# JUMBO signatures: Time to deflate!



## KBoards Admin (Nov 27, 2007)

We recognize the concerns expressed about the increasing number of very large signatures being used. We've updated our Forum Decorum to apply more specific guidelines for signatures. I've copied it below.

For the next month or so, we ask that members not report the large signature areas of other members. We don't want to get flooded with reports during this adjustment period. If your signature area is larger than allowed, please update it now.

Here are the updated guidelines:

- Signatures: Generally, you may have text and/or graphics in your signature, including hyperlinked text and graphics. Excessive use of images in signatures is discouraged, and graphics may be removed or resized at the sole discretion of the moderators. Do not post embedded videos in signatures. Graphics or text links that are offensive, distracting, or otherwise detract from the forum may be removed at the sole discretion of our moderator team.

A signature, in length and height, can be no larger than the area X'd off below. It is 89 default font characters wide, and 10 default font characters high. That's about 800 x 140 pixels. This is enough for book covers (which, when made through our Link-Maker, are 125 pixels high) plus two lines of plain text. Keep your signature to that size or smaller; otherwise it may be changed or removed.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

EDIT from Betsy: If you need help with your signature, please don't hesitate to PM me or Harvey. Or, you can post in Forum Announcements & Tips for help, and one of our many signature-adept members will help you! If we see a signature that exceeds the guidelines, we may PM you or, at our discretion, simply edit your signature.


----------



## musclehead (Dec 29, 2010)

I know signatures are very important to some people, especially authors.  But as a reader, I find them annoying.  I hide them completely, and it makes reading the forums so much easier.

To hide them:
- click Profile at the top of the page
- click Look and Layout Preferences on the left side bar
- click Don't show users' signatures
- click the Change Profile button at the bottom of the page

You're done!


----------



## LisaW. (Jun 1, 2009)

I've kept signatures turned off almost from my initial sign-up at these boards. I have a laptop, and they were taking up way too much screen space. I keep avatars turned off too because the pages on my computer load a bit faster that way.


----------



## Morf (Nov 18, 2010)

Personally I *like* signatures (despite not having one myself), they helps me to know a little bit more about people, and as musclehead said, they are important for authors.

I also like avatars, they help me to spot regular posters more quickly.

So, Pidgeon92, I'd encourage you to carry on persuading those with over-large signatures to reduce them.

It's not fair that people switch off signatures and avatars for everybody due to the actions of a few people.


----------



## intinst (Dec 23, 2008)

It is an individual choice, however.


----------



## pidgeon92 (Oct 27, 2008)

Morf said:


> It's not fair that people switch off signatures and avatars for everybody due to the actions of a few people.


Well, this isn't necessarily the reason. Like Lisa said, pages do load faster when the browser doesn't need to load all of the pictures. And people don't seem to realize that if the pic they link to in their avatar or signature is really large (and I'm not talking about the display size here, but the original image), that it can really slow down page loading for everybody who opens a thread they post in.


----------



## sherylb (Oct 27, 2008)

Morf said:


> It's not fair that people switch off signatures and avatars for everybody due to the actions of a few people.


I have to switch off the signatures when I am at work because some of the book covers are less than work friendly.


----------



## Morf (Nov 18, 2010)

Morf said:


> It's not fair that people switch off signatures and avatars for everybody due to the actions of a few people.


Quoting myself here, I perhaps phrased that badly. I certainly wasn't suggesting that sigs and avatars should be forcibly switched off, and I understand that some people will want them off anyway.

What I meant was that I do find over-large sigs and avatars annoying, and though I'd like to keep them switched on, I will end up switching them off if they are not tidied up.



sherylb said:


> I have to switch off the signatures when I am at work because some of the book covers are less than work friendly.


...and that concerns me, I personally feel that if a sig is NSFW then it shouldn't be there at all, hence my original comment.


----------



## sherylb (Oct 27, 2008)

Morf said:


> ...and that concerns me, I personally feel that if a sig is NSFW then it shouldn't be there at all, hence my original comment.


It's a minor inconvenience and it is easy to switch between sigs on or off.
Are workplaces in the UK as militant about being "politically correct" as we are in the US?


----------



## intinst (Dec 23, 2008)

Morf said:


> Quoting myself here, I perhaps phrased that badly. I certainly wasn't suggesting that sigs and avatars should be forcibly switched off, and I understand that some people will want them off anyway.
> 
> What I meant was that I do find over-large sigs and avatars annoying, and though I'd like to keep them switched on, I will end up switching them off if they are not tidied up.
> 
> ...and that concerns me, I personally feel that if a sig is NSFW then it shouldn't be there at all, hence my original comment.


