Should SMF have rules re: avatar and signature sizes?

[ComputerBob]

I was discussing this topic with two SMF Support Forum moderators via personal messages, and one of them asked me to start a thread about it here, so everyone can discuss it publicly.

I'm on a dial-up Internet connection, as I know much of the world still is. As a result, I've spent a lot of time making sure that all the pages on my Web site load quickly, even for those who are on dial-up connections.

For the most part, these SMF Support Forums load quickly for me, too. With one exception: When I try to read a thread in which someone has a really large avatar or signature image, my entire Web browsing experience grinds to a halt as I wait for those images to finish loading. 

It happened a few days ago, in a thread here in which one user's avatar is over 75KB in size and their signature is nearly 600KB in size. It  took nearly 3 minutes for those 2 images to finish loading. If I manually stop the page from loading, then I often don't get the text of posts that are further down the page from the offending avatar and signature.

Yes, I know that everyone who's on a dial-up account could disable avatars and signatures when they browse these support forums, and that would speed things up. My point is, instead of asking users to disable those 2 perfectly good SMF Support Forums features, wouldn't it make more sense to have a rule here that restricts avatars and signatures to reasonable file sizes, to prevent a few users, like the one mentioned above, from having RIDICULOUSLY LARGE ones?

Please discuss amonst yourselves.

[Valodim]

agreed, I have dsl but big signatures (dimension-wise) are annoying. didn't see many of those here, though, they can be found mostly on gaming forums (whose average IQ standards are usually lower, anyways )

[Ben_S]

You could use firefox and the adblock plugin and adblock those that you dislike.

[ComputerBob]

You could use firefox and the adblock plugin and adblock those that you dislike.

Of course there are ways to "work around" the issue, but it doesn't seem fair to make everyone who is on dial-up do some sort of "work-around." Once again, I ask, wouldn't it make more sense to require everyone to use avatars and signatures that are a reasonable size?

[Daniel D.]

You can define the size of avatars and pics. Would help a little bit.

[Sverre]

A check of signature size/dimensions when the users change their profile would probably be handy, but there are other and probably just as effective ways to attack the problem.

We had a serious signature problem on the forum I help manage a while back, and from my experience, it is actually surprisingly effective to just inform the users about the consequences of big signatures. What we did, was to find a scapegoat and apply simple math (or to make it even easier, use a Download Calculator).

Finding a scapegoat was easy for us since we had users with .gif signatures exceeding 15 MB It does by no means have to be that extreme for the strategy to be effective, but it sure helps...

15 MB equals close to 40 minutes download time for someone on dial-up, and in a worst case scenario, you could have 15, 20, 25... (depending on the settings you use for number of posts per page) similar sized signatures on ONE page. 40 minutes multiplied by 20 is many hours of download time, and after seeing an equation like that, the users are much more likely to be receptive to whatever limits you set for the file size of avatars/signatures. It's true that users on slow Internet connections can turn off signatures, but to do that you'll have to log in first.

In the near future we'll probably implement this modification in style.css as well in order to help us control the dimension of signatures. If only half of their picture/text shows up, they'll most definitely change it to the set limits very quickly.

[Valodim]

politely ask people to change their signatures if they're oversized, and warn/ban those who repeatedly violate the rule. end of story.

[ComputerBob]

Folks, I'm sorry, but some of you completely missed my point.

I appreciate your responses, but I'm not asking for tips on how to restrict the size of people's avatars and signatures on my forums (which by the way, are still phpBB, while I wait for SMF 1.1 final).

As I've said since my first post in this thread, I'm asking whether you think that these SMF Support Forums, the ones that you're reading right now, should have a rule to restrict people from having avatars and signatures that are ridiculously large file sizes, because ridiculously large avatar and signature file sizes make these SMF Support Forums load really, really slowly for anyone who is on a dial-up connection, and it doesn't seem fair to me to put the burden of solving the problem on everyone who uses dial-up -- it makes more sense to me to simply create and enforce an avatar/signature file size limit on these SMF Support forums (the ones that you're reading right now).

