Image coding on GC, admin-can you answer?
 

Can someone please turn on the image coding for signatures? Some people would like to have pics in their signature. I understand about not allowing avatars....but wtf is up with no pics in our sigs being allowed?

it would significantly increase the bandwidth, and people don't want to see the pictures. Plus mods can't edit them if they're offensive or inappropriate like we can with posts

Who says people don't want to see the pics? I'd like to see a pic in my sig as would other people in their sigs. The edit problem isnt hard to fix, I'm sure john can give you guys the power to edit. A few clicks with the mouse and he could give you all the power he wants.

ETA: It wouldnt kill the bandwith that bad at all......only 25% of the registered users on GC actually post (probably even less than that) and even less people would be likely to put a pic in their sig.

Who are these other people?
Why do you want a pic in your sig so bad? What's the reasoning for it? What purpose does it serve? Who the heck wants to see the same picture posted over and over and over again?

That's something I love about GC, we don't have to deal with the BS of thousands of pictures everywhere obscuring posts as well as avatars. It's nice and clean and easy to read.

And I don't know if John could give that power to edit sig's... not sure if that would be an option that you could give to mods or if it's just an admin option

And again, all those picutures would significantly increase the bandwidth use and server space. And those poor people on dial up and slower connections wouldn't be able to load GC very quickly at all

lol....those poor people with dial up need to catch up with the rest of the world. besides, they already have a hard time pulling up GC as it is.....what difference would it make? ;)


Should we take a vote of how many people mind or don't mind if there are pics in signatures? The reasoning for for my inquiry is because it's so boring seeing signatures like yours. No offense, danni, but it's like reading a book. Most of us here, and especially you, have read enough books in college to where some pics would liven up the threads a little. It wouldn't be thousands of pics, as you suggested, because most people would not put pics in their sigs who are active posters. Some people would, but most people wouldn't. So why not allow it? And John can give the power to the mods, trust me.

BTW-Danni, here is a link to a site that allowws pics in their sigs as well as Avatars and usually has more people online at any given time than GC has had in its entire history ( just scroll down to the very end of the page when you click on it). This site has many times the amount of registered users of GC (which i think GC's is somewhere around 10,000) and there no problems with the bandwidth.


http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/index.php

I don't know if we're thinking of the same thing, but the bandwidth would not be increased for greekchat.com unless the servers host the images...

-Rudey

Eh, it's ugly and hard to read.

Plus, no offense Craig, but I really don't care to see one of your pics from a rave or whatever it's called or some nearly naked girl over and over again.

There's no NEED to have a pic in a sig. It doesn't serve any purpose other than to annoy people. And a lot of people on here don't want to turn off sigs because you start forgetting what orgs people are in (happened to me when I turned off sigs for awhile, lol)

The only thing you can do is PM John. And if other people feel the same way you do, i'm sure they'll post here. But he's not going to change it for one person, you know that.

Ugly and hard to read? That site has color and isnt dull in it's physical features like GC. Did you see how many people are online right now? 256 registered users and over 350 guests. Bandwidth wont get hurt. And nearly nakked women would be offensive or obscene to some and would definitely be deleted. ;)

I do want to touch on one comment, though. Since you say there is no "need" for a pic in a sig.......then what is the purpose of a sig to begin with? To represent something that symbolizes you, right? Some people do it with pics of letters of their GLO and others post qoutes from people......why should pictures be excluded? Thats like saying sculpting, painting and singing are all forms of art.....but producing/creating a song of your own without words isnt art. Catch my drift?

I have to be honest about this. I use three message boards which allow avatars, and usually, they're fairly decent by nature.

But GreekChat seems to have more than its share of nasty posts or threads to begin with. I really wouldn't want to even see what some of the GC people would use for an avatar!!

Hahaha....I agree. But we're not talking about avatars. We're talking about pictures in signatures. ;)

Eh, i'm entitled to an opinion, as is anyone. I avoid sites like that because they appear disorganized are it's hard to find any information.

Just as you're entitled to your opinion. As I said, PM John. No one else can do anything about it but him :)

In the end, it's the same thing.

You're wanting to be a lawyer but you "avoid sites like that because they appear disorganized and it's hard to find any information. :)"


Hahahaha.....I just find that funny. You know, as do I, that you're going to have to find information through meens a lot more difficult than that web site once you pass the bar and get a job. ;)

No kidding. But a random internet website and my work are two totally different animals and not really comparable.

And honeychile, I agree, there's not really all that much difference between an avatar and a sig pic. Only really differences are the location in your post and the size could be a lot bigger in sig pic.

If i had to pick between, i'd pick advatars over sig pics because they don't clutter up the screen as much and they're limited in size. What can I say, i'm an internet minimalist.

And again, it's John's call, so there's no real sense in trying to convince me that they'd be good for the site.