…we find that images in signature lines make comment threads unwieldy and longer than they should be.
If the image is not any bigger top to bottom than someone’s text signature, unwieldy-ness is not a function of the image. The image above is 100 pixels tall. Compare:
—
My thoughts are mine and mine alone. They should not be considered representative of any other organization, group or person – save me.~Ryan.
Clearly the latter is marginally more unwieldy and yet not restricted.
They also can cause pages to load more slowly than they otherwise would.
Regardless if a person has one or many comments on the thread and an image in the sigline, the image is loaded from the source image server only once. The speed is a function of the image server. Most image servers are fast because they are built to serve images to web pages.
We therefore request that all BMG users refrain from posting images in their signature lines, and we further request that those users who are currently using images in their signatures please remove them. Thanks in advance for your cooperation.
Is this a request or a requirement, because it feels like a requirement desipte the “request”?
Anytime I’ve experienced slow loads of pages on BMG, it has to do with the adservers.
To me, much of the rationale seems off the mark. Why not restrict images and text signatures by the same rules – limits in height and kb?
While the kb of the image does affect load speed speed it’s hard to argue that’s the main or even a significant driver of slow page loads. For example, the Marth Coakley image is 7K. The Boston Gay Man’s Chorus image is 12K. The Websites for Republican Campaigns ad is 21K.
Users’ sigline images are loaded directly from the image server to the users’ computers, which is arguably faster than if the images were stored on the BMG server. Why not regulate height of sigline?
Good point about the equally annoying text-only signatures, and the ad servers, but those candidate images were a little distracting and visually annoying with their repetition. I don’t like Huffpost profile images either.
I haven’t seen the Huffpost profile (signature line?) images. How about avatars? Do you like avatars?
I do not care
<
p>and I’ll vote for that.
Ok. I will. Will it let me?
Your vote is duly noted.
infringement on free speech. I don’t think constitutional rights should be subject to a poll.
the implied request to take the poll is optional.
the time we had went by so fast i remember its first pixel and then its first day of school and now my picture has moved on to the big search engine in the sky!
And now he’s gone. I posted a picture below for you to remember him by.
We’re talking about the policy of a privately-managed blog, which the Editors can set as they please. My own two cents is that graphics start looking cluttery (Is that a word?), but text quotes or links are fine.
That was sarcasm up there.
empathy! Now we pick ourselves up and move forward.
We all know you’re capable of being petty and annoying. Why write a diary to prove it?
You can do anything you want. No need to ask for permission.
This is a BLOG. It’s fun.
<
p>Is our collective sense of humor (never mind judgment) mortally wounded from the primary campaign?
I vote in them, but more or less stay out of it. I’m more apt to get upset over..say..the pats not going to the playoffs?
<
p>Seriously though, we can still go 11-5 and take it. We just can’t lose any more games. God help us.
playing better than the Pats O in the first half today. Think Brady is asking Moss to try a little harder and fumble less. Brady, the new dad, deserves a win. So do we.
For a primary with so few real differences among the candidates, the commentary on here was some of the most of the most petty, personal, and sour in recent memory. Besides, the graphic tag lines were just plain annoying.
<
p>So’s EB3’s giant signature, but that’s another issue.
<
p>Time to move on.