Forum Sigs

[TomFulp]

We've been debating something, so I thought I would run it by everyone here.

The new layout for the forums (which will hopefully launch before the year is over) looks ultra slick, but it was brought to our attention by a third party that "the user sigs make it look like shit."

We shopped around for more input, and another thought was "You guys don't run any obnoxious ads on the page, but all the user sigs make it look like there are a bunch of obnoxious ads on the page."

Stamper mocked up a new 595x40 user sig demo page, 595 being the useable width of the new forum pages. Although we have to keep in mind that it IS Stamper's visuals, everyone who sees it agrees that it looks MUCH NICER.

The new format is 20 pixels SHORTER than the current sigs (I know people have asked for them to be taller) and also considers the option of not allowing animated GIFs - so that user sigs can't be flashy and obnoxious. This vexes me a bit because there are animated user sigs I like. However, the trade-off might be worth it.

So the question is... Do we beautify the forums at the expense of pissing off everyone that has to reformat their sigs?

My concern is that if we do this, the only response we'll hear to the redesign is "bring back the old sigs!" So I figured I would ask... How much would it piss you off if you had to make a new sig, with expanded width but less height and no animation?

[IMGAYWITHMENPLZ]

i think the sigs as we have them give the forums more 'soul', rather than just an extension of the site without any of our input.

no change necessary, i think.

[Lord-Sonx]

At 10/3/06 10:54 AM, TomFulp wrote: So the question is... Do we beautify the forums at the expense of pissing off everyone that has to reformat their sigs?

i wouldn't midn reamaking my sig < as it is crap>

what if you simply resized the sig's to fit instead of just remvoing them?

[Mazza]

I wouldn't really mind. Sigs aren't really that important anyways, 3/4 of Newgrounds didn't even make theirs themselves.

Making a new one isn't that much of a hassle anyways. But I can see tons and tons tons of people disagreeing with this.

[DareDevilGuy]

No problem with resizing, but I require animation :(

[WilliWowza]

Animated sigs are great, don't take them away, some have been classic

[Xurch]

At 10/3/06 10:54 AM, TomFulp wrote:

My concern is that if we do this, the only response we'll hear to the redesign is "bring back the old sigs!" So I figured I would ask... How much would it piss you off if you had to make a new sig, with expanded width but less height and no animation?

Not alot, the animated signatures can be annoying and distracting anyway.
I wouldnt mind remaking a signature either, they dont take that long to make.

[StealthSteve]

At 10/3/06 10:54 AM, TomFulp wrote: How much would it piss you off if you had to make a new sig, with expanded width but less height and no animation?

-20 pixels isn't a big concession to make, but no animation? that'd be lame.

[Evark]

I think that would be awesome, personally.

I usually have excess vertical space when I'm designing a sig of mine, but a lack in the horizontal. I'm a huge fan of getting rid of things that make forums look like garbage, one of the main attractions this place has is that it doesn't let users run rampant with personalized images and text and all sorts of other crap that looks poor with the layout of the site.

Another plus is that it no longer needs to be a concern that users could be uploading animated signatures with seizure-inducing animations. The only problem I would have, ultimately, is that I usually have signatures in .gif format because I think .gifs work better than .jpgs for MSPaint-based signatures.

Personally, I loved it when you guys launched the current incarnation of the forums and sig-text was temporarily disabled, it made the forums look so much cleaner without the text in there.

So I'm all for it, basically.

[modestcasanova]

Do it. But that is just coming from someone whos online life is less important than their real life, so... YEAH. I don't think my opinion should matter.

[Dark-Knight]

well most people get a new sig every month or something anyway i dont think it will anoy people to much i want a new sig i've had this one for a year or too.. i'dd much rather see a sexier BBS..

anyway its your site !

[HoboPorn]

I like it the way it is :|

[Dark-Knight]

Oh yeah and you should post a screen shot of the new Forum to see if it is worth it or not ?

