Things you'd change?

[Nick]

This is something that I've been wondering a lot recently. I think that people would be more inclined to say something about things that they don't like about PC if they're given the opportunity to state it freely, and in a non-judgmental way and in a way that opens the chance of something changing from it. I don't want this to become a huge debate thread, because for some reason I'm uncertain of, whenever something negative is said about anything, more often than not, people generally jump to the defense of whatever it is and belittle opposing opinions.

The point of this thread, however, isn't to list things that you don't like about the forum. It's about creating an opportunity to fix the things that you don't like. So! Let's get started with some simple questions.

What are some things that you don't like about PokéCommunity that you would like to change?
Why don't you like this, if you have a reason at all?
What would you suggest doing to change the thing that you don't like?

 

[Her]

I would repeal the new signature rules, aside from the CSS/flashing lights ones.

 

[Ephemeral Euphoria]

I'd have threads be moved to the apprpriate location or merged with a similar thread rather than just being told that the section for the thread is not the right place for the thread and having it closed. That and I never saw a point for having rules about bumping old threads either.

 

[Legobricks]

What are some things that you don't like about PokéCommunity that you would like to change?
I've always loathed how signature images are allowed to be taller than 200px. I've had viewing of signatures turned off for years because of this, so it dosn't really trouble me, but since you asked, that's what I've long wanted to see change. At that, I'm actually only posting this because you asked; I've never posted it in its own thread because I don't see it ever garnering any acceptance.

Why don't you like this, if you have a reason at all?
There are two reasons I dislike it, one being that it's simply obnoxious to have so many huge and useless images on a thread page. The other reason, and the one that makes me a bit indignant, is how it makes the posts of users with huge signatures stand out so much against those of users without signatures that I would often entirely miss the latters' posts. Once I had observed the most substantial post in a thread go initially unnoticed by myself because of 500x300 signature images, I just turned signature viewing off.

What would you suggest doing to change the thing that you don't like?
I would suggest making the limit for images 600x200, and for the entirety of signatures 600x300.

 

[wolf]

I agree with Cassino. I have signatures disabled because they are too large and clutter up the postbit. However, I think the height limit should be around 150px for everything included in the signature, but I'm sure that would be considered too strict.

 

[Belldandy]

I'm hopping on that bandwagon. Signatures are atrociously large. There's no reason that they should be that big. For someone who's on a 10" screen, signatures take up half the page. I don't want to disable them, though, because they're interesting; however, they can be interesting and small.

I like the new PG rules and the new rule against epilepsy-inducing signatures i.e. flashing, though.

Just, signature space... is way too big now. For most users, it's 3x bigger than what they actually contribute through posting =_=;;

 

[Sydian]

I disagree about the signature size. I know not everyone likes to utilize them, but signatures are customizable and are generally how you appear on the forum, along with your avatar. It's like your online clothes. We should have room to dress up with what we want to wear and express ourselves, while still having some limitation, and what we have is good. To shorten it would just feel like...school uniforms. Ya dig?? If you wanna be the unfashionable school principal about it, go right ahead.

Generally, I feel that we've been catering to members rather well lately and almost everything that has been suggested in the past few months has gone through. And that's great. So I really can't think of anything else to change. Not saying everything needs to be done, but I feel that staff know when to say yes and when to say no. So that's good. Don't ever lose that balance.

 

[Treecko]

I really hate forums who have strict signature rules cause it doesn't allow for as much creativity so I'm glad this one allows for bigger signatures. Though I can agree with people here saying that some people's signatures are a bit too big. Though again I don't think the signature limits should be cut back too much cause it does allow for some nice signatures. 600x250 at the most or 600x300 is good too imo.

Other than that, I can't think of much else that can be changed. I like how a lot of idea on this forum are being implemented and I'm satisfied with how the forum's being ran right now.

 

[Belldandy]

Yeah, the forum is being run great. I love the staff and the administration. Definitely a great bunch.

The majority of the signatures on this site are a healthy size... but some really maximize the space alotted (in their own right) and it's just too big :(

i.e.

