New Signature Rules

[jeff]

Please have a look and comment on the proposed signature guidelines in the attached PDF. Comment here or via PM to me if you prefer.

My biggest motivation for this is to consolidate and clarify our current signature rules, most of which are in the Acceptable Use Policy.

However, I've heard from many members, and observed myself, that some member signatures tend to overpower post content. Some are used as billboards, with wild color combinations, the biggest banners allowed, and flashy formatting. They don't have to be boring, but they aren't there to be distracting and annoying, either.

So, although most of what you'll see in the PDF is a rehash of what's currently in place, there are a few changes. I've also tried to include some examples of how to do things, to unravel some of the confusion about formatting.

Here is a summary of the changes (explained fully in the attached PDF)

1 - The current max permitted signature image size is 500w x 100h pixels. Two new image size limits are 125x125, and 468x60.

2 - There is currently a 1000 character limit for signature text. We're going to a 600 character limit in signature text.

3 - There will be a 150 pixel limit on the height of the signature block.

Most of you will not need to make any changes in your signature. There are only about 25 signatures which are outside any limit in the existing or new rules.

We'll implement the new limits on Aug 15. Since the new limits will be enforced when signatures are edited and saved, and not everybody edits frequently, it may take a while for all signatures to comply.

Thanks and I look forward to your comments.

 

[mredburn]

For the offending signatures why not simply pm them directly on the change date and require them to comply? Other than that I like most will simply adapt to the new rules.

 

[seamus7227]

good point Mike!:biggrin::biggrin::tongue:

 

[jeff]

For the offending signatures why not simply pm them directly on the change date and require them to comply? Other than that I like most will simply adapt to the new rules.

I was going to give two weeks to bring them into compliance.

 

[Xander]

For the offending signatures why not simply pm them directly on the change date and require them to comply? Other than that I like most will simply adapt to the new rules.

I was going to give two weeks to bring them into compliance.

Two weeks from today would be .. the official start date. Consider THIS posting as their 2 week notice.

 

[thewishman]

Sounds good to me. Sometimes I look for a signature line to find a site I need, so I like having the links. But some are a bit overboard, so I like the new limits, too.

 

[jeff]

Just a bump to raise awareness of this...

Comments positive or negative are welcome.

 

[Andrew_K99]

It doesn't affect me but can you elaborate on the image size restrctions?

Picking on Mike and Seamus above, their images are 221x80 and 200x98 respectfully.

How would the new size limites (125x125 and 468x60) affect their images?

AK

 

[Chuck Key]

The signature editor is only allowing 5 lines of coding for signatures that are way less than 600 text characters. There is no mention of the 5 lines of code restriction in the guidelines. Implicit line wrapping seems to be the problem per this error message received.

"Your signature contains too many lines and must be shortened. You may only have up to 5 line(s). Long text may have been implicitly wrapped, causing it to be counted as multiple lines."

Here is the signature code:

Trying to make some minor adjustments to more closely comply with the new guides.

 

[jeff]

The signature editor is only allowing 5 lines of coding for signatures that are way less than 600 text characters. There is no mention of the 5 lines of code restriction in the guidelines. Implicit line wrapping seems to be the problem per this error message received.

"Your signature contains too many lines and must be shortened. You may only have up to 5 line(s). Long text may have been implicitly wrapped, causing it to be counted as multiple lines."

Here is the signature code:

Trying to make some minor adjustments to more closely comply with the new guides.

Well, the current rule is 5 lines, and the new rules have not yet gone into effect. :biggrin:

 

[Chuck Key]

Well, the current rule is 5 lines, and the new rules have not yet gone into effect. :biggrin:

LOL, that is awesome. I would not be able to code my current signature under the current guidelines.

 

[jeff]

It doesn't affect me but can you elaborate on the image size restrctions?

Picking on Mike and Seamus above, their images are 221x80 and 200x98 respectfully.

How would the new size limites (125x125 and 468x60) affect their images?

AK

Well, from the document: "if your image is 125px wide or less, it may be up to 125px tall. If your image is over 125px wide, it is limited to 60px tall."

