Byte-size of signatures

[Asakura]

At first, I just wanted to mention this in the "Signature Rules updated!"-thread, but then decided to keep silent about this point. However, clicking through the different pages of some threads, I recognized my browser being slowed down by some pretty big GIF-signatures of some users. I don't want to offend anyone, but XmarkstheScot for example uses an animated image that is about the size of 3,5MB. Opening a page of the "Povies and Mictures"-thread with his signature obviously took my brower some time to load the forums as well as his signature.

Don't get me wrong, I don't want to ban animations in signatures, they sure are a catch for the eye, but in my opinion, the file size should be set to a limit. Imagine almost every user or just some new users/members put such a big animated GIF in his/her signature, it would take pretty much time to load several pages of threads - not to mention that while it's loaded, the GIF plays rather slowly and "hoppy" (sorry, can't describe it anyway else :p) and doesn't look as great as it would if it was of a smaller byte size and therefore loaded faster by the browser.

Long story short: GIFs are cool, but should be limited in byte size as well. Tell me what you think about it. :)

[DeKA]

yeah the limit of 10MB will be just fine :rofl:


but seriously we will look into it ;)

[Delta1]

I haven't noticed them slowing me down ^^ but I do see your point, especially for those with slower computers/internet connections
Sounds like a good idea

[XmarksTheScot]

Well i did try to find some sort of rule re filesize but couldnt find any. The original size was 9mb so i reduced using common sense, i thot that 3.5mb was enough but it looks like ill keep trying to cut it down a bit, sorry guys thot i might have been ok. But anyway i have removed it just now and if we can get a clear number to limit ill reduce it too that and see what it looks like after :D

[Asakura]

Well i did try to find some sort of rule re filesize but couldnt find any. The original size was 9mb so i reduced using common sense, i thot that 3.5mb was enough but it looks like ill keep trying to cut it down a bit, sorry guys thot i might have been ok. But anyway i have removed it just now and if we can get a clear number to limit ill reduce it too that and see what it looks like after :D

I'm sorry for picking you as an example of big file size, Scot. It just so happened that it was your sig that slowly loaded when I checked the videos/pictures-thread. Hope you don't get it the way that I point at you with my finger and say "He's to blame!". ^^;

[Nicoleise]

It should be so that the signature loads into the cache of the browser and remains there, thus not generating specifically longer loadtime, once you've just loaded it once before. :)

However, I do agree that large filesizes are a concern, and in X's defense, he asked me about it yesterday, and as I could see no difference at all in loading his signature or not, I told him he could keep it, atleast untill it might become a problem, so it's also me at fault here. :)

I remember previous incidents like Terminators signature, but that was hosted at a very slow host, and didn't cacheload, atleast for me. So I think it might vary depending on the host, but you're right though, clear rules are needed, and we'll look into those. :)


Thank you for putting up the suggestion, and might I add that your signature also bothers alot of users, being me... and uhm.. me . :p Nah, just kidding, it's all in the fun ;)
“Remember kids: Never ask what uncle Nicoleise hides below his bed.” :D

[XmarksTheScot]

I'm sorry for picking you as an example of big file size, Scot. It just so happened that it was your sig that slowly loaded when I checked the videos/pictures-thread. Hope you don't get it the way that I point at you with my finger and say "He's to blame!". ^^;


No Probs at all Asa, i had thot that i might have to reduce it to a lower size but thot i would see what 3.5mb was like and if probs i could reduce later.

I probably have one of the slowest connection here so maybe i should have thot of others in my boat :D

Anyway ill try and get it donw a bit and stick it back up once we have a limit to size.

Oh and im glad it was you were nice about it Asa, honest i hold no ill will, fact im glad some1 spoke up about it now i know its a prob :D

[Nicoleise]

Actually, we've been looking into this a bit, and it seems to matter greatly where the signature is hosted. :)

For instance, Pepper also has a very large signature (4,178MB), but that doesn't seem to cause any significant delay just as Xs didn't to me either, but Terminators old signature caused insane delay, you could actually see the site stopping to load it.

We are still looking into it though, but as early indications, it seems the host is actually alot more important than the actual filesize, which makes sense because 1MB at 256kbit/s takes 31,25 seconds to aqquire, whereas 4MB on a 1Mbit/s line is the exact same ; 31,25 seconds. This also means, that a proper host with a 4Mbit/s upload line and a low ping could deliver a 4MB animated signature in 8 seconds, whereas a slow imagehost like ImageShack could take 15 seconds to send a simple 0,5MB image.

It's interesting because our old forumhost actually complained that we had alot of external traffic to an imageshack album, that statistically was very slow compared to other traffic.

I think we'll look into this deeply, rather than just throwing up some limits. We don't want to create more hassle for our users than what's needed, so we'll give it a good looking into. :)

[XmarksTheScot]

Surely tho it would also depend on the dl speed of the user viewing the site?

So as you say it loaded instantly for you but some had trouble so it may be something we will have to take an average of, and really only have to take a limit depending on the speed of our average user compared with the slowest host of images


UPDATE -- i have reduced the file size to 2.3Mb, i have had to reduce quality a wee bit but if its for the great good its cool. anyway if still and issue let me know and ill move the file to a better host altho im am hosting this myself on my business site host

[Tim]

Well I don't have any issues viewing any signatures at this time. The cache btw should update itself automatically and shouldn't cause any loading issues, but from my experience in troubleshooting internet connections over the last couple of years, it can. Also other things like browser addons, how many tabs are open at once, etc...

I think this file size limit can still be looked into, but really only needs to be there if hosted here on SOG site maybe...?

