[Decision] Signature size

[removeduser_487563287433]

1.
Signature Size Violation (1 point)

Members may not use signatures where the total size in bytes of all signature images combined is more than 250 KB.750kb.

[Scorch]

Is it necessary? Why not just take Prof up on his offer?

[removeduser_487563287433]

The size is too small and reflects outdated technology. Currently the low size only offers certain individuals a chance to cause trouble. If other people agree with me and want a larger side, so be it, yay, we advise the staff. If not then fine, not happening.

[Scorch]

Well to be honest, I'd have to go with whatever Sim suggests, here. Being the resident tech guru and overseer of our bandwidth limits, I'm pretty sure his judgement is one we can trust.

[removeduser_487563287433]

We await his considered judgement, then.

[sapi]

250kb is more than enough.

Animated signatures are nothing more than an irritation, and they do eat up bandwidth, especially if they become popular. I don't care if they're only eating 25MB of my limit each month; that's 25MB I could be using on other things

Besides, whatever we raise the limit to now, it won't be enough

Mak's solution (below) is far better and I suggest that you petition for that

On a more conciliatory note, other VB sites seem to manage to have a broadband sig option, where users can choose to view / have larger sigs, that are only viewable to those who selected the option. If certain elements of the site want big animated sigs and others of us would like to be able to view normal static mod/link sigs without being subjected to them, would that be a technically achievable option?

[removeduser_487563287433]

I campaigned for something like that roughly a year ago but got ignored. By all means, Sapi, if you can draw some time from your valuable work of hounding people, then propose it.

[sapi]

I'll have to check my schedule

[Simetrical]

A typical broadband user has maybe 1 Mbps download speed. Loading 1 MB of signatures for the first time should therefore add around eight seconds to page load time (1 MB = 8 Mb). Subsequent page views will mostly be cached, of course, but eight extra seconds for the first-time view is completely plausible right now, with quarter-megabyte sig limits. Tripling the limit, if many people take advantage of it, could fairly easily lead to an added ten or more seconds to fully load some pages.

I'm not going to say this decision will be ignored if it passes, but frankly, Ferrets is the only only one who seems to really want a larger signature, and more than one person seems to see his signatures as obnoxious already. I'm definitely voting against this, as a Citizen. If it passes, as far as I'm concerned we'll consider implementing it. I give no guarantees either way.

[removeduser_487563287433]

Simetrical, you seem to be confused. In one post you suggested that everybody would take advantage of it and cause the every page to take a Jurassic period to load and then you suggested only I on the entire site was interested in having large signatures? Confusing and inconsistant. But thanks for the 'tech-guru' slant, nontheless.

[sapi]

Simetrical, you seem to be confused. In one post you suggested that everybody would take advantage of it and cause the every page to take a Jurassic period to load and then you suggested only I on the entire site was interested in having large signatures? Confusing and inconsistant. But thanks for the 'tech-guru' slant, nontheless.

Thankfully, taking advantage of something is completely different to advocating it, so there's no problem with what he said

[removeduser_487563287433]

It is a self-serving proposal. I thought people wouldn't need that pointed out to them, Garb. It is beside the point, all that matters is whether people want it or not. So far nobody has posted, besides Scorch, who hasn't already made themselves personally invested in the matter.

[removeduser_426582376423734]

It is a self-serving proposal. I thought people wouldn't need that pointed out to them, Garb. It is beside the point, all that matters is whether people want it or not. So far nobody has posted, besides Scorch, who hasn't already made themselves personally invested in the matter.

Isn't that where a vote comes in?

[Simetrical]

I believe it needs three supporters before it can go to a vote. So far it has zero.

[Erich von Manstein]

Ok, I've deleted a few posts that were...well..."irrelevant." Let's stay on topic, please.

On a more personal note, I generally don't devote my entire bandwidth to TWC and the pages already take a fair amount of time to load as is. As unique as Ferrets' sigs are, I'm not really sure they'd be worth the extra load times. And, seeing as how we're discussing self-serving actions, I don't support.

[Garbarsardar]

Far from anyone here to believe that this a self-serving proposal.

Anyway, on technical matters I trust Sim and I don't want 8 seconds more to load a page just because ferrets54 is on a crusade against a variety of ghosts.

So, no.