I don't think it'd be that big a deal about the resizing, but the animation you will get a lot of complaints. Bottom line is, it's your site, you have to draw the line and do what's best for the site as a whole, even if you do piss people off.

Another thing is, the sigs would only affect the forums, which are only frequented by NG users, one-time visitors will likely stay in the portal and will not see the forums.

The sigs are an extension of the users here, reflects something about them, but like I said, do what you think is best, even if you piss some people off. You gotta break a couple eggs to make an omelett :)

I like the fact that you are considering modifying sig limits, and that you are asking for user input, but I don't like your idea.

A) The main problem of these sigs are height. The length doesn't matter, it's the height that becomes the regular problem.
However, I think that if somehow you did lengthen the sigs to fit a whole post - it would look really slick. I'm not sure if I want to sacrifice the height for more length though.

I don’t think the resizing idea is disastrous, and it wouldn’t be a large loss - but when it means we have to lose animation, I’m less forgiving.

B) Animated sigs are a huge part of this forum. You cannot get rid of them.
Newgrounds is about Flash animation, is it not? How silly would it be for someone to come onto a site about animation, and find out that you can’t even have animated sigs.
The truly annoying sigs are stroby ones - and they aren’t allowed anyway.
Don’t get rid of animation, it’s great!

Your third party is stupid. I never found a problem with the sigs on this site, it does not make 'Newgrounds look shitty' or seem like it has ads. I don't think it was ever a problem.

I’m all for change, since I think that sigs are actually a big part of this BBS, but I think that your suggestions are too drastic. No from me.

By all means change the sigs, but don’t sacrifice this much for it.

Well i think the sigs are good the way they are, but i hate peaple who put flashing images in so maybe you could stop using gif. sigs but keep the sizes the way they are?

I think, instead of removing animated sigs, just more strictly enforce the "no flashing or obnoxious sig" rule.
I do agree, there's some nice animated sigs out there that I would miss.

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?

personally, I really don't care about the width. You could actually bring it back to 400 and I wouldn't mind. I really only care about the height. It's already really hard to work with 60 to make a nice looking image and honestly I would really be annoyed if you'd switch to 40. So maybe you could only take out the animation part, even tho I saw some really cool looking ones out there.

Anyways, it's all up to you, I hope you'll take the best decision :)

I don't mind, i never animate, so i can't speak for that, but i think expanding the sig size wouldn't be bad.

I have a few Q's and opinions :D. As usual, lol.

1]-Can we see stampers example, so we can see what were working with if it does change.
2]-If you did this, would you rasie the filesize limit by a few kb? the bigger canvas will need more kb.
3]-I think users should still be alowed to submit smaller sigs, else it will be just another restriction for people to rebel on >8D.

Anyway, that's what i think.

I'll go reread your post again, to see if i missed anything :D.

You can make animated sigs more fun and/or enjoyable. I don't see why the signature dimensions should change, maybe just make more width and don't take of Height? I never thought the forum signatures were bad or didn't fit to the forum, well, maybe some of the worse ones.

Although I am disagreing, I wouldn't mind the new signature rules much. But I'm sure many people will complain about no animated signatures.

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?

About this much: -
Out of : ------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------
----------------

Go ahead i would say :)

Sample... The border is automatically added around the signature in this example.

At 10/3/06 12:13 PM, liljim wrote: Sample... The border is automatically added around the signature in this example.

That does actually look nice though

At 10/3/06 12:13 PM, liljim wrote: Sample... The border is automatically added around the signature in this example.

Width looks sexy, but still unsure about the height, in some pictures it would look okay, but the height at the moment is perfectly fine...

At 10/3/06 12:13 PM, liljim wrote: Sample... The border is automatically added around the signature in this example.

I think the width is way to long...

At 10/3/06 12:13 PM, liljim wrote: Sample... The border is automatically added around the signature in this example.

That is fricking awsome. The only thing is, alot of people won't be able to create orgasmic pictures like that, lol.

You read my post?

At 10/3/06 12:13 PM, liljim wrote: Sample... The border is automatically added around the signature in this example.

That does work actually.

Still.....my animation...

At 10/3/06 12:15 PM, HoboPorn wrote: I think the width is way to long...

In the context of this forum design, yes. In the new template, it fits perfectly.

I hate when I try to make a centered sig, it just stucks in the left, I think its a good idea to make them wider.

Yeah. You should just make the sig pics slightly larger in all dimensions.

PS: Wait, I like animated sigs :[

It took me forever to get this sig to the right size and kb specifications.
sigh.

I say shorten them, however keep the animated GIFs. *cuddles her sig*

At 10/3/06 10:54 AM, TomFulp wrote: Stamper mocked up a new 595x40 user sig demo page, 596

in what way did he mock it up?

If i had to, i would resize my signature, but allowing no animation would piss me off.

Just enforce some rules on idiotic gif's.

If the sigs are too annoying, they are forced to remove them.

Example... any epeleptic type signature.

I'm going to need someone to make me a cool new sig if we go this way.

At 10/3/06 12:27 PM, WadeFulp wrote: I'm going to need someone to make me a cool new sig if we go this way.

You could always ask madknt........ provided he's not in one of his "moods."

At 10/3/06 12:27 PM, WadeFulp wrote: I'm going to need someone to make me a cool new sig if we go this way.

Go with TurkeyBean he makes some pretty badass sigs from what I have seen.

No animated sigs anymore? Sorry, but that sucks!

I vote no. I often find that height is the most restrictive feature when making sigs, the 60pixel limit on Newgrounds is small compared to many other forums, but I get by. But forty pixels, I feel, would be too short for my preferences. For example, if I want to include a render in any real detail, I would probably have to loose the top or bottom of it for a 40 pixel limit.

At 10/3/06 12:29 PM, simple-but-sandy wrote: well, i just made me a new sig in MS paint (if the new laws come in), and it looks like processed cheese compared to my current one.

It's sigs like yours that are making the 3rd parties suggest not allowing animated sigs.

At 10/3/06 12:33 PM, WadeFulp wrote:

At 10/3/06 12:29 PM, simple-but-sandy wrote: well, i just made me a new sig in MS paint (if the new laws come in), and it looks like processed cheese compared to my current one.

It's sigs like yours that are making the 3rd parties suggest not allowing animated sigs.

And yours are the kind that should be kept on. I could watch that guy dance all day.

At 10/3/06 12:34 PM, BobbyJenkins wrote:

It's sigs like yours that are making the 3rd parties suggest not allowing animated sigs.

And yours are the kind that should be kept on. I could watch that guy dance all day.

So, hows it taste?