Manual Signature Images

One quick point.

As there is no wide-spread abuse of images in sig, it would be foolhardy to start implementing new laws to regulate them.

Me personally, if we are going to do this, I think it would be much better to do it before there is wide spread use of it. That way if the decision is made, it is much easier to enforce. I'd rather do it now, when we only have a few users to talk to, then in the future when we may have 50 to a hundred users to talk to.

 

[color=663300]Good point DDH.

As for the Modem users. Ok so if it is not a problem for Modem Users, then focus on the issue of bandwidth being used from a unknowing site. I think the solution of only using images hosted by the User themselves sould be used in manual sigs would work.

And as for other images in the Forums, leave them be. [/color]

 

Having the user host the image themselves still doesn't get rid of one glaringly obvious thing about manual sig images: they're insanely annoying.

 

If we're going to complain about loading times on modems, why not complain about the intricate banners and user icons and what-not too? I just don't think that argument holds a lot of water.

The banners are slow to load the first time, but then they get cached. Once cached, they?re not a problem. The icons are pretty small, don?t take too long to load in the first place, and also get cached.


And yes, I'm on 56k.

 

The banners are slow to load the first time, but then they get cached. Once cached, they?re not a problem. The icons are pretty small, don?t take too long to load in the first place, and also get cached.


And yes, I'm on 56k.

Yes, they get cached, but the bigger your cache gets, the slower your internet surfing gets and the slower your computer gets, especially people who sure a lot. The same, too, could be said of the images that people use in their sigs; they get cached too.

I am not against the idea of banning them if there is good reason for it, I just want to make sure that all the reasons are fleshed out so that if it's implemented there's little room left for debate.

 

Having the user host the image themselves still doesn't get rid of one glaringly obvious thing about manual sig images: they're insanely annoying.

Seconded.

 

I agree, manual sigs annoy me.
_jOBO

 

I stopped using mine fine, because i do agree with your points, especially that it is inconsiderate to modem users.
But i feel the argument that the pictures are taking up bandwidth from someones site is invalid in my case, because i doubt the guy had permission from FOx to use it.
Other than me, only sithman uses the Images, so making a rule would be useless. Just PM him or something if you no longer want them. Making an issue out of nothing, will make a big issue.
------
-Comic Book Guy

 

"But i feel the argument that the pictures are taking up bandwidth from someones site is invalid in my case, because i doubt the guy had permission from FOx to use it."

The argument I presented has nothing to do with getting permission from FOX. That isn't an issue. I don't think TFN gets permission for every single Star Wars image they post. If LucasFilm sees something that they don't like, they will ask TFN to remove it. Therefore, permission isn't granted for the other images, but it probably can be implied. If the webmaster doesn't have FOX's permission, then you, in turn, are also posting an image without FOX's permission, which could, however unlikely, get TFN in trouble. If the webmaster does have FOX's permission, you still are posting the image without FOX's permission. Unless, of course, you wrote a letter to FOX, getting their permission to post the image here at the JC, which I find very unlikely.

Whether or not the webmaster has FOX's permission is irrelavent. You still are using up his bandwidth, something that he is probably paying for. Next time you buy a bag of chips, you won't mind if I sneak into the cupboard and eat some without your permission. After all, that's essentially what you are doing.

"Other than me, only sithman uses the Images, so making a rule would be useless. Just PM him or something if you no longer want them. Making an issue out of nothing, will make a big issue."

I personally have no right to PM people and tell them what they should or shouldn't do. As I've stated before, there needs to be a written rule, so it doesn't look like you're singling certain members out. I think this rule would accomplish one major thing: stopping it before it becomes a problem. If two people are allowed to have manual signature images, more people will jump on the bandwagon, similar to how so many people now have manual signatures. Sure, some of them have been around since the UBB days. However, from what I've noticed, the majority of the people who use manual signatures didn't use them a few months ago. They saw someone else's manual signature, and that's where they got the idea. Having two users with manual signature images may not slow down the load time very much, but if a decent percentage of users start to use them, there will be a noticable difference in load times.

Manual signature images add nothing to the conversation. Neither do manual signatures, but regular manual signatures don't have as many possible problems as those with images. I don't have too big of a problem with regular manual signatures. I only have a problem when they include images.

 

Yes thats why i stopped doing it. happy?

And JodaJeff, i never said you PM him, i mean maybe a mod.
----
-Comic Book Guy

 

"If LucasFilm sees something that they don't like, they will ask TFN to remove it."

TFN gets away with alot of stuff because LFL sees this site as a marketing tool. The day Lucas decides we're more liability than asset is the day this site gets deep-sixed.

 

I'm also on a 56K connection, but I don't have much problems with loading manual signature images. Most of the time, it's rather fast, and if it's slow, at most, the images don't show up, which isn't very important as they take up a fixed amount of space.

What I'm more concerned about is the leeching of bandwidth. I do know that at some forums, pictures are totally not allowed because when they were, there were others who would post pictures from websites without permission and get the webmasters irked up. It's one thing to post a picture a single time, where less people would actually see it on the whole, and another thing to use it repeatedly over and over again. I feel that this is already a priviledge that we have at the JC, and it should not go too far.