or Connect
TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › Site Help › An "overabundance" of graphics?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

An "overabundance" of graphics?

post #1 of 57
Thread Starter 
I am one of those people still using dial up, which I know is slower than all of those high speed and cable connections. I am finding that the threads take longer and longer to load, because of all of the graphics people are using in their signatures. Some threads with only 5 or 6 posts will have in excess of 35 graphics, which slows everything down.

This is worth waiting for when they are kitty photos or something new and interesting. But often they are just the multiple graphics in signature lines, and often the same people are posting in the same threads, so we get those graphics loading over and over again, and keeping everything bogged down.

Could we have some rules for signature graphics? As in, number of graphics a person can use...(I know that several images can be combined in a single graphic file with no problem at all), or in the actual bandwidth that the signature graphics take up?

That would certainly aid in my enjoyment of the Cat Site.
post #2 of 57
I have heard similar complaints from other members. So far we've been very liberal with allowing images in signatures but if that is a hindrance to some members (and many are using dial-up) then we'll have to do something about it.

Thank you for your feedback - others are welcome to comment on the subject as well.
post #3 of 57
An option is to turn off the avatars and signatures. Go to your UserCP, then click on Edit Options. Scroll down to Thread View Options and you will be able to turn off people's avatars and signature graphics.

There was a complaint similar to yours on another board and most members were satisfied in having the option to turn off the graphics.
post #4 of 57
And not see beautiful Nakita? GASP!!!!

Although it is great the option is there, some of the signatures are way out of hand size-wise. I have gotten complaints in the past from members and I believe that if there is a size restriction placed, it might be a good option as opposed to not seeing any signatures as all.

As I told one complainant, for me, the identity of the person is not wrapped up in the signature line, but in the actual body of the post itself and what the member says there. The signature line should be treated like a business card, not a billboard advertisement.
post #5 of 57
Maybe we could have a set signature size that people would have to abide by, for instance, pictures in signatures cannot exceed more than 250 x 120 pixals (just an example) and something like 50k. I think that might help. I agree that very large signatures tend to clutter up the boards.
post #6 of 57
Thread Starter 
Well, for the short term, I did what Russian Blue suggested, and turned off the signature graphics. That solves the problem! I don't know why I didn't find that sooner. Thanks

Now, people should know that their lovely creative signatures are causing the threads to load slowly. It may be something that we need to see concensus about. The trade off will be having complex signatures, and knowing that people on the board will not look at them. Or reducing the size and number, knowing that more people will see them.
post #7 of 57
I don't use photos in my signature line. First of all, if I were to try and fit all my kitties' pics in it, either it would be HUGE, or else you'd need a magnifying glass to see them all!
post #8 of 57
I totally agree in reducing the size as Sicycat suggested. There should be a limit on what is shown in the signature line. For some signatures you really have to scroll a lot just to go from one post to another in a thread because of the graphics.

Even though I have a high speed connection, my scrolling finger is tired and my mouse is looking a little tired too!!

post #9 of 57
I agree with Sammie. Turning off the option is a temporary fix. Many members have good links in their sigs, and those get lost as well. I am on a cable modem, and I still find that sometimes the forums are slow or incomplete in loading.
post #10 of 57
The ideal "weight" of an internet page - html+images should not excceed 40k. As we have 15 posts per page I think images should be kept way below 40k each - something along the lines of 12k makes more sense to me...
post #11 of 57
Perhaps someone computer savy could display an image that size so others such as myself can see if my signature breaks those restriction sizes?
post #12 of 57
To give you an idea of size M.A., my signature pictures are 14kb (229 x 119) for Nakita the beauty and 7 kb (212 x 119 pixels) for the Goofy Nakita pic.

The signature with your name Hissy is 130 x 57 pixels.
post #13 of 57
Wow.. 12k is pretty small. And could make the image lose a lot of quality. It would be kind of abrupt to go from unlimited all the way down to 12k.

