500x75 plz

[wwwyzzerdd]

For some time, I've wondered why certain things have been ignored or pushed to the side on the site while other updates were made. One of which was when liljim made a thread long ago to show the new image size allowed on the BBS; 500 pixels wide by 400 pixels tall. This now meant that we could post rather larger images than previously (albeit 80,000 square pixels, or roughly 15.4 square inches more), which was great. I mean, who would honestly have any complaint about larger images?

But then came a puzzling dilemma. Pictures within our posts stuck out an extra 100 pixels, but right below, remained the untouched forum signature; still caged in its 400 pixel width. Maybe it was just forgotten; maybe there was no plan originally to deal with it. My guess is that there was no thought into it, and nobody ever mentioned it.

So that's where I come in. Now I already know that there's a thread for suggestions like so. But I'm like a lobbyist; I don't just sit and talk to the suits in charge, I try to get the word out to everyone to get this noticed (without all the bribes and trips to strip clubs). I ask for one thing; the signature size to be extended to 500 pixels wide by 75 pixels tall.

Where is this number devised from? Take your standard signature size; 400x60. Simply stretch it out so that you hit 500 pixels wide (already the normal picture limit), and you add 15 pixels to the height. Huge difference, right? Well, yes and no. It's a slightly easier way to make sigs through the simple concept that a larger canvas (even if still small compared to anything else) can allow a bit more freedom. However, some might think that the standard area of where signature text and picture would stretch. Not at all. We already know that a picture 500 pixels wide can fit with room to spare in a post, so there's no horizontal distortion. The only "distorting" would be an extra 15 pixels vertically, which really would make no huge difference, even in a signature that uses all 5 lines of text allotted.

So Newgrounds BBS community, I hope you now see this simple proposal and consider it in its entirety. Hopefully after reading this, you now see that bigger IS better.

[wwwyzzerdd]

At 6/26/06 02:40 PM, taylorwilsdon wrote: Newgrounds looks so tiny on my monitors though :(

I have about 250 pixels of space on both sides of the page, but I do have a pretty large monitor. You should've seen NG when I had a widescreen 16:9 monitor.

[Evark]

At 6/26/06 02:32 PM, -wwwyzzerdd- wrote: The only "distorting" would be an extra 15 pixels vertically, which really would make no huge difference, even in a signature that uses all 5 lines of text allotted.

Not to mention the majority of posts are small enough that the signature wouldn't really even be affected. I know my signature isn't large enough to fill the space all the way to the bottom of my post's cell. I even have a good 5+ pixels of empty BBS background colored space on the top of my signature anyway. Having the extra space to play with would be really nice, I much prefer having the ability to center my signature, and if a sig is much more than 250 pixels wide you can't really center is in the BBS what with the amount of space required on the left to center it.

So Newgrounds BBS community, I hope you now see this simple proposal and consider it in its entirety. Hopefully after reading this, you now see that bigger IS better.

I wholeheartedly agree. I do know, however, that the BBS is designed with the consideration of it's less bandwidth-rich frequenters in mind. The size limits are set so that if a page is maxed out in size it will still load within a reasonable amount of time for a dial-up user. That's one of the main reasons (at this time) Administrators are the only ones with the ability to upload those super-sized pictures. They're the only ones really in a position to be able to make a decision about risking breaking that size-limit.

But anyway, I definitely think that upping the signature maximum allowable size would be great. I certainly wouldn't need any size change, just resolution adjustments, since all of my sigs are .gifs with a very limited palette.

[DekapitatoR]

Agree with you in this. Bigger sigs would be a way cooler.

[wwwyzzerdd]

At 6/26/06 03:01 PM, taylorwilsdon wrote: I've got 16:10 aspect ratio (Dell 2405FPW) sitting next to (and dual monitor'd with) a Proview 19'' LCD. Too much bigness!

Ha! You should put a 3rd monitor on and do flight simulations.

[Edward]

500x75 sigs would certainly be better.

[Idocreating]

Makes sense to ley sigs be as wide as the box.

[TheCatsLeotards]

I have an idea, It reminds me of those crazy pimped out cars that they drive on The Fast and the Furious, that would increase traffic (that's a pun) to the site, because all the hip kids who drive shitty cars with no mufflers and have body kits on them and all that.

I call it, The Signature Picture Body Kit Or Something:

Signature picture size reform 2.0?

