Pictures in sigs?

[ViPER1313]

The ban on sig images was never about page load time - I doubt anyone here is using 28.8 to access the site. It was about annoying, page wide 800x200 signitures that made the page look horrible. Goodspeed's and RJ's little pictures are not annoying or largely space consuming so who cares. :?:

If this little fit is a way of saying you would like to put a little red Type-R or S2K image in your sig feel free to do so :beer:

[Apoc]

2 seconds is millions of dollars to a lot of companies, especially when it's a 50% increase in load time.

Mikey rules.

When we get paid to read interweb forums.... then you got a point.

How is that Mikey rules? Deersty has a point, either way.

[Apoc]

The ban on sig images was never about page load time - I doubt anyone here is using 28.8 to access the site.

In an increasingly broadband world, the number of page objects actually has a lot more to do with load time than page weight.

I can't believe I'm actually using work knowledge on MM. It's a confluence of two very evil things. I think maybe a blackhole is going to open up or something.

[.RJ]

Deersty has a point, either way.

No he doesnt.

Just because I'm paid to be here, doesnt mean my workload or performance is impacted in any way by the extra 2 seconds it takes to load a forum page.

[Apoc]

That's 2 second less work you could be doing.

Multiple that by the 1000s of page views you have here a day and that's like infinity minutes!

[.RJ]

That's 2 second less work you could be doing.

If I really had work to get done I wouldnt be reading MM

[Ginger]

Taken to extremes the loading times argument is pretty valid (esp. it's externalities). And, of course, taking things to the extreme is the reason we decided not to give signatures images to begind with.

[.RJ]

Taken to extremes the loading times argument is pretty valid

If everyone put a 1mb pic in their sig? Sure. But we're not going to extremes here.

And, of course, taking things to the extreme is the reason we decided not to give signatures images to begind with.

No, because it makes the site look like ass.

Random thread from s2ki -

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.s2ki.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=408150">http://www.s2ki.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=408150</a><!-- m -->

[Apoc]

What's the point of the llama anyway? Are you 12?

[.RJ]

Did you run out of irrelevant factoids?

[Apoc]

No - A generally acceptable length for expires headers is 1 month except in cases where content is modified on a regular basis.

Answer my question whore!

[Ginger]

Inference much, RJ?

The reason we nixed images in sigs is because they make the site look like ass because everybody inserts big, obnoxious signatures which is taking the idea to the extreme. I'm well aware that the obnoxious graphical content was the reason for the decision.. that doesn't mean that there aren't other externalities of said features.

If you factor in Evan's point, the volume of images rather than their sheer size being relevant to load times, than the point is pretty valid.

[.RJ]

Your momma is so fat, jobba the hut said DAAAAAAAAAAAAAAMN!

[.RJ]

The reason we nixed images in sigs is because they make the site look like ass because everybody inserts big, obnoxious signatures which is taking the idea to the extreme

So where are the big obnoxious signature pics?

[Apoc]

One could argue that any sig pic is obnoxious.

[Ginger]

See your random thread from the S2k forum.

It's really rude to dumb down somebody else's point just because you've got a different opinion.

[WRXtranceformed]

I've always liked sig pics, some people do some pretty cool ones. It's only when they're gigantic that they're a bit annoying.

[.RJ]

It's really rude to dumb down somebody else's point just because you've got a different opinion.

I'm not dumbing down the point, its a perfect illustration - thats the extreme that needs to be avoided, and well, we dont have that problem.

[Ginger]

You are dumbing down the point. We don't have a taken to extremes problem because we said no pictures in sigs.

You're like, arguing that my point is invalid because of a pre-existiting rule which keeps it from becoming a problem in the midst of an argument over whether or not sig images, big or small, have effects on the load times and aggravation of a page (which is directly related to the rule in question).

[CaptainHenreh]

It's really rude to dumb down somebody else's point just because you've got a different opinion.

I'm not dumbing down the point, its a perfect illustration - thats the extreme that needs to be avoided, and well, we dont have that problem.

But where do we define "Extreme"?

RJ, I let your goofy llama slide because I didn't want to start shit, but let's face it: It's a well-established Rule of MM that there are NO images in sigs.

Period.

We also put an avatar size limit in place, for the same reason.

Now, I personally don't mind images in sigs most of the time, but there is a serious slippery slope argument to be had here, and if you weren't acting like a dickhead, you'd take your Llama out, and Goodspeed woudl remove his images.