Signature Sizes.

[DW Chief]

Well today we have reached a milestone.

That milestone is how busy the forum has become - Thank You.

The forum has become so busy that its now put a strain on our hosts on the server we are on... :doublesho

We have been told we need to sort it out or they may restrict our service.... So you may have noticed a couple of features have been temporarily switched off whilst we work out where we are going to move our site too.

The other thing that has been pointed out to us tonight by our techies is that signatures are using a lot of bandwidth too.

I would therefore ask you all to resize your signatures inline with the dimensions shown in my signature and under 35k in file size.

We did toy with switching off HTML sigs for the time being but we dont think we need too just yet.

We will be adjusting the sig sizes allowed over the next couple of days and subject to your sig being the correct size it will still show... For those that arent I am afraid they will dissapear from the site.

Thanks for your understanding :)

DWC

[MidsDetailing]

what about sigs that are hosted elsewhere?

[DW Chief]

The traffic / bandwith comes from the data request which is still the size.

The benefit were getting of having them being hosted somewhere else, is its not filling up disk space on the forum.

So, as you can see we need to reduce the size...

Thanks

[Gaz W]

Mine's to big isnt it :(

[MidsDetailing]

you must be really desperate then - anywhere I can send donations?

[PuntoGT]

mmm dont know if mine is borderline or not lol

[Refined Reflections]

mmm dont know if mine is borderline or not lol

Yep its over size, properties has it at 600x150, time to reduce it (put it in the fridge for a few minutes it'll shrink :p)

[Gaz W]

Im willing to empty my piggy bank for the site! SAVE DETAILING WORLD! I COULDNT LIVE WITHOUT IT! :eek: :D:D:D:D

[DW Chief]

Im willing to empty my piggy bank for the site! SAVE DETAILING WORLD! I COULDNT LIVE WITHOUT IT! :eek: :D:D:D:D

Chill!!!

This isnt a Oh my god detailing world is going to close situation - Far from it.

We have been looking at other forums tonight and have noticed that most either a) dont allow HTML sigs unless your a member and b) Restrict the size of them, so we have gone with restricting the size for now.

There has been talk of a donations button and I will see whether I can get that live this weekend too.

Cheers,

DWC

[DW Chief]

you must be really desperate then - anywhere I can send donations?

Desperate... nah :)

See above, we just dont want to be spending money that doesnt need spending :)

Lovely thought on the donations and appreciate it - Thank You

DWC

[Clark]

ive been a good boy and changed mine!

hopefully you find a solution to your "problem" as this is by far the best forum i ever go on :cool:

[BerraST]

I have always found 400x75 a good size for sigs, although it's sometimes hard getting all the stuff in that you want. Also, your sig says please limit text to six lines, if we were to have text in an image would the six lines thing still stand?

Mark

[182_blue]

im looking at doing a new sig now too :-)

[DW Chief]

I have always found 400x75 a good size for sigs, although it's sometimes hard getting all the stuff in that you want. Also, your sig says please limit text to six lines, if we were to have text in an image would the six lines thing still stand?

Mark

Bit Greedy aint ya ;)

I think users would rather be reading be posts that huge image and 6 line sigs :D

How about one or the other?

We are only doing it cos were trying to cut the bandwidth down temporarily.... Not out of choice :(

DWC

[Neil_S]

I'm just wondering, does cutting down signature size actually reduce bandwidth to the site?

I was under the impression that people had signatures hosted at sites like photobucket, so the bandwidth would be taken from the image hoster, not detailing world?

[182_blue]

Neil, a quote from Ritey out techie bod

"The sigs are hosted elsewhere but by bandwith your current provider is talking about server bandwith / traffic through their pipe. If this site is getting a lot of hits (which includes all data transfers and respective data size) bandwith is used clogging up the pipe. This includes all requests off this site in terms of posts and requests for graphics off this server and linking from other servers.

If you removed or at least reduced the kb size of every sig on site, the bandwith would reduce too (less data requested)"

[Dave KG]

Suppose i should stop putting up so many gigantic threads... :confused: or at least cut the pics down in them?