[wwwyzzerdd]

At 6/26/06 03:03 PM, Evark wrote: Having the extra space to play with would be really nice, I much prefer having the ability to center my signature, and if a sig is much more than 250 pixels wide you can't really center is in the BBS what with the amount of space required on the left to center it.

I remember learning that lesson when I made that "This Post Is Hosted on eBaums" sig. It took me a while to figure out the dimensions of the sig cell and determine what size the watermark should be, along with how much space to leave. StealthSteve has figured it all out though. Lucky SOB.

I wholeheartedly agree. I do know, however, that the BBS is designed with the consideration of it's less bandwidth-rich frequenters in mind.

I will admit, that has completely slipped my mind. I didn't even think people still used dial-up.

The size limits are set so that if a page is maxed out in size it will still load within a reasonable amount of time for a dial-up user. That's one of the main reasons (at this time) Administrators are the only ones with the ability to upload those super-sized pictures. They're the only ones really in a position to be able to make a decision about risking breaking that size-limit.

I see. They're also the least likely to pointlessly post large images. Imagine if everyone got to post the same sized pictures as the adminstrators (...and Stamper). Same thing happens on BBCode forums that require you to hotlink images; it takes forever to load the image, and allows anyone to post whatever size picture they feel like unless there's a resizing module in place.

But anyway, I definitely think that upping the signature maximum allowable size would be great. I certainly wouldn't need any size change, just resolution adjustments, since all of my sigs are .gifs with a very limited palette.

Hmmm. I guess the filesize limit could be bumped to 50 KB. Although 10 extra KB is little to the individual, it's genocidial to Tom's monthly bill. It's really hard to imagine the BBS using up more of the site's bandwidth than the tiny amount it already does.

At 6/26/06 03:06 PM, Xtriton wrote: Agree with you in this. Bigger sigs would be a way cooler.

Wicked. I'm glad people like this idea.

[N-Antichrist]

I have always wanted the sigs to be a bit bigger, knowing that they could be.

obviously, there's the issue about bandwidth, and stuff like that, but meh, is it really such a big problem?

I say, let's have them bigger. At least NG doesn't let utter idiots clutter up their sigs with crap that takes loads ot load, and is always substantially bigger than their whole post.

I, Noob-Antichrist of the NG BBS, demand and support the notion to increase the size of signature pics.

and perhaps a sundae bar?

[TheTengu]

At 6/26/06 03:06 PM, Xtriton wrote: Agree with you in this. Bigger sigs would be a way cooler.

Yes i would like a larger sig.
And my profile pic...not my level pic..thats a little stupid.

[X-Naut]

At 6/26/06 03:28 PM, -wwwyzzerdd- wrote: Wicked. I'm glad people like this idea.

Of course, it's a good idea. The only problem is the bandwidth issues, but it wouldn't seem like too much of a big deal. I'm all in for it.

At 6/26/06 03:39 PM, Noob-Antichrist wrote: and perhaps a sundae bar?

Increased sig size, and a sundae bar? Can this idea get any better?

[Asvegren]

At 6/26/06 02:32 PM, -wwwyzzerdd- wrote: So Newgrounds BBS community, I hope you now see this simple proposal and consider it in its entirety. Hopefully after reading this, you now see that bigger IS better.

Haha, I love how you made the colours in the "old" sig look bland and boring compared to the "new" one, while still keeping the difference subtle. Masterful marketing strategy.

[BananaBreadMuffin]

Could you post another example without black borders on the actual sig example, as they're clearly set out to confuse me.

[wwwyzzerdd]

At 6/26/06 03:41 PM, TheTengu wrote: Yes i would like a larger sig.
And my profile pic...not my level pic..thats a little stupid.

I've heard Tom make hints about changing the profiles around. Maybe he'll incorporate larger profile pics when they redesign the site. Then again, maybe larger sigs are planned too. I dunno though.

At 6/26/06 03:43 PM, -TheThwomp- wrote:

At 6/26/06 03:39 PM, Noob-Antichrist wrote: and perhaps a sundae bar?

Increased sig size, and a sundae bar? Can this idea get any better?

A fireworks show. Everyone loves fireworks.

[Buddhist]

It does make sense.

Evark, I know you say it's meant to help 56k users, but when you think about it, the new NG header isn't, so why should one of the least-visited areas of the site be?

