Sizes of pictures in signatures? Why is high better than wide??

[Ghad]

I see that I have gotten a "funny" image, instead of mye real, fair enough.

But tell me:

Isnt my previous sig of a better size than the new one?

I mean, high pictures take more screen real estate than wide ones.

My previous sig:500x83



The new "correctlysized" one. (400x150)


I urge you to reconsider the policy, and go for wider sig pictures instead of higher.

[Nyu]

stop *****in and just change it.

[Xendance]

Originally Posted by Nyu

stop *****in and just change it.

Yours is 8 pixels too wide >_>

[Nyu]

it's 400x148...

[Lonyo]

Mine is ideal.
Even the file size is perfect.

[[CoR]MiccyNarc]

Originally Posted by Lonyo

Mine is ideal.
Even the file size is perfect.

It's not punctuated correctly.

[Xendance]

Originally Posted by Nyu

it's 400x148...

Oops....

I thought that it was supposed to be 140

Ah well.. carry on

Originally Posted by Lonyo

Mine is ideal.
Even the file size is perfect.

Except that it looks weird O_o

[Ghad]

Originally Posted by Nyu

stop *****in and just change it.

I have a perfectly fine sig picture as it is, it would appear.

[Nyu]

lol keep it

[Bobdog]

The rules are set at that because that's what they are, and they are non-negotiable, as it says in the FAQ. 400x150 and 100K have been the limits since forever on the RO forums.

From the FAQ:

All signatures should not exceed the following size limits, you can have both text and images
- For text signatures: 4 lines normal size, 8 lines small size and up to 100 chars per line. Font sizes above 2 are not allowed. (Blank lines count as lines.)
- For images in signatures: 1 image up to 400 pixels wide, 150 pixels tall and 100k in size plus 2 lines normal size text and up to 100 chars per line

Final Note: this is NOT open to debate, so please do NOT start whining and moaning if a moderator asks you to change something. They will advise at first, giving reasons, then, if you take no notice, they will step up the pressure through to banning.

Sorry, but that's how it is

[Ghad]

not open to debate, my R¤#%T&¤%

i wil try to make my point clear:

the following size is imho ideal, combining small height (thus allowing for more quality posts onscreen ( ), and not so wide that it stretches the screen.



The following conforms the rules on the board. It occupies a lot of space in the height, and it leaves loads of ugly whitespace at the side of it.

[Sherman]

Originally Posted by Nyu

stop *****in and just change it.

You're a *****. Shut up.

[-SemperFi-Jenova]

actually i believe my sig is ideal. pink is awesome, as am i.

[2ltben]

I think it should be limited to area, and just have some "common sense" dimension restrictions(ie, you can't have a 1*67500 sig). That or be liberal with the restrictions. Don't Hasselhoff the sigs because they're 10 pixels over the limit, if the size works, the size works.

[Switchblade]

Originally Posted by 2ltben

Don't Hasselhoff the sigs because they're 10 pixels over the limit, if the size works, the size works.

We (mods) can't change the rules, they are made by the Tripwire team so I can't comment on that.
We are following the rules as they were in the old mod-forum, with one exception:
We don't hasselhoff anymore

[worluk]

Originally Posted by Switchblade

We don't hasselhoff anymore

thank god for that

[triath]

**** me, I agree. Why can they not be wider?

[[-project.rattus-]]

It's not size that matters, it's how you use it!

[El Cid]

In Red Orchestra forum, signature signs you!