In addition to NSFW, the administrator has said that the site is supposed to be family friendly.


----------



## Morf (Nov 18, 2010)

sherylb said:


> It's a minor inconvenience and it is easy to switch between sigs on or off.
> Are workplaces in the UK as militant about being "politically correct" as we are in the US?


Well, I haven't noticed any sigs that I would class as NSFW in the UK...

I don't really want to ask you to "name and shame" by pointing to the ones you find inappropriate! 

The nearest example I can give is that UK TV has a self-imposed 9pm "watershed", before which it doesn't broadcast material that might be deemed offensive... nudity, bad language, sexual content etc.

(That doesn't mean that after 9pm "anything goes", of course, but the idea is that pre-9pm is family viewing.)

I guess I'd expect anything shown or said on this forum to be suitable for family viewing and therefore suitable for work.



intinst said:


> In addition to NSFW, the administrator has said that the site is supposed to be family friendly.


Exactly!


----------



## pidgeon92 (Oct 27, 2008)

There are a few sigs with scantily clad men or women on the covers. I assume these are the ones that some find risqué.


----------



## Ann in Arlington (Oct 27, 2008)

I would suggest that if a member sees a signature that they think is NOT family friendly, that they report it.  The moderators will review it and discuss it with the member if needed.


----------



## Jasmine Giacomo Author (Apr 21, 2010)

Ann in Arlington said:


> I would suggest that if a member sees a signature that they think is NOT family friendly, that they report it. The moderators will review it and discuss it with the member if needed.


I'd been wondering whether I needed to start slipping dollar bills into some of the covers I'd seen going by.


----------



## pidgeon92 (Oct 27, 2008)

Jasmine Giacomo said:


> I'd been wondering whether I needed to start slipping dollar bills into some of the covers I'd seen going by.


Nope, but you might want to check the size of your signature, as it is larger than the guidelines in this thread.


----------



## Jasmine Giacomo Author (Apr 21, 2010)

pidgeon92 said:


> Nope, but you might want to check the size of your signature, as it is larger than the guidelines in this thread.


You mean my new svelte sig, fresh from the pidgeon92 signature weight loss program?  Trim complete. I honestly thought I was within params, until I conducted a hasty yet precise measurement just now with the Kindle plug adapter I got with my surprise Kindle tonight.


----------



## pidgeon92 (Oct 27, 2008)

Jasmine Giacomo said:


> You mean my new svelte sig, fresh from the pidgeon92 signature weight loss program?


Well done.


----------



## Morf (Nov 18, 2010)

Harvey said:


> A signature, in length and height, can be no larger than the area X'd off below. It is 89 default font characters wide, and 10 default font characters high. That's about 800 x 140 pixels. This is enough for book covers (which, when made through our Link-Maker, are 125 pixels high) plus two lines of plain text. Keep your signature to that size or smaller; otherwise it may be changed or removed.
> 
> XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
> XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
> ...


Could I just point out that this is rather confusing? Because the default font for messages is larger than the default font for signatures, the rectangle appears (visually) much larger in the post than it would actually take up in a signature (I just tested this which is why I briefly had all X's as my sig! ). Would it be possible to adjust the font size in the message to be the same size as the default sig font so the rectangle's size is more apparent?


----------



## pidgeon92 (Oct 27, 2008)

I don't know how to make it any more clear. Most people don't know how to measure out pixels on their computers, but they can compare the X'd out area to what is on their screen. I made a .jpg of the area, and that is what I use to overlap onto signatures on my screen. If the .jpg overlaps, then the sig fits. If stuff sticks out, then it's too big.

As is also noted, the rule is you get 800 x 140 pixels. There are utilities you can use to measure the amount of space on your monitor. I use one called Pixelstick on my iMac. No doubt there are several options on the PC side.


----------



## Morf (Nov 18, 2010)

Hmm, OK, I think I've not explained what I meant.

The thing is, it's not clear whether the limit is 89 x 10 characters _ in the post font_, as shown in the first post, or whether the limit is 89 x 10 characters _in the signature font_.

The rectangle, as seen in the first post, looks like this:

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Which visually looks pretty big.

However, the default sig font is smaller that the default post font (I'm guessing it's about 8 point) so in a signature the box looks like this:

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX


Which looks considerably smaller.

Now I haven't seen Jasmine's old sig, so I don't know how big it was. Her new sig looks smaller than the smaller box above, and a lot smaller than the bigger box, so she's clearly within the rules now, but is she just within the rules or has she got a lot more space to play with?

