person doing the settings messed up ...

Well presumably whoever it was realised the mistake because you don't have a usernote for it now. =]

[Seatherny]

Well presumably whoever it was realised the mistake because you don't have a usernote for it now. =]

Are you sure? Check the date 25-11-2009 on my usernotes :P.

[Blob]

I would have thought it would load it regardless of if the spoiler is clicked, because the contents of the spoiler isn't loaded externally meaning your browser will still load the source code used for it.

[Catzsy]

Are you sure? Check the date 25-11-2009 on my usernotes :P.

Yes you are right. Sorry I thought you meant recently!|-)

[kk.]

I would have thought it would load it regardless of if the spoiler is clicked, because the contents of the spoiler isn't loaded externally meaning your browser will still load the source code used for it.

i dunno, when ive been on other forums it seems like it loads the player after ive opened it :S

[Sammeth.]

Nah theres no need to have videos in signatures, this won't happen at all.

[kk.]

Nah theres no need to have videos in signatures, this won't happen at all.

nice to see it was considered :rolleyes:

whats the actual reason you dont want videos in signatures?

[Jamesy]

For a start it then has to load for each post you have made in a thread. Flash is relatively resource intensive - especially on low end PCs so this puts other users at a disadvantage. Secondly it would be higher than the usergroup limits, than an image and finally because it's ultimately more moderation we have to do. Ultimately the second one nails the coffin shut ;)

[kk.]

For a start it then has to load for each post you have made in a thread. Flash is relatively resource intensive - especially on low end PCs so this puts other users at a disadvantage. Secondly it would be higher than the usergroup limits, than an image and finally because it's ultimately more moderation we have to do. Ultimately the second one nails the coffin shut ;)

the flash is only in use if the video starts playing which is up to the part of the user who clicks it. In that case they would know that they wouldnt be able to run it. I can understand the modeeration, but i just dont understand why people have instantly ruled it out. Spoilers dont add much to the forum, and can give users more flexibility. (like Sex's signature is too big but it looks good but he cant have it :()

The standard screen size is 1024px. Taking into account the widths of things, is it possible to increase the max width of the signature to 800px pls

[Seatherny]

the flash is only in use if the video starts playing which is up to the part of the user who clicks it. In that case they would know that they wouldnt be able to run it. I can understand the modeeration, but i just dont understand why people have instantly ruled it out. Spoilers dont add much to the forum, and can give users more flexibility. (like Sex's signature is too big but it looks good but he cant have it :()

The standard screen size is 1024px. Taking into account the widths of things, is it possible to increase the max width of the signature to 800px pls

Spoiler tags in signatures just look ugly. It also means moderators have to click them everytime to ensure they follow the rules and because you can change the contents any time, they would have to recheck a persons signature several times by clicking it. Just annoying tbh.

[kk.]

Spoiler tags in signatures just look ugly. It also means moderators have to click them everytime to ensure they follow the rules and because you can change the contents any time, they would have to recheck a persons signature several times by clicking it. Just annoying tbh.
Omg not this argument again. It was used for another argument but I can't remember what. I think it was actually youtube embedding lol. And what's so different between clicking my signature, and another with a video in?

[FlyingJesus]

Yours doesn't have a video in it

tbh for the moderation reason Saurav just raised it doesn't seem to me like spoilers ought to be in sigs - they're prone to being changed at any point without mods knowing (no "last edited:" on sigs of course) and it is pretty minging, not to mention improper use of spoiler tags :P

[kk.]

Yours doesn't have a video in it

tbh for the moderation reason Saurav just raised it doesn't seem to me like spoilers ought to be in sigs - they're prone to being changed at any point without mods knowing (no "last edited:" on sigs of course) and it is pretty minging, not to mention improper use of spoiler tags :P

no but I could change it at any time like you said..

[Sammeth.]

I don't want to have to repeat everything that pretty much 90% of the people in this thread have said to you. On top of all those reasons, theres not exactly a demand for it other than... you, really? I'm not one for making an excessive change to the rules to benefit the minority.

[hah]

since we dont have any skinny skins and they are all wider than 700 (im guessing thats why the limit was 700 last time) can sigs be wider or are we gunna get a new skinny skin and not a wide fat one lol?

[Richie]

since we dont have any skinny skins and they are all wider than 700 (im guessing thats why the limit was 700 last time) can sigs be wider or are we gunna get a new skinny skin and not a wide fat one lol?

the non habbo dark skin is a 'skinny skin' we dnt want anorexic skins now do we

[hah]

looks like 10px smaller than the other skins.... hardly slim

[Black_Apalachi]

Which is? I use them to not have big images on show? Which is what this would be used for

To contain spoilers perhaps...? If I use a fork to eat soup, it doesn't necessarily mean that all restaurants in the country should begin serving bowls of soup with just a fork. Basically, you seem to be the only person voicing an opinion in favour of this so it's probably not going to happen.