[182_blue]

its not a major issue folks, it just means spending more on equipment and providers, but if you feel some pics are not neccesary then it would be helpfull to leave them out, but we do still want and enjoy looking at everyones pics :-)

[182_blue]

mmm dont know if mine is borderline or not lol

i would say a bit of shrinkage may be in order :lol:

[Dave KG]

I shrunk mine down as it was a little on the big side... now within the limits. :)

[182_blue]

good man, and it feels good to do your bit for the forum too doesnt it, ps my animated gif has now gone, so i now have a static jpg

[Dave KG]

Yep, I'm sure that if we all keep our sigs in the limits, we can help to stop the forum slowing down and getting the Internal Server errors that pop up every so often as well... :thumb:

[Neil_S]

Neil, a quote from Ritey out techie bod

"The sigs are hosted elsewhere but by bandwith your current provider is talking about server bandwith / traffic through their pipe. If this site is getting a lot of hits (which includes all data transfers and respective data size) bandwith is used clogging up the pipe. This includes all requests off this site in terms of posts and requests for graphics off this server and linking from other servers.

If you removed or at least reduced the kb size of every sig on site, the bandwith would reduce too (less data requested)"


Before I say anything further, please don't think I'm posting this to argue, my intention is only to ensure nobody wastes time on doing something which doesn't really effect the bandwidth much.

I've worked with building web sites and also back end web servers and transactional servers for the past 5 years so I have a bit of experience.

From how I understand it works, your web browser gets the web page from the server and then the web browser goes away and requests any images contained in the page.

If an image is hosted on detailingworld, the users web browser will request it and drain bandwidth from the site.

If it is hosted elsewhere, the users web browser will request it from the other site and not effect the bandwidth of detailingworld. It will use the bandwidth of the users internet connection.

The only impact of adding images to a post which are hosted on other sites, in terms of bandwidth for detailing world, is the text which says it contains an image in the web page (which is miniscule) i.e.

"<img src="....test image.jpg">" <--- this is what the "[IMG]" tags generate when you post.

[Johnnyopolis]

Thats how I thought it worked Neil, until Ritey and a couple of others told me otherwise....

If the pictures are held elsewhere its simply the images not using up space on the server, however your still getting the image through the detailing world pipe as that the site that the image is coming through is the way i understand it now.

Johnny

[Neil_S]

Thats how I thought it worked Neil, until Ritey and a couple of others told me otherwise....

If the pictures are held elsewhere its simply the images not using up space on the server, however your still getting the image through the detailing world pipe as that the site that the image is coming through is the way i understand it now.

Johnny

I'm pretty certain the way I explained it and the way you originally thought it worked is right.

I mean if the explanation above is true, then google image search for example would consume stupendous amounts of bandwidth, it would suggest that instead of the user fetching all the images direct from the host, that google would fetch them and delivery them to the user. This wouldn't be workable.

[MidsDetailing]

thanks for piping up with that Neil - hence my original question about hosted off site.

[182_blue]

im not sure who is correct, but the fact still remains that some sigs are to big and are beginning to look like pictures so they still need reducing anyway :-)

ps my post wasnt meant with any malice to anyone :-)

[Wmffra]

Ok, hear ya loud and clear :thumb:

[Tyler Owen]

Is mine now alright ?

It was this size before

http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a77/tylerowen1/tylersig3.gif


reduced it down to the size below :)

[Wmffra]

Is mine now alright ?

It was this size before

http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a77/tylerowen1/tylersig3.gif


reduced it down to the size below :)
How do!
Although your signature is very nice the file size is still approx 435kb, the maximum requested size is 35kb . . . .

[Tyler Owen]

ohh didn't realise there was a space limit lol

thought it was just a size limit :)

Damn i liked that sig :(

[Mini_Nigel]

I would therefore ask you all to resize your signatures inline with the dimensions shown in my signature and under 35k in file size.


IMO, still too big. My scroll finger is nearly worn out :D

Oh, and BTW, I hate to say so (as it is contrary to my dislike of large sigs) but Neil is right. When you access a web page, your browser sends requests directly to the servers of any hosted images.

Nige

[donnyboy]

I've changed mine to white writing on a white background.;)

[vicky]

Ah, I think mines ok.