Russian Blue how did you make your pic 7k but still have such good quality?
post #14 of 57
I think it's fairly easy to produce good quality JPG's for web display using Photoshop (just use the "save for web" command in the file menu). The problem is with animated images like the one in your signature - those have to be GIFs and complex GIFs using photos as their base can get to be quite big (file size).
post #15 of 57
Originally posted by Sicycat
Russian Blue how did you make your pic 7k but still have such good quality?
I had the camera set on the email setting (for picture quality). If you increased the size of that pic, you would see that it is not the best quality for larger pictures.

post #16 of 57
I see.

I have used Save For Web plenty of times.. it still decreases the quality of the picture the lower you go.
post #17 of 57
The picture of Snowball in my signature is 206 x 172 pixels. Is that under 12k?
post #18 of 57
You can find out how big in file size pictures are by right clicking on them and choosing "properties". It will say 'Size = " and in how many bytes. So if its 7750 bytes, its about 7.7kb.
post #19 of 57
My pics are 7KB each....so I think I should resize them to make them a bit smaller.

I just finally added them too, and now I realize that I'm over the 12 KB limit Anne set! woops!
post #20 of 57
EEK! Guess I better use something different for mine! I know I'm over on both pixel size and download size.

Sorry dial-uppers!

Wow, 12K is really small.

Oh, and I like your signature Daniela! It's so good to see your pretty kitties.
post #21 of 57
Sorry, but I think this is confusing. Anne wants pictures under 12k, but some of the others are talking about kb sizes. If a picture is the size that Anne wants, what are the correct dimensions in pixels?????? (I understand pixels but I don't understand k and kb.)
post #22 of 57
K and kb both mean Kilobytes, or 1000 bytes. So, when you right click on the picture in your signature and go to properties, there will be a number there by Size: For Snowball's picture, it is 7714 bytes, or 7.7 K or 7.7 kb.

The pixel size can be deceiving because it depends on the quality of the photo, and any time you add animation (GIFs), it increases the size. So an animated GIF with the same pixel height and width as your Snowball may be 10 times the download size. Here's some examples comparing regular JPEGs to animated GIFs:

Snowball (JPEG): 206x172 pixels; 7714 bytes (7.7K)

Zoey (GIF): 175x104 pixels; 59973 bytes (59.9K)

My Save Samoa (GIF): 450x90 pixels; 38733 bytes (38.7K)

Daniela's Sunshine (JPEG): 188x215 pixels; 6583 bytes (6.5K)

Does that make a little more sense? It does get confusing!
post #23 of 57
I fixed mine so they wouldn't be animated. I didn't realize how much space it took up!
post #24 of 57
12KB is small, but its doable. Both of mine are only 7, and the quality is pretty good I think.

Lorie, I think Snowballs' is fine....don't sweat it! Its under 12kb.
post #25 of 57
Ok I've changed my sig so that it's not animated.

I hope this is acceptable now.
post #26 of 57
GRRR! I reduced my GIF to under 7KB, and now ImageStation says you can't upload GIFs anymore. Well, that makes it easy for future reference.
post #27 of 57
I can host it for you if you like, Val.
post #28 of 57
Wow! I have been reading this thread with fasciantion. I have a high speed connection so I don't neded to worry and recently have slimed down my graphic so it doesn't clutter up everything!

My Suggestion , keep it to a limit, 100 kb or something? and if people are really hacked off by the graphics they can use the turn off option

post #29 of 57
Phew that's mighty nice of you all - we didn't actually set up any rule you know. I was just sharing what I know about ideal file size for dial-up.

What are your thoughts about the image size though (not the kb's - but the size in pixels). Just as an example - what if I were to use this image as my signature? It's less than 3kb but it's huge in size... I'd hate to see anyone put something like that as their signature...

post #30 of 57
Awwww now that's large Anne!

My Graphic "Holly-Bug" is 250 x 177 pixels and 55144 bytes, Is that too big?

Thanks, Sam
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Site Help
TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › Site Help › An "overabundance" of graphics?