[PhoenixDancer]

Sure, It would be nice to have the forums in a more Orderly and nice fassion

I agree to this suggestion

[StealthSteve]

At 10/3/06 11:03 AM, Evark wrote: Another plus is that it no longer needs to be a concern that users could be uploading animated signatures with seizure-inducing animations.

strobing, flashing, and otherwise obnoxious sigs have been against the rules for a long time already. if animation was disallowed it still wouldn't prevent users from potentially putting offensive images in their static .jpg sigs, and besides which, mods have tools to remove people's signatures anyway.

[Monocrom]

At 10/3/06 10:54 AM, TomFulp wrote: My concern is that if we do this, the only response we'll hear to the redesign is "bring back the old sigs!" So I figured I would ask... How much would it piss you off if you had to make a new sig, with expanded width but less height and no animation?

With all due respect, Tom; you're going to piss off every user who has a Sig. And who is this third part who said that user sigs make your site look crappy? (Okay, some of the Sigs are bad. But a lot of them are fun to look at....... especially the animated sigs). Some of the best Sigs I've seen on NG are the animated ones. RobbyKillAll is famous for his funny, animated Sigs.

I doubt if a lot of NGers would agree with the third party's ascertions.

[Ryan]

I really enjoy having all the sigs, you could always make a rule about them not being obnoxious to a certain extent. My suggestion would be the same height/width but more strict rules on what the sigs can be about.

[fuzz]

Yes please change. Hopefully this will encourage people to go to more effort than half the shitty ms paint/ flash animated sigs

[ornery]

As much as I like my sig (its my first and only one) I wouldnt mind a reformat.

Also, wouldnt it still be possible to have animated sigs, just with the new size?

I definetly think the reformat would be a nice change, sigs shouldnt be overwhelming.

[Evark]

At 10/3/06 11:15 AM, StealthSteve wrote: strobing, flashing, and otherwise obnoxious sigs have been against the rules for a long time already. if animation was disallowed it still wouldn't prevent users from potentially putting offensive images in their static .jpg sigs, and besides which, mods have tools to remove people's signatures anyway.

I'm aware of all that, but we can't be everywhere at once, and static images don't have the potential for being physically harmful to an individual.

I'm not saying it should be a major factor in deciding to switch, just saying I can see that as a potential plus.

[Ecke]

At 10/3/06 10:54 AM, TomFulp wrote:

The new format is 20 pixels SHORTER than the current sigs.

WTF TOM! didnt you see my RANT!

[Paradox]

The only think that I don't like the idea of is the sigs being smaller. Sure, ditch animation and make them wider, but the height should stay the same if you ask me.

[Jercurpac]

Question, is the issue with the sigs purely one of size or does it have more to do with how they're designed? I would like to think that once the new design launches our sig artists would have the ingenuity to design signatures that complement the new look of the forums no matter what the size. In any case a slight cut hight for a little more width seems like a fair compromise to me. Like every other change on this website there will be a few days of heavy complaints and then everyone will start adapting and after a month everyone will forget they ever had an extra twenty pixels.

I feel a little less apathetic about losing the animated sigs though. I've personally never used one, but it's hard to imagine a BBS without them.

[SuperSteveo]

Yeah im torn bewtween the two but i wouldnt really mind

[fallenfromlight]

Great idea

[Absurd-Ditties]

I stuggle to fit things in the 60 height at the minute, so i'd rather not have to change it, but if it has to be done it has to be done.

[backslash2010]

we need sigs but a small size change wouldnt make that much differnce to me

[OneWhoListens]

Only a little.

[TurtleJuice]

Doson't bother me , my sig sucks anyway

[liljim]

At 10/3/06 11:03 AM, Evark wrote: The only problem I would have, ultimately, is that I usually have signatures in .gif format because I think .gifs work better than .jpgs for MSPaint-based signatures.

We're able to discern whether a gif is animated or not, so gifs would still be permitted, even if animated sigs are eliminated in the long run.