- Sydian's is a good size. Perfect, even.
- AWsquared is just a bit too big because of the two underlying text lines.
- Xulek's is too large.
- Harlequin's is a bit too large. In fact, I can't even see her username / most of her avatar without cropping the signature... It's one or the other.

imo signatures the size of Sydian's (or AWsquared's without the two text lines) are perfect size and definitely allow space for "creativity" and "individuality." They're certainly not small or limiting; the space is well-used and well-designed.

[Edit]

Another example. Livewire's signature v is perfect, too. Not too big, not too small. Creative, classy, well-designed and attractive. Yet, not hogging half my screen.

Not sure how many users have small screens like mine (I used to have a 15" but my ex smashed it... 2,000$ i7 PC T_T), but it's definitely not user-friendly, esp. since I love to see people's creativity in their signatures... but too large is just that: too large.

 

[Livewire]

I'd take cloudflare out back and beat the hell out of it.

But really, I feel that most of the major issues have all been addressed recently, and the only glaring weakness I can see are these downtimes and load issues. Maybe the solution is to start weeding out old accounts, I don't know.

As for the reasoning behind signature size limits, I think they're pretty arbitrary/subjective. If they look trashy to you, disable them. I really don't care how tall or wide they are, honestly.

 

[donavannj]

Personally, one of the things I've always liked about PC was the immense liberties allowed with regards to signature size, allowing one to have a very creative signature if one so wished. 200 pixels tall simply does not feel like enough signature space to me despite previously frequenting sites where signatures even that large were forbidden before re-discovering PC.

I do understand the screen-space and missing a post because of a sea of large signatures, though.

One thing I'd like to see done is switching the default postbit from standard to legacy, because legacy is infinitely superior. :P I'm only half serious about this suggestion.

Only suggestion I can think of is to work on the signature scrollbar box so that it renders properly in all browsers and styles it is enabled in for all common screen resolutions. I get scrollbars on some people's signatures that are less than 350 pixels tall on some occasions. I'm fairly certain it's just when the position:relative; is used in the BB Code CSS, but I'm not 100% sure.

 

[Belldandy]

As for the reasoning behind signature size limits, I think they're pretty arbitrary/subjective. If they look trashy to you, disable them. I really don't care how tall or wide they are, honestly.

Yeah, I'm going through now with Adblock and blocking the gigantic signatures i.e. Harlequin's, Xulek's.

Not a big deal, I guess.

Moreso concerned about being booted out in favour of guests when we reach >1,500 users. That's still happening to users [me] [possibly others] and it's irritating lol XD

 

[Sydian]

One last thing about the sigs. I understand some people have smaller screens, but we can't cater the sig rules to fit the whims of every computer screen size.

Done talking about sigs. Now watch me walk out like a pimp.

 

[Her]

WOW WAY TO TAKE MY POST SYDIAN

Unfortunately, my signature (and all signatures, really) is not one size fits all and I doubt that they ever will be. Changing the rules to cater to the whims of a small minority of members is both illogical and just kinda rude to those who do utilise all the space in their signatures. I hate to be that person, but since I have been named and 'shamed' in this thread, I'm going to say this: deal with it.

 

[Belldandy]

Unfortunately, my signature (and all signatures, really) is not one size fits all and I doubt that they ever will be. Changing the rules to cater to the whims of a small minority of members is both illogical and just kinda rude to those who do utilise all the space in their signatures. I hate to be that person, but since I have been named and 'shamed' in this thread, I'm going to say this: deal with it.

"Shamed"? I don't see how anyone has been "shamed" by anything here, especially after using careful language.

The majority of the signatures on this site are a healthy size... but some really maximize the space alotted (in their own right) and it's just too big.