[King Eric]

yours is pretty cool vicky :thumb:

[Mini_Nigel]

yours is pretty cool vicky :thumb:
Forum Female Alert! :lol:

And you a newly married man as well :D

Nige

[King Eric]

LOL!

With all due respect to Vikki I am well happy with my totty thanks :thumb:

Cant make a comment these days eh!

Oh Nige, b.t.w this coming from someone who opened on my forum with

'Married but open to offers' (http://www.alphamen.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?t=232)

You Cad!

[Phoenix-one]

Guys,

If your signature is something like [IMG SRC=http://www.anotherserver.com/tag.html] and none of the images related to your signature come from detailingworld.com then yes it DOES NOT affect the bandwidth on the detailingworld server....

However, having huge signatures means having to scroll down a lot, the main reason most forums don't have the signatures, is because people go a bit nuts and have stupidly big ones or have pretty much an advert in their sig. I personally don't like them too much as it means a lot of gaps between posts.

Gav

[Neggy]

Something that works well on another forum I use is a policy where you can only post your signiture once per thread:

from the DVDforums:

" You may optionally use a signature. Signatures are subject to the same rules as message posts, as described above under "Inappropriate Material". Your signature may only be posted once per thread so as to avoid interupting the flow of conversation.

Signature images must be no larger than 100 pixels in height and 150 pixels width, or 50 pixels height and 400 pixels width. The file size must be no larger than 20KB. You may have a maximum of four lines of text at text size 1, or two lines at text size 2. "


I personally don't get the point of sigs when you can have an avatar, and tend to use those to identify people.

[Mini_Nigel]

Decided to dump my Pirate Fish (http://www.venganza.org/) and go back to a sig I used for years. Go on, ask me what it means :)

Nige

[Alex L]

ille quis mortem cum maximus ludos, vincat


I'd like to die with a big lob on?

[Clark]

something about cum and a maximum load?

[Mini_Nigel]

Death is involved, as is a type of maximum. The Latin word "cum" means "with", and "ludos" is the plural of "ludo". It isn't real Latin, just a string of Latin words. Keep guessing :)

Nige

[richie.guy]

Is the last word 'conquer'?

[Wmffra]

He who dares wins? :thumb:

[Wmffra]

Nige . . . . . . .
Typing 'ille quis mortem cum maximus ludos, vincat' in google has shown a bit of your internet history ;)

[Wmffra]

ille quis mortem cum maximus ludos, vincat
Those who die with great 'sport?' win . . . . .

Eh, what?

[Wentworth Man]

When the famous copy they excel :speechles

[Andy_Green]

seems alot of peoples signatures are within the 550 x 120 dimension but over the 35k limit. have to admit it's hard without the likes of photoshop etc to get images below the magical 35k limit without it look poop. Im in the process fo changing mine before anyone says anything.... ;)

[aston_87]

Mine ok....?

[Mini_Nigel]

Nige . . . . . . .
Typing 'ille quis mortem cum maximus ludos, vincat' in google has shown a bit of your internet history ;)

Yes I know. Probably even more if you search the news groups.

OK, a few good guesses, but here goes:

ille quis mortem cum maximus ludos, vincat
he who dies with the most toys, wins :D


Nige

[Wentworth Man]

Try this one:

meus ego volvo est tersus quod crus

[Jack_is_Back]

Personally I think they're unnecessary. An avatar + one line of text is enough for anyone.

[Mini_Nigel]

Try this one:

meus ego volvo est tersus quod crus

I'm guessing "crus" is shiny, and I'm not sure you need the "ego", unless its an "ego volvo" of course :)

Could this be the start of a new trend.

Nige

[block]

hows my sig?is it too big?
i'll be changing it soon when my actual car turns up and i'll aim to make it smaller anyhow.

[182_blue]

block, ^^ if thats the one your talking about then its fine

[block]

cheers 182

[Randall]

Re-sized as requested :thumb:

[Andy_Green]

Re-sized as requested :thumb:

still over the 35kb limit tho (coming in at 46.93kb) but i think people are more bothered about the physical size....

[Fru T Bunn]

I know it's not cricket but you can turn off viewing sigs thus saving bandwidth:
User CP | Edit Options | Thread Display Options | uncheck Show Signatures.

Don't hate me.