[Nicoleise]

I think this file size limit can still be looked into, but really only needs to be there if hosted here on SOG site maybe...?

Spot on, or atleast ; if not hosted on SOG, then filesize can be fairly large.

You're right though, alot of factors come into play. :)


And yes, Xmarks (new one, eh ;) ), the recipiant download speed would matter greatly, but that's a factor that's out of our hands. We can do what we can to ensure that we send as fast as possible - that way, the recipiant gets what he pays for from his ISP :)

[LtSkilless]

If I am right you can check the meta-data of external files.
That would actually force a form to post a signature like an input for the main image the userbar and the text underneath.With that in mind you can also check for the size and the resolution to limit it as some users have really big signatures.

[Asakura]

Iz persistentcat. ^^ Any news about this? Has a limit been set or is this topic still in progress?

[DeKA]

its in progress as we have to make sure mine sig will not be too big :P

but seriously we are working on it as it also seems that the site is slowing itself :s and to make that clear we need Matt

[Nicoleise]

Iz persistentcat. ^^ Any news about this? Has a limit been set or is this topic still in progress?

Iz I-noes-cat. :p

The thing is ; it would be very easy to just sling out a file size, and I think we will set a limit, but it will be alot higher than what can be considered practical in this context. After all, I wouldn't like to be causing unnessacary constrictions for people. :)



My reasoning is that I conveyed a test, where I compared PhotoBucket, Imageshack and a server I have. I used my own, old animated signature for a reference. The size of it is 181.93 KB, and it's the excact same size on all the uploads. The result I got to was pretty much as expected, except that I wasn't expecting the difference to be so apparent :

My server : 1 second
PhotoBucket : 2,3 seconds
Imageshack : 3,5 seconds
(Time from desktop till page reported "Done")

I think it's a rather big difference, considering it's only less than 200KB, and the difference, due to the excactly one second of my server can also be compared as "2,3 times longer".


I also tested the cachestoring, and my browser (Mozilla Firefox 3.5.1) did cachestore all images tested. To test this, I made an html page with 300+ pictures. As it loaded the first time, I used it as a visual comparison between the three hosts, also showing a similar result to above (my server had the images done faster than I could scroll, the others were easy to catch up with, just two pages down). In the visual comparison, I noticed that the first time I ran the test, the entire thing took in the region of half a minute. The second time, it was done in less than 3 seconds, which could only be achieved by cachestoring the images.


• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •


With all of this in mind, I think we should make an overall sizelimit to apply to the complete context of a signature (text excluded), and that this sizelimit should be quite high. And example could be 4-5 MB

I think we should then make a rule that any single content/object above the size of ???KB must be hosted on a proper server, e.g. at SOGs server if possible, or if not, then I could offer the webspace from my server as well. This should be very low, e.g. 300-500KB, as any files above that size certainly would affect loadingspeeds.

Like I said, I dont mind managing and hosting some system on my server, I might even make it so that people can access part of it by themselves, but I think it would be more optimal if the content could somehow be hosted on the forum server. :)


That's my humble input. :)

[LtSkilless]

Hosting all images on the SOG server would make all loading times even more slowly.
Nicoleise If you are planning to do that,you should keep in mind that users also post illegal material.A better solution would be to compare a lot more image hosts.

[Nicoleise]

Hosting all images on the SOG server would make all loading times even more slowly.
How come? If they're hosted locally (in relation to the site) then there's no external transfer time. I realize it might negatively impact the loading speed on our current solution, but in general terms, it doesn't slow the loading to have images hosted on the server. You don't see HP hosting images on PhotoBucket... :p


Nicoleise If you are planning to do that,you should keep in mind that users also post illegal material.A better solution would be to compare a lot more image hosts.

The problem with the imagehosts is the same ; bandwidth. They are shared by a massive amount of people. If not, they can't sustain their services, as there would be no ads paying for it.

I honestly have enough faith in our users here, to think that no one here would upload any illegal content to their signature. Besides, I will be checking the content myself, if I'm hosting, as in the end I am responsible for it.

[LtSkilless]

You are starting to forget that many users need more than 5 MB for their signature.
If you have enough users you could start making a one-click hoster like rapidshare.
Just image 8 diffrent Users per forum page.Everyone's signature needs 5 MB.
So 8 * 5MB = 40 MB. So you really thinking you can host transer 40 MB fast enough if you host them on this server.That's a thing I only believe if I see it.

[Nicoleise]

You are starting to forget that many users need more than 5 MB for their signature.
If you have enough users you could start making a one-click hoster like rapidshare.
Just image 8 diffrent Users per forum page.Everyone's signature needs 5 MB.
So 8 * 5MB = 40 MB. So you really thinking you can host transer 40 MB fast enough if you host them on this server.That's a thing I only believe if I see it.

I think you are overlooking the fact that the 5MB (example) max will be a rule, not a guideline. There's no sense in people having ridiculously large signatures - you can make entire websites with 5MB. In fact, 5MB = 40.000.000 characters - in other words, you could even write entire books that would only take up 5MB.
A signature should be compressed to roughly 100KB for a still-image in my opinion.
And again, most browser cachestore often used images, just like the banner on the site for instance.


As for my server, it has plenty of connection and speed, as I use it in my business as a photoarchieve and redundant backup, thus it has plenty of speed and space to cope.

So if we could please stop questioning whether or not I can deliver what I say I can, and simply stick to the topic at hand? When I say that I can do this, it doesn't mean that I am unsure, it means that I can. :)

[Asakura]

Iz still persistentcat. :D Have some new signature rules been created since I was absent or is it still being discussed/probed?