Signature images 512 images or less, please

From my observation signature images work best in this forum if they are 512 pixels wide or less.

Agreed wholeheartedly. But it's not just the images that spoil the layout. It's also text that follows them on the same line when it could/should be on the next line.

I turned the seeing of signatures off a few weeks ago. For some reason, every time one person's sig image came on-screen, by computer crashed.

I have a feeling the person whose signature prompted you to turn off display of signatures has themselves turned off display of signatures.

I don't have images turned on (learned my lesson ages ago online when someone posted goatse in huge dimensions) so if I've ever posted a too large pic sorry.

I have no images in my sig at all though. (And I have no idea who does.)

hope it was'nt this one

Hmm, I wonder if this is dependent on monitor resolution.

My figure of 512 max width is based on a 1024x768 display. It's possible that a display with more pixels across can display a signature image with more pixels across without disturbing the formatting. That would explain why people would have the wider images without being bothered by their own signatures.

Do you mean that she no longer has a signature, or that she doesn't see signatures? I think you mean the latter, in which case I'll leave the seeing of signatures off.

I have my browser's width set to display this forum with a nice little margin. I like to see other things on the other side of the screen, like a reduced sized viewer.

It wasn't

Though width sometimes makes things a bit weird, it's the height that bugs me. I tend put people on Ignore when they like to have signatures that fill my screen every time I post. It's quite annoying.

edit: with the browser window being about 3/4ths of my 1600x1200 screen.

I don't think so. I can resize the window to fill my1920 pixel wide screen and the forums still "want" to format a fixed width. Looks like roughly 800 pixels total width, but I haven't stared at the html source or CSS or anything to figure out what exactly it's doing.

I've never had signature pics on, I didn't realise you could put them on until a few months ago, unless they're on by default and I turned them off more or less as soon as I registered. They're a pain.

512 images or less, I can handle that

1440 x 900 pixels.

I don't want to see that junk so I am glad to have the option to keep signature images off.

I assume this is an attempt at humor.

In the event it's not, it's 512 pixels, not 512 images, that I espouse as the maximum for signatures.
Speaking of signatures, my current one is too tall. It's just a joke, thought it's real. There's a social networking thing called Glue, and I answered some questions about Second Life in a way that caused Glue to declare me the Glue "Guru of Second Life". Isn't that silly?

So, away with my signature image, following posting this reply.

Fortunately, I don't think the forum setup will allow 512 images in a signature.

My memory being what it is, I think I made a mistake. The sig image didn't crash my computer, as I said, it caused IE's "Connect - Work offline" box to come up every time. I tried turning sigs on again and it started all over again, so I've had to turn them off again.

I've been tempted to have a rage about giant sig pictures but bit my tongue.
Thanks for politely bringing this up. I hope those that have giant sig pictures do take note.

But yeah, turning sigs off is the best choice.

Between "disable everybodys" and "disable one or 2 peoples by putting them on Ignore" I will take the latter.

There are other options than ignoring people or turning off all images in signatures.

For Firefox there's an add-on (By the way, I hate the word "add-on" for extension. It makes me feel like I'm saying favorite instead of bookmark, or folder instead of directory.) ... where was I? .... there's an add-on called ImgLikeOpera which will let you eliminate specific images. (Not all the ones from a particular place, which is what the built in image blocking in Firefox allows. Adblock will allow specific image blocking but it causes trouble at a number of sites that I use so I gave it up.)

500px wide works for me. Really, if you need bigger banners than that in your signature, seriously re-think WHY you're posting in the forum. (^_^)y

/me sighs and dons her flameproof suit.

TY but I don't care for Firefox. I'm an IE user.

edit: ..not that I think you would necessarily flame me for that but any time I say it, the zealots seem to come out of the woodwork.

It's not just signature images, 512 pixels is as wide as images in the posts should be, as well.

I think the IE7Pro IE add-on allows specific image blocking:
http://www.ie7pro.com/ad-blocker.html

I've used IE7Pro before, it's worth investigating. I'm not sure if it works with IE8.

Note: do no include another product's version number in your product's name.

True, but it's extra annoying in signatures, since they show up so often.

I wonder if the person with the signature that prompted this thread will notice it and fix their signature?

I admit that I have put a couple of folks on ignore only because the photos they put in their signatures are so big. I rely on someone quoting them if they have said something I want to read. If no one quotes them, and I am really curious, then I will take them off ignore momentarily, read what they wrote, and then put them back on ignore.

It is not personal... just my choice. I think everyone should do as they please with their sigs.