You also have better reading comprehension then most...
I, personally, only use smileys instead of typing out the feeling behind a post because most people are idiots and tend to fail to note sarcasm. I like to think it really isn't as hard as to detect sarcasm on the web as people say... but so many have trouble doing so I guess it's true.
A lot less people will go off on you for saying
"Man, you really are a dumb ****.
😛 "
Then just saying "Man, you really are a dumb ****. Just kidding. "
Originally posted by chillmeistergen
I suggest getting rid of smilies all together, they're inane and lack imagination.
Dear god, I agree. In my entire time being here I have never once used a smiley and I survived. Utter reliability on them makes one look like less of a person.
Forget that they're needed to convey emotion as some people argue, we can still go on without them. However they've become such an integral part of the interweb that this suggestion is like asking one to take out all the water out of every lake.
Originally posted by Phucked UpNormal smilies don't count (I think), its the custom and "more" smilies that are actually just [img] tags. I'll have a look at the code when I get time.
I can...There are times when I will quote multiple people if I've been gone for a while and if they use a couple smilies per post and I use smilies in my replies, I have to end up deleting some of the smilies to be able to post.
Is there any way we can get more smilies per post, but leave the limit on image tags?
Originally posted by Raz
Normal smilies don't count (I think), its the custom and "more" smilies that are actually just [img] tags. I'll have a look at the code when I get time.
Test:
*tried to do more than 10 regular smilies, got this message:*
You have included too many images in your signature or in your previous post. Please go back and correct the problem and then continue again.Images include use of smilies, the vB code [img] tag and HTML <img> tags. The use of these is all subject to them being enabled by the administrator.
Would it be at all possible to extend the sig height pixel limit to at least 200? I'm sure this has been discussed before... so sorry for bringing it up again.
But, I don't really see what cons there could be for upping the limit a tad bit. People would have to, what, take a few more seconds to scroll down to the bottom of a page? 200 isn't enough to create a billboard effect, they don't take up a large amount of space etc.
Originally posted by Blax_Hydralisk
Would it be at all possible to extend the sig height pixel limit to at least 200? I'm sure this has been discussed before... so sorry for bringing it up again.But, I don't really see what cons there could be for upping the limit a tad bit. People would have to, what, take a few more seconds to scroll down to the bottom of a page? 200 isn't enough to create a billboard effect, they don't take up a large amount of space etc.
We've had larger sigs before, Raz reduced the size because people complained.
Originally posted by Blax_Hydralisk
Would it be at all possible to extend the sig height pixel limit to at least 200? I'm sure this has been discussed before... so sorry for bringing it up again.But, I don't really see what cons there could be for upping the limit a tad bit. People would have to, what, take a few more seconds to scroll down to the bottom of a page? 200 isn't enough to create a billboard effect, they don't take up a large amount of space etc.
Generally signatures are suppose to be 450x150 in pixels. Anymore than that, it is just annoying for dial-up users and is takes too much effort to scroll down to the last post of a thread.
Just my opinion though.
Originally posted by b|anka
Generally signatures are suppose to be 450x150 in pixels. Anymore than that, it is just annoying for dial-up users and is takes too much effort to scroll down to the last post of a thread.Just my opinion though.
It's actually 540x150. And the pixel size does not effect dialup users at all, that's the actual file size that would.
However, considering the fact that most people have their screen resolution set at 1024x768 (which I can't understand why, it's so small), 200px is about a third of the viewable page.
150 tall is plenty. A good sig doesn't need to be giant.
Originally posted by Peach
It's actually 540x150. And the pixel size does not effect dialup users at all, that's the actual file size that would.However, considering the fact that most people have their screen resolution set at 1024x768 (which I can't understand why, it's so small), 200px is about a third of the viewable page.
150 tall is plenty. A good sig doesn't need to be giant.
Well, I actually meant 450x150 is the most common sig size throughout most forums (well the non-nooby forums atleast). I really don't know why KMC's sigs are so wide.
I guess you are right about the pixel size have nothing to do with the file size.
Oh and btw, I really like your current sig, its the best sig on KMC.
Originally posted by Peach
It's actually 540x150. And the pixel size does not effect dialup users at all, that's the actual file size that would.However, considering the fact that most people have their screen resolution set at 1024x768 (which I can't understand why, it's so small), 200px is about a third of the viewable page.
150 tall is plenty. A good sig doesn't need to be giant.
My resolution is set to 1280 x 1024. 131