Why did admins disable sig feature? :[
Sigs, Why Not?
jeffy
I have a bery bery c00l sig![or so i think]
Why did admins disable sig feature? :[
Why did admins disable sig feature? :[
Slade xTekno
Bandwidth.
About a week ago, ANet released that buggy patch, remember? That crisis flooded this board with so many people that sigs had to be disabled for a little while to save on bandwidth. They were returned a couple days later, but by that time, so many people were now regulars on the board that it would be impossible to have sigs without requiring donations.
About a week ago, ANet released that buggy patch, remember? That crisis flooded this board with so many people that sigs had to be disabled for a little while to save on bandwidth. They were returned a couple days later, but by that time, so many people were now regulars on the board that it would be impossible to have sigs without requiring donations.
The IOU
What about text only sigs? Something to put our in-game names and guilds on.
Slade xTekno
I honestly don't know. That would be nice, though. Bring it up with THX or Rex.
Devil's Dictionary
Yes, I have thought about asking the return of text-based sigs, however how will it be controlled? Would you like yourself to check the forums every day just to see if some idiot posted a picture in his sig?
Manderlock
Im no forum admin, but could they not just disable that?
The IOU
I'm pretty sure there is a no image sig option on this board. I know I have installed multiple other boards that have that.
EDIT: Did some research...you can with vBulletin:
No images in sigs
EDIT: Did some research...you can with vBulletin:
No images in sigs
Principa Discordia
I'd personally love signatures to come back, even if the [IMG] tag was disabled in them. Signatures enhance a person's posts and makes them more personal to them, just like their avatar.
Romac
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Slade xTekno
Bandwidth. About a week ago, ANet released that buggy patch, remember? That crisis flooded this board with so many people that sigs had to be disabled for a little while to save on bandwidth.
|
I don't understand.
It is my understanding that if i have a sig image hosted on my server, and you all view it here, the increase of bandwidth is an issue between my server and your computer.
The transfer is from my server to your browser...not from my server to the forum server, then to your browser.
I don't understand how images stored on my server, and transfered directly to your browser have an impact on the bandwidth this forum uses??
I can understand that when there are more images to load on a page, that it takes your browser longer to load the page, but as far as i understand this has nothing to do with the bandwidth this forums uses.
is this not how it all works??
please explain how this forum uses more bandwidth when your browser loads an image directly from my server.
The IOU
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Romac
somebody please enlighten me.
I don't understand. It is my understanding that if i have a sig image hosted on my server, and you all view it here, the increase of bandwidth is an issue between my server and your computer. The transfer is from my server to your browser...not from my server to the forum server, then to your browser. I don't understand how images stored on my server, and transfered directly to your browser have an impact on the bandwidth this forum uses?? I can understand that when there are more images to load on a page, that it takes your browser longer to load the page, but as far as i understand this has nothing to do with the bandwidth this forums uses. is this not how it all works?? please explain how this forum uses more bandwidth when your browser loads an image directly from my server. |
That upload feature allows people to upload to this server and it pulls then off here. A lot more people would use that because it is just easier to click browse and be done, instead of looking for a webhost outside.
That is my guess anyway.
jeffy
bahh.. if anyone wants to see my sig anyways.. its http://img189.echo.cx/img189/2550/jeffy8eg.gif
Ramus
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by The IOU
Usually on forums when imgs on signatures is turned on, there is also a upload feature turned on as well.
That upload feature allows people to upload to this server and it pulls then off here. A lot more people would use that because it is just easier to click browse and be done, instead of looking for a webhost outside. That is my guess anyway. |
"signature" thing taking up that much extra bandwith. But I do believe that Inde and the GWG staff know what they are doing and if they say it is that, then I believe them.
Romac
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by The IOU
Usually on forums when imgs on signatures is turned on, there is also a upload feature turned on as well.
|
as far as i understand it, allowing us graphical sigs that we host somewhere else does not affect this forum's bandwidth use whatsoever.
I'm not complaining...i'm just curious as to either the real reason they disallowed sigs or an explanation regarding how it increases bandwidth (which was the official reason forum admins gave).
The IOU
Yeah true, but at least bring back text only sigs, that would help.
Cerixus
I've never seen a forum that had an upload feature for sig pics... Avatar's on the other hand... (points to everyone above)
EnDinG
There is that option Cerixus. Useful and whatnot.
Since I've never run a message board before (in detail), but I do program in a few languages, I'm sure there must be some way of shutting off the upload feature and keep the current uploaded signatures packed away in their gigs of space.
This way it would force people to link to an image host instead. If people don't make the effort, fine, no picture for you. There are a lot out there that offer a lot of bandwidth for your pictures. (Most people have under a meg for pictures anyway.)
Since I've never run a message board before (in detail), but I do program in a few languages, I'm sure there must be some way of shutting off the upload feature and keep the current uploaded signatures packed away in their gigs of space.
This way it would force people to link to an image host instead. If people don't make the effort, fine, no picture for you. There are a lot out there that offer a lot of bandwidth for your pictures. (Most people have under a meg for pictures anyway.)
Phoenix Denfer
Well I'm glad I found this thread! I have been going nuts trying to understand why people were seeing sigs and I wasn't. But wait.. if they are all turned off, is that just for those that registered after the "crisis" and those that had them before still do? I registered here about a week ago.
I guess I'm at a loss, as I have seen new threads started about new sigs and "what do you think of this?" type posts yet I still am not seeing them.
I did private message one of the mods, but I have a feeling its not high on his list of things to do with a forum this size.
Anyway, glad to see there was an explaination and I didn't have a technical issue on my end.
I guess I'm at a loss, as I have seen new threads started about new sigs and "what do you think of this?" type posts yet I still am not seeing them.
I did private message one of the mods, but I have a feeling its not high on his list of things to do with a forum this size.
Anyway, glad to see there was an explaination and I didn't have a technical issue on my end.