Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Is it possible to put a small picture in your sig?
- Thread starter MattyMac
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I want a 100 x 100 avatar.
It's hard making them for here when it's 100 x 100 elsewhere. You don't even need to increase the file size...
It's hard making them for here when it's 100 x 100 elsewhere. You don't even need to increase the file size...
Yeah I figured that much...just wanted to ask.
It would have been cool to put a wide pic of my iPods under my sig...oh well.
The problem being it's a wide picture. It's hard to keep images in signatures within a reasonable width and file size for some viewers.
yeah, pics in sigs would probably get out of hand. not sure if I had an opinion on avatar sizes, except that's just how its been.
arn
Damn straight! I'm subscribed to Basschat.co.uk, and the sig images are annoying.
One thing I don't like about the sigs here is the character restrictions. 6 lines is perfect, but even with my modest sig, i'm pushing the character limit.
Actually, I like the sig character limits too. I wish there was a font size limit as well (preferably 1). 
Really, the only thing I don't like in regards to format is the "Edited" tag. Specifically, it's the horizontal rule that annoys me. For short posts, the horizontal rule just looks weird and out of place. Is there any chance of changing it?
IMO, it would look better without the horizontal rule and if the entire tag was placed at the very bottom (equal with the Quote buttons).
Really, the only thing I don't like in regards to format is the "Edited" tag. Specifically, it's the horizontal rule that annoys me. For short posts, the horizontal rule just looks weird and out of place. Is there any chance of changing it?
IMO, it would look better without the horizontal rule and if the entire tag was placed at the very bottom (equal with the Quote buttons).
I like having 75x75 avatars as they're easily distinguished from the administrators' and moderators' 100x100 'tars.
Forums that allow images in signatures are often hideous as a result.
I really like the MR set up.
I really like the MR set up.
In that regard, it's kinda funny that arn's still using 75x75
It probably just hasn't updated yet...
In that regard, it's kinda funny that arn's still using 75x75
Read again...
I'm not a fan of change
Have to agree with this. I've seen other forums where large graphics are allowed and it's just so distracting/cluttered and makes it really difficult to determine where one post finishes and another one begins. I feel the same about the use of "
no images in sigs! thank goodness. one or the reasons i keep coming back here.
avatar increase i wouldn't me against though, even though i know it's not going to happen.
avatar increase i wouldn't me against though, even though i know it's not going to happen.
Read again...
Have to agree with this. I've seen other forums where large graphics are allowed and it's just so distracting/cluttered and makes it really difficult to determine where one post finishes and another one begins. I feel the same about the use of "
I think the sigs are a gross waste of space and accomplish nothing.
yeah but they're only taking up 'virtual' space. which is seemingly limitless. text ones aren't so bad, but image ones hurt the eyes.
The image ones can be done successfully on a message board. The problem is enforcing image and file size.
Actually, it would probably be a good restriction to only count posts that have been followed up by somebody. That would prevent that people like me who just post bogus get an Avatar ;-)