Pet Peeve: Huge Sigs

[kered]

I totally agree. I just looked at my sig and it is way too big, especially in the hip and thigh area...............

Looks ok to me.

Like alot of the others, Mimi designed mine so I never thought about the size as being an issue. If these sig pics would ever cause a threat of the server crashing, or something smilar, then I would be the first to have mine taken down to keep this place up and running.

 

[SamuelKhan]

What are you talking about?

This is the best sig pic ever

Sick, twisted, but makes you crack a smile.

Mine is simple advertising for my artwork! Gotta make that cash!

 

[Sablesword]

It didn't make me crack a smile. It made me go "bleah!" I just thought it was sick without the redeeming feature of being twisted.

And even something sick & twisted is at best a "funny once" I.e. "first time you see it, you think the guy's a wit. Second time, you think he's a half-wit." Since a sig is something seen many times...

Anyway, your sig is one I'd count as a good one: Identifible and full of info without being a page-eating monster.

 

[steph]

I do understand babe and I accept and respect it, totally. But, I've always been of mindset that we ARE guests here in someone else's home, it's not neccessarily a right, more of a privilege if we get to stick around, yanno?

Ooo--And my name appears at the top of all my posts, no need to scroll down thru all my personal nonsense to the bottom to get the drift of who I am...
XOXO

Well, what I want is to be able to see the poster's name at the bottom of a post without being stuffed full of graphic-and-word salad in the process. A sprig of graphical garnish or a crouton of useful or amusing text is tolerable and even desirable. But I find it annoying when finding the "Steph" in your sig means having to scroll down so far that I can no longer see the text of your message.

I'm not going to get what I want here - Myriads had made it clear that he won't limit sig sizes to that degree, and I'm not willing to argue with him about it. But that is what I want.

Do you at least understand now, even if you don't agree?

 

[LindyHopper]

For whatever it's worth, Sablesword - I completely agree with you about the sigs. I used to leave them on because it made it easy to identify posts written by people I wanted to read (as well as by people I wanted to avoid ). It was the animated sigs that eventually got to me - it's almost impossible to focus on the content in stationary text when there's a massive picture moving around. That's a basic fact of our optical system.

Fortunately, as you noticed, such signatures are often indicative of a post with nothing worthwhile in it. And so even in their annoyingness, they're still, in a way, helpful.

Anyway, I have all sigs turned off, and I found that though I do lose a bit in convenience of scanning, I gained most of that back by getting used to attending more closely to screennames listed at the top. And my mouse hand feels so much better!

 

[meangry]

It's a sig.

Like...wow.

Nothing to get all worked up over. You don't like it? Use the block feature.

 

[chrisheaven]

c'mon-have a look at my "the sig pic of the person above you" thread