I also address the fact that I don't feel that a majority of users have small screens like my Acer: "Not sure how many users have small screens like mine"

As well as explaining that rather than pursuing this issue, which can be fixed on my own end, I'd simply be Adblock'ing the ones that are :too large: for a 10" screen. Again, because everyone in their own right can have large signatures, because it breaks no rules. The thread is about things that I would change which is where my opinion derives from. It's not a thread on its own, plus other individuals shared the same :too big: notion before me. If someone else other than you had posted in this thread that I would have considered having a signature that is :too big: then I would have used them as an example as well.

I have no idea why you feel "shamed" about anything, nor why you feel targeted, when it was clearly stated prior to that that it is in everyone's right to maximize their signature within the rules. You did just that, and that's fine, but again, the topic of signatures being :too big: had already been brought up before my examples. The people I chose as examples had posted in this thread, making it an easy reference for others to "see what I meant" by :too big: and was completely arbitrary.

However, I would completely understand if I had made a thread titled "X's SIGNATURE IS TOO BIG." That would be mean, and you would have a valid reason to feel as you expressed, but I didn't do that. I picked people who had larger signatures in this thread - because it's pertinent and easily accessible, already reading it and all - to compare and understand how I see them. On larger screens, such signatures would not be an issue; if I had my 15" still, everything would be dandy.

Which is why, again, I prefer just to use Adblock because it solves my problem which, again, is probably felt by a minority. Most people have larger screens, I'd say.

Also noting that I forgot about Adblock till Livewire mentioned "blocking" signatures.

:)

 

[Her]

Also noting that I forgot about Adblock till Livewire mentioned "blocking" signatures.

:)

Now that you have remembered it once more, you can implement it on signatures like mine and never have to worry about this issue again :)

I just think that it's rude to list the names of those who are expressing themselves in the way they want to and using their names as a way to justify your grievances with the signature system.

Seacrest out.

 

[Belldandy]

Now that you have remembered it once more, you can implement it on signatures like mine and never have to worry about this issue again :)

Already done :)

I just think that it's rude to list the names of those who are expressing themselves in the way they want to and using their names as a way to justify your grievances with the signature system.

Again, it could have been anyone. I used many examples so no one would feel "outed" for whatever reason. You need examples for an argument, esp. if you want people to see things how you do it. My screen resolution is 1024x600, so x300 heights kill my screen. Some people can't visualize that, which is why I used examples. It served the purpose of visualizing the issue smaller screens have, felt by a minority of users.

I don't find it rude at all. I can understand if someone personally "outed" someone by creating a whole thread about one person's signature, but given the circumstances and the type of thread this is - and that the topic had already been brought up - the signatures displayed by arbitrary users i.e. yourself were convenient examples to use because they actually appeared in the topic. No searching involved; no imagination; no estimates. Someone with a larger screen could easily compare and understand how X's signature could cover half the screen because the example is in front of their faces.

Using examples is thorough and the foundations of an argument. Many users have taken advantage of the new rules in their own right; you and Xulek just happened to already have a good example of a :too big: signature in the thread; an issue brought up not by me, but by other members. Wouldn't make sense to go searching for a different user's signature if there's already a good example right there in the relevant thread.

Anyway,

The server load thing is way more important than signature size (which is fixed by Adblock (thanks Livewire for reminding me =_=)). I'd definitely want to improve that to prioritize members > guests, because it isn't doing it atm.

However if you guys would like I can put in a check that will automatically "collapse" signatures over a certain size if your screen resolution is under a certain limit.

This would be neat, but in the meantime Adblock works. We can't re-see the signatures afterwards (Adblock is hard to get rid of "bans" lol), but at least they're not hogging the screen.

1024x600 sucks :(

 

[Megan]

I think, the signatures are a little bit big overall. The main reason for this is mainly because my internet is really bad and loading them takes forever.

Fortunately there's an option in the profile to disable them. Since I changed it, threads load so much faster.

 

[Captain Fabio]

Ok, thank you Belldandy for your views on Signatures. I fear this topic might lose track of the big picture if we keep on about signature problems; we have taken them on board and Ausaudriel has offered a good resolve for people to consider! :)

Please continue discussion without signature talk. :)​

​

 

[Aether★]

Different color for Tier 6 supporters...?

Just sayin'.