I am not sure how much more I can elaborate. If it's confusing maybe I should try to clarify. The idea was this, if someone wants a wide image, the height is limited. If someone wants a tall image, the width is limited. These are both standard web image sizes, but we are just using them as limits. I was trying to accommodate people who like an avatar-style image as well as those who prefer a banner, all while reducing the overpowering nature of the current bigger banner.

So for the two you asked about:

Mike's is 221w x 80h, so because it's over 125px wide, it is too tall.

Seamus' is 200w x 98h, same story.

Maybe this is too complicated and we just need one image size, but those with an image that looks better tall are going to be unhappy because I'd probably settle on 400x x 75h.

 

[Andrew_K99]

Sorry Jeff, I should have read the PDF before asking.

You just said there were only 25 offenders, based on image restrictions I would have guessed it was a lot more than that.

Thanks for the response,

 

[GaryMGg]

Just my two cents and worth nearly what you pay for it:

For the typical user, tall image takes up more screen real estate wide images because we landscape rather than portrait.
IMHO, a wide rectangle isn't an issue so long as there's only 1 image.

 

[PTownSubbie]

3 - There will be a 150 pixel limit on the height of the signature block.

Jeff,

How does one ensure that they are within this limit? Is this essentially the 5 line limit in pixel format? (ie. 30 pixels/line)?

And does that include any picture that one might have in the signature or only the text?

Thanks!

 

[jeff]

3 - There will be a 150 pixel limit on the height of the signature block.

Jeff,

How does one ensure that they are within this limit? Is this essentially the 5 line limit in pixel format? (ie. 30 pixels/line)?

And does that include any picture that one might have in the signature or only the text?

Thanks!

From the document: "Signatures will be hard limited by software to 150px high. This is plenty of real estate for you to get your message across. Use the max image or big text as you wish, but pushing everything to the limit will result in a chopped off signature block."

That includes everything and the server handles it when displaying the signatures. It just chops it off, so if you save your signature then look at a post you've made and it's chopped off, it's too big.

 

[PTownSubbie]

3 - There will be a 150 pixel limit on the height of the signature block.

Jeff,

How does one ensure that they are within this limit? Is this essentially the 5 line limit in pixel format? (ie. 30 pixels/line)?

And does that include any picture that one might have in the signature or only the text?

Thanks!

From the document: "Signatures will be hard limited by software to 150px high. This is plenty of real estate for you to get your message across. Use the max image or big text as you wish, but pushing everything to the limit will result in a chopped off signature block."

That includes everything and the server handles it when displaying the signatures. It just chops it off, so if you save your signature then look at a post you've made and it's chopped off, it's too big.

Thanks! Sorry for the top question. I like others should have read the PDF first! I noticed the quote when reviewing after my post.

Sorry!!:redface:

Everyone else, please read the PDF first before you post your question. It is more detailed than the first post.....:redface:

 

[robersonjr]

I'm OK

 

[OKLAHOMAN]

As long as it's adhered to by all we should not have any problems. Now I do realize that it would take a while to let someone know to adjust his or her signature so lets not all get hot about someone who is outside the rules, just let one of the mods know.

 

[Haynie]

Can I have a visual please of what will and what will not be acceptable. I had thought about making a signature.

 

[watch_art]

I think it sounds good.

...hmm. Maybe I should shrink mine down a bit. :biggrin:

edit - ah that's better. 60 pixels tall. Tiny but not annoying.

 

[Joe S.]

Mines good! I might add a picture to it if I make a really good pen.

 

[jeff]

Can I have a visual please of what will and what will not be acceptable. I had thought about making a signature.

There are infinite number of acceptable sigs! The document describes the limits.

 

[Carl Fisher]

Hrmm, guess I need to scale down my logo. No biggie really.

 

[Steve Busey]

Well, I guess I could use a smaller font...

 

[jeff]

As promised, the new signature rules are posted and in effect.

The old signature rules were removed from the AUP, and are now linked from that document. There is also a link to the rules on the signature edit panel.

Thanks for your cooperation!