BTW wwwyzz, your sig was making me trippy when I was staring at it while listening to the guitar solo from Are You Experienced? by the Jimi Hendrix Experience.

[roflwofl]

We don't need bigger sigs, we need to take away sigs altogether. They're annoying to look at.

[Aksumka]

Small sig > Big sig.

That is what separates the NG BBS from all other forums.

[Edward]

At 6/26/06 04:12 PM, roflwofl wrote: We don't need bigger sigs, we need to take away sigs altogether. They're annoying to look at.

Over half the users beg to differ.

[ChocloMan]

Big, flashy signatures are really annoying. Haven't you been in other forums?

[MadCow]

Hellz yes.

You know what they say about guys that have big sigs >:(

[Robotussin]

I say yes to 500x75. I need a bigger sig >:O

[AshfordPride]

I remeber making a thread similar to this a while ago. Granted, it was a joke and I really didnt think that the Fukps would be swayed by my argument that the extra gray space in your sig was stealing your megahurts...

[DashDingo]

I think it looks fine as is.

[ChocloMan]

And also, unless they allowed normal sized sigs, there'd be a fuckload of errors, or the sigs would be just deleted. :O

[Evark]

At 6/26/06 04:07 PM, -Buddhist- wrote: Evark, I know you say it's meant to help 56k users, but when you think about it, the new NG header isn't, so why should one of the least-visited areas of the site be?

The new NG header isn't that big. Neither are any of the maximum allowable picture sizes. It's when these elements are combined with a bunch of small-sized things that you get the largest affect and the most problems with the dial-ups.

Just look at portal voting, you can get five or six high-rolling votes to vastly affect a score, but a much larger group of lesser VP users affects the score much more.

The header is only one static amount of things to be loaded, and it's not particularly large. It's in .gif format so that leads me to believe that there's really very little in the ways of colors to load, I wouldn't be surprised if the entire header was about the size of a single maxed out picture, maybe two.

As for whoever said doing away with sigs would be best, I agree. Only I wouldn't get rid of the signature pictures, just the text. I remember when the BBS was changed over from it's old format to this one the sig text was temporarily disabled so that the color could be changed from the old style gray (looks just like this text) to the newer style dark gray (just like quoted text). The BBS looked damn snazzy with exclusively signature pictures and no text, I quite liked it.

[HardcoreEmoGothRebel]

At 6/26/06 04:15 PM, Suicidal-kid wrote: Small sig > Big sig.

That is what separates the NG BBS from all other forums.

A slightly wider sig won't kill anyone.

OR WILL IT??!?!!?!?!?

[Evark]

Oh, and it also needs to be pointed out that the BBS wouldn't really break nearly as much as might be feared by increasing the sig-size. I'm sure we'd all be willing to take the hit in terms of the number of characters our usernames are allowed in favor of eliminating completely the chance that a sig pic would be larger than the re-adjusted post area users with overly large names would require.

The only users that come to mind are "Fukmehardnpullmyhair" and "-Kenneth_the_Sociopath-". I can't think of any other obscenely long names that move the division between name and stats / post body, but I'm sure it's not an often occurance. The old BBS used to make their name's font smaller, so why not implement that again?

[wwwyzzerdd]

At 6/26/06 03:47 PM, Asvegren wrote: Haha, I love how you made the colours in the "old" sig look bland and boring compared to the "new" one, while still keeping the difference subtle. Masterful marketing strategy.

Heh. I think I accidently did one extra difference cloud rendering on the second one, so it came out more colorful. I didn't even realize the difference until you said it. I must be subliminally trying to get my point across then.

MaybE iF I dO anotheRexaMple, everyO can see the Difference without it being two different images.

At 6/26/06 03:50 PM, BananaBreadMuffin wrote: Could you post another example without black borders on the actual sig example, as they're clearly set out to confuse me.

Whoops. Another example. I made the larger sig, then resized it so there's no difference in quality other than the sizes. Then I inverted the 400x60 area in the larger sig so people can see the difference.

[HardcoreEmoGothRebel]

At 6/26/06 04:31 PM, Evark wrote: The only users that come to mind are "Fukmehardnpullmyhair" and "-Kenneth_the_Sociopath-". I can't think of any other obscenely long names that move the division between name and stats / post body.

What, I'm not good enough for you?

)*:>