[anna.young]

I think we already have too many rules everywhere.

There are ways to have signatures and avatars not displaying if you don't like to view   them.  (Another reason to register - it's the simple way to turn them off)

Personally, I hate those huge tacky, animated, glittery signatures, but if others like them, I think they should be able to enjoy them.

Threads like this one might bring this problem to the attention of those who are not aware of the issue.

Anna

[redone]

To be honest I don't really agree that most of the world is on dial-up. Whist most "general" forum users maybe this forum is used by people who use pc's every day for many many hours and I doubt they are using dial-up.

I doubt that most forum admin's are dial-up either. Like a previous poster suggested if you don't like such things then just adjust your profile settings. I think there are enough rules already. And I am all for rules.

~redone

[ComputerBob]

To be honest I don't really agree that most of the world is on dial-up...

~redone

You're disagreeing with something that I didn't even say. I said "I'm on a dial-up Internet connection, as I know much of the world still is."

[kadhumia_flo]

Nah, you dont need it
Everyone in this forum is mature enough

[godboko]

A rule might be a good idea; I was on dialup a year ago before I moved back to the City.

60%-75% of web users are on dialup still, broadband internet is not available in most rural areas, poor countries, ect. Plus not everyone can afford to shell out the money for broadband yet.

Either way I understand your circumstance and think that simple rules should be put in place. There is no need for an avatar to be more then 5-15kb and no need for a sig to be more then 15-25kb. And this might still be too big, but would at least help.

[ExistenZ]

This is rediculous. De activae signatures if you think they are too large. End of story. no rule needed. No one does it. Close this thread, someone!

[Elissen]

even if you have several megabits of downstream, insane size images will take time to download. Not to mention memory and disk (cache) usage.

(there should be guidelines and a notice that moderators may remove your signature/avatar when it's too big or inappropriate)

[IchBin™]

I see no problem with SMF having a limit on sigs and avatars. Someone with an avatar or sig > 25k really doesn't need them to be that big. I've noticed page load even with my cable internet on these forums before. That's a nightmare for people on dial-up. Although I agree with ComputerBob, I would still take my own actions to make dial-up faster. Maybe even go to the extreme and make it so Firefox doens't even display any images.

[ComputerBob]

This is rediculous. De activae signatures if you think they are too large. End of story. no rule needed. No one does it. Close this thread, someone!

There is nothing "rediculous" about this thread. As I stated, I started it at the request of a forum moderator, so that everyone could discuss the issue. Rather than trying to silence everyone else from expressing their opinions, I suggest that you should feel free to skip this thread if you think there is no need to discuss the issue.

[ComputerBob]

...Although I agree with ComputerBob, I would still take my own actions to make dial-up faster. Maybe even go to the extreme and make it so Firefox doens't even display any images.

I appreciate your suggestion, and sadly that is what many dial-up users will have to do if the SMF forums don't institute some sort of "common sense" rule to limit avatar/signature filesizes on these support forums.

But I was hoping that we could come up with a solution that doesn't degrade the entire forum experience for dial-up users. In other words, avatars and signatures make the whole forum experience more interesting and fun. It doesn't make sense to me that all dial-up users have to disable those useful forum features just because a few other forum users have 100KB avatars or 500KB signatures. To me, it would make a lot more sense to simply not allow users of these support forums to have such huge avatars/signatures.

[ExistenZ]

I have dail-up and i have no proplems. Who's signatures are so large? Just asking?

[ComputerBob]

I have dail-up and i have no proplems. Who's signatures are so large? Just asking?

I'm not trying to be obtuse, but I just don't think it would add any value to this thread for me to "name names. If you haven't had any problems then it's because you haven't run into a thread in which one or more users have huge avatar and/or signature filesizes. Believe me, you'll know it if you ever do.