bigbadboab Posted February 11, 2006 Posted February 11, 2006 Quote I'm just trying to prove a point! Whats the problem?????????????????????
st3ph3n Posted February 11, 2006 Author Posted February 11, 2006 It's blatantly open to abuse! It makes reading a thread a tiresome exercise. It makes viewing on small displays like PDAs either impossible or very difficult. How many times have you been round the internet and found a forum full of people posting "LOL" as a reply to a thread closely followed by 3 inches of pictures. It destroys forums because the information doesn't stand out from the shat. I don't need to see the same damn picture 5 times on every thread I read! There you go.
bigbadboab Posted February 12, 2006 Posted February 12, 2006 Why didn't you just say so rather than be so childish about it. I'm not here to be offensive or outlandish, just ask politely in future[]
bigbadboab Posted February 12, 2006 Posted February 12, 2006 Your's is a bit annoying though, very large LOL opps[][]
RA Dunk Posted February 12, 2006 Posted February 12, 2006 howz about just limiting them to a decent size??
st3ph3n Posted February 12, 2006 Author Posted February 12, 2006 Bob! It's not aimed squarely at you mate. I've posted a thread in the forum questions about it, but as 99.999999999999% of my posts are here I thought I'd at least explain to people that I'm just trying to prove a point. Your particular picture was fairly small and reasonably easy on the eye. I'm not saying I liked it, because I didn't, but you can see that it's so easy to abuse the feature.
the squiggle Posted February 12, 2006 Posted February 12, 2006 I liked your Mini sig Boab but i can see Stephens point Sometimes i fire up the PSP as it goes live to the Net quicker than booting up the laptop, The poor wee thing struggles with all the unnececery pics or the same pic repeated. Grant
st3ph3n Posted February 12, 2006 Author Posted February 12, 2006 Quote is mine too big?? Using my trusty 1991 vintage WWF ruler your post is (on my display) 8.5cm in total. 5.5cm of which is a picture. 64% of your post! If 20 posts on a thread had 5.5cm pictures I'd have to scroll a whopping 1.1meters extra over the whole page! It's a great picture mate, but I feel they have absolutely no place on forums anymore. This is the internet 2006. Everything is clean, efficient, effective. It's not the Internet 1998 where everything is animated gifs of "under construction" signs, horrific frames, embedded midi files of axel F and the most awful tiled backgrounds you've ever seen.
p1ggm Posted February 12, 2006 Posted February 12, 2006 i dont know, i like sigs as they can be away to get to know folk/car/interests i understand it cant be easy if using a pda psp etc, tbh i have never used any of them but i understand the screen is tiny. is there not an option to run without seeing sigs/pics etc?
st3ph3n Posted February 12, 2006 Author Posted February 12, 2006 I'm not sure. Not that I can see. I'm sure the bossmen had said it wasn't something they wanted, but if it is decided that people can have them I have no objections if they are controlled. Otherwise it's just a total free for all. I could have slipped some filthy porn into mine and quite easily get it on every page I've ever posted on with minimal fuss.
st3ph3n Posted February 12, 2006 Author Posted February 12, 2006 Removed as you all can see. I apologise for the inconvenience I may have caused for your browsing enjoyment. I don't apologise for the cause though. Vive la resistance!
SEEVERS Posted February 12, 2006 Posted February 12, 2006 Simple....if you want to enter this forum...don't do it on a PSP or PDA with their shatty little screens....then you won't have any problems. FFS grow up. Del.
WRC No 1 Posted February 12, 2006 Posted February 12, 2006 Quote i dont know, i like sigs as they can be away to get to know folk/car/interests i understand it cant be easy if using a pda psp etc, tbh i have never used any of them but i understand the screen is tiny. is there not an option to run without seeing sigs/pics etc? i use my ipaq ppc for the internet some times i log on here with it but i can have pics on/off to save mem and time on loading up the net. it dont bother me. wullie
2559B Posted February 12, 2006 Posted February 12, 2006 Like most people ..... I can see Stephen's point . Maybe if they were limited to a specific size ???
colin_ross Posted February 12, 2006 Posted February 12, 2006 I've got to say I don't like them either but for a totally different reason. I do "some" browsing at work and having 50 pics in every thread is a bit like a red rag to the boss. The cleaner and more subtle a page looks the better as far as I'm concerned. Also,as Stephen said if some dodgy links were added I could dind myself in some very serious trouble from our net police.
st3ph3n Posted February 12, 2006 Author Posted February 12, 2006 For those that missed it last night all my posts ended with this image: Obviously I was taking it to extremes to prove a point to admin, but there you go. Also, if you're on dialup, which some of you are, then it's going to add a fair amount to page load times. It winds me up so much as someone who writes software and websites for a living. A clean usable interface is a thing of beauty, but pictures destroy them.
Gee Wr1 Posted February 12, 2006 Posted February 12, 2006 Why dosn't everybody just use the avatar piccy under your user name on the left of screen? It's always worked in the past. They are tiny files so don't take time to load or get in the way of thread reading. Someone mentioned you will get to know peoples cars from signatures, but this can be done with your avatar & not a huge pic right across the screen.
st3ph3n Posted February 12, 2006 Author Posted February 12, 2006 To quote Phil: "Signatures have been fixed, please refrain from including pictures otherwise we will turn this function off" Thank you.
~ ~ Cal ~~ Posted February 13, 2006 Posted February 13, 2006 Mine is staying until my avatar gets sorted oot ! My sig. is small and non-offensive with no dodgy links. I dont post muppets style cack either [] Small sigs are fine and some people text signatures can take up just as much page height. My comments are general and not aimed at Stephen [H]
phil Posted February 13, 2006 Posted February 13, 2006 I touch goats, to see if we can sort your membership status
~ ~ Cal ~~ Posted February 13, 2006 Posted February 13, 2006 I touch goats with all details accordingly [H]
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now