If you consider the pixel rule (800x140), if Jasmine's book covers are the standard 125 pixels then her sig must be pretty close to the limit - which suggests that the smaller rectangle is correct.

The only other way I can think of illustrating it is to use an account specifically for the post and set up a sig which is the maximum allowable size.

I think this is all going a bit far now, and clearly your hints to people are working OK, so if you want to forget what I've said here please feel free!


----------



## pidgeon92 (Oct 27, 2008)

Morf said:


> The thing is, it's not clear whether the limit is 89 x 10 characters _ in the post font_, as shown in the first post, or whether the limit is 89 x 10 characters _in the signature font_.


Then let me clarify.

It is the 89 x 10 characters in the _post font_.


----------



## luvshihtzu (Dec 19, 2008)

musclehead,
Thanks for the help in getting rid of the signatures.  I have never liked them.


----------



## jseidel5263 (Oct 29, 2008)

I appreciate the tips about setting my own profile preferences so I don't have to view avatars or bloated signatures. It's been discussed forever on other boards and discussions that Kindleboards can be kind of confusing (or downright annoying) because of all the pics, tag lines, photos of grandkids and the dogs, fancy signatures, etc.  By changing my preferences, I've cut down on the clutter on my screen and I like it!!


----------



## geko29 (Dec 23, 2008)

pidgeon92 said:


> As is also noted, the rule is you get 800 x 140 pixels. There are utilities you can use to measure the amount of space on your monitor. I use one called Pixelstick on my iMac. No doubt there are several options on the PC side.


pixel ruler is one that several Business Analysts at my company use.


----------



## VegasWriter (May 25, 2011)

I notice other graphic signatures of author books show the pictures side by side. Mine are one beneath the other. How do I fix it so they are horizontally within your preferences?


----------



## KBoards Admin (Nov 27, 2007)

^ There is a line feed (carriage return) in your signature that's causing the line break, that needed to be deleted. (I fixed it.)


----------



## bjm (Mar 9, 2011)

Tried to keep mine small to fit in the box of XXXes. I made it even smaller than that just to be safe. Holler if it does not work out.


----------



## Nancy Fulda (Apr 24, 2011)

Jasmine Giacomo said:


> I'd been wondering whether I needed to start slipping dollar bills into some of the covers I'd seen going by.


*snicker*

I'm thinking my sig needs a quick weight-loss program, too. One moment.


----------



## Nancy Fulda (Apr 24, 2011)

There.


----------



## Jennifer Smith (Jul 14, 2011)

I am an author and I think that using a good avatar (a cover of your book for example) is enough. You don't really need signatures.
And I agree - they CAN be annoying!


----------



## Joe Chiappetta (May 20, 2010)

I think my sig is ok, but please PM me if not, as I use assistive technology on a computer and sizing is harder to guage. Thanks


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Joe--

Your signature looks fine!

Betsy
KB Moderator


----------



## intinst (Dec 23, 2008)

I see many signatures that appear to be larger than this limit, is this still being enforced?


----------



## Ann in Arlington (Oct 27, 2008)

Absolutely.  When we notice a signature that's too big we contact the poster and/or fix it.

But we're only 6 people so may not see EVERY post.  Members are welcome to report signatures that appear to be too large.  We'll check it and if necessary, we'll be in touch with the poster.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Absolutely.  I edit 3-5 signatures most days.  However, in the scheme of KB faux pas, it's low on our list...if it's a choice between breaking up a knife fight in Accessories between the Oberon and the Noreve cover factions and fixing a signature, I head for the knife fight.  That's why I bought the Kevlar Super Quilter Suit.
 

As Ann says, report 'em.  One of us will get to them eventually. 

Betsy


----------



## MrPLD (Sep 23, 2010)

Betsy the Quilter said:


> I head for the knife fight. That's why I bought the Kevlar Super Quilter Suit.


Hmm... and here I thought the knife fights were mostly in the Writer's Cafe.


----------



## Ann in Arlington (Oct 27, 2008)

MrPLD said:


> Hmm... and here I thought the knife fights were mostly in the Writer's Cafe.


You'd be surprised how passionate people are about the 'to skin or not to skin' question!


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

I don't know. I think in the Cafe we play surprisingly nicely.

Well, unless there's a knife fight between the anti and pro-tagging folks or the anti or pro-DRM folks... *looks innocent* Or a few other folks.

All right, maybe we don't always play nicely.


----------



## trip (Dec 27, 2010)

Musclehead, thanks for that info. It's much easier to read now.


----------

