FRIHOST FORUMS SEARCH FAQ TOS BLOGS COMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


Was this really necessary?





deanhills
Ghost Rider103 wrote:

[NOTIFICATION] New discussion topic 137973 for Warning 3414

Hi deanhills,
The maximum height your signature can be is 175px. Your current signature height is 223px, which is 43px over the limit (only height wise, your width is fine).

If you could shorten the height of your signature I would greatly appreciate it.

Also keep in mind this is a very low level AWIT. Just a simple reply once you've fixed the small issue and I'll go ahead and close this AWIT.

Thanks,
Kyle


A simple PM to me would have been quite sufficient. I was TOTALLY UNAWARE that I was in breach of any rule. Why did Bondings not point out I was in breach when we had discussed my Avatar and Signature in my Thank You thread? And why an AWIT for goodness sake?
watersoul
Was a new topic really worth it? No-one would have known either way, or cared to be fair lol
Let it slide Dean, keep calm and carry on, and all that, it's only an AWIT Wink
SonLight
It actually WAS a violation of a rule, and an AWIT actually IS the normal way to advise someone they need to make a correction. I thought it was very friendly and mild in tone. Thanks for posting it so we can observe the friendliness of staff here.

I wish local governments could manage to speak so gently when they are unhappy with a citizen's behavior. Can you imagine a notice that said, "We noticed the weeds in your yard are a tad high. While this is a minor point, they in fact do exceed acceptable standards and need to be shortened or eliminated". Of course even if a government chose to speak like that, for legal reasons and to establish that this was an actual notice, they would probably have to add, "We want to caution you that in view of the fact that you are not fully in compliance with ordinance weed.be.gone and the fact that the weeds will probably grow some more if you do nothing, we may be forced to issue a citation unless you hoe some weeds".
Ankhanu
SonLight wrote:
It actually WAS a violation of a rule, and an AWIT actually IS the normal way to advise someone they need to make a correction. I thought it was very friendly and mild in tone. Thanks for posting it so we can observe the friendliness of staff here.

watersoul wrote:
Was a new topic really worth it? No-one would have known either way, or cared to be fair lol
Let it slide Dean, keep calm and carry on, and all that, it's only an AWIT Wink


Yep; not a big deal. I've had one for exactly the same reason, even.
Ghost Rider103
Oh absolutely it was necessary. An AWIT is the absolutely ONLY way a warning should be dealt with, so we have record of it.

Quote:
A simple PM to me would have been quite sufficient.

PM's are NOT the proper way to deal with a warning. An AWIT is so the entire staff can keep track of your history. It's not uncommon to have an AWIT.

Quote:
I was TOTALLY UNAWARE that I was in breach of any rule.

Most people are unaware when they are breaking a rule. This is why an AWIT with low severity is given, plus it is not really that big of a deal. But the real is there, so it's obviously going to be enforced one way or another.

Quote:
Why did Bondings not point out I was in breach when we had discussed my Avatar and Signature in my Thank You thread?

Not everyone can spot a signature violation without testing to see if the size meets the signature requirements. I happened to think your signature was too tall. After double checking it to confirm, I was correct. I'm sure Bondings doesn't have the time to check everyone's signature size, which is why there are moderators on the forums. To moderate and enforce the rules.

Quote:
And why an AWIT for goodness sake?


For all the reasons above. Why an entire PUBLIC topic about it?

Have you read this thread? http://www.frihost.com/forums/vt-54106.html

Some key points, written by Bondings himself:
Quote:
I designed AWITS to make a more sophisticated way to handle warnings and alerts...


Quote:
The most drastic change for the users is that the warning pm is now gone and replaced by one (or more) private discussion threads about the warning. Private meaning only accessible to the user(s) assigned to the thread and the Frihost staff.


Quote:
If "a reply is need", this means that we need your input like some information or confirmation of an action from your part. Like changing your signature/avatar or removing files from your account.


Quote:
A WARNING ticket is an account related (mostly about these forums) 'warning'. Typical warnings are sent about signature, avatars, poor quality posts or copy-pasting (without quotes/source).


I like that last underlined sentence.

So, obviously one of the most common AWIT's opened up are due to signature violations. To my knowledge, this is the first case of someone actually complaining about it. Complaining in public, about something that is clearly meant to be private.

Quote:
It actually WAS a violation of a rule, and an AWIT actually IS the normal way to advise someone they need to make a correction. I thought it was very friendly and mild in tone. Thanks for posting it so we can observe the friendliness of staff here.


Thank you! No matter how severe the AWIT is, I always try to be polite as possible when issuing an AWIT. Smile I had originally thought about removing this topic, as AWIT's are meant to be kept private. However you have a good point here. Now users can know first hand how AWIT's are dealt with. Maybe I will leave this, so they understand how polite and generous we really are.

Unless of course another staff member thinks it is a better idea for this to be removed, by all means I wouldn't object to it.
Josso
I've had AWITs for exactly the same thing. It's funny actually because when you put the sig up there I thought... hmmmm looks a little bit over regulations. By the way as any cop in any country will tell you not being aware of the law is not an excuse for breaking it. AWITs aren't anything serious dude don't worry it's just like a more official version of PM

Quote:
Animal on Wed Nov 01, 2006 11:55 am
Your sig does not conform with the forum rules - you are permitted a total maximum size of 600 pixels wide, 175 pixels high and 50Kb in size. Your sig is now 270 pixels high including text and images. Please modify your sig so that it complies with the rules then respond to this message to confirm you have done so.


Quote:
Bockman on Thu Mar 06, 2008 3:22 pm
The moderating team has noticed that your signature is in violation of the specified/allowed signature rules on Frihost.
Please notice this is the third warning you receive regarding your signature's size, and although it's not a major fault, it is still outside the allowed sizes.
loremar
How do you measure the exact height of sig?

I use inspect element in chrome and add everything up. 14px every text * 5 + 68px for image = 138 px. But I don't know how much are those little spaces between lines. By highlighting the text and using inspect element my visual estimate is not more than half 14px. 7px*5=35px + 138px = 173 px.
Bondings
@deanhills, as mentioned by the others, an AWIT is simply the way we signal/handle these kind of issues. It does not mean we see it as important or anything. And as mentioned, a lot of users (including staff) already got them.

If you care about the rule itself, if there is a consensus that the size limits should be made larger then I'm open to change them. However I'm not sure if this would be a good idea as it seems some people are browsing/posting with a smart phone.
sonam
Don't worry deanhills. Lot of member get AWIT for some reason. Today, I think this is quite normal for regular members. But when I was get my AWIT, few years ago, I was very surprised. After changing dimension of my avatar everything is come in normal. Very Happy

Sonam
deanhills
I'm posting at four other forums and ALL of them have signatures coded in a way that it is IMPOSSIBLE to exceed the space limitations. If size limitations have become an issue at Frihost to the extent that AWITs are needed, why not code the signature space so that it would be impossible for someone to break the rule. If it can be done with our Avatars, why not with our signatures? I always assumed naturally, that if there is no warning message or a "disallow upload" message that my signature is OK.

@Ghostrider. I've removed the signature already a day ago. And am not planning to re-upload a signature in the foreseeable future. I thought I was making a contribution to the Forum, but obviously it is more of a nuisance to you than anything else. Seeing that you have to measure all of the signatures and then write AWITs to people. Twisted Evil

@Bondings. No need to increase the size limitation. Right now I don't much care what size it is supposed to be. Unless the size limitation can be coded the easiest for me is just to stay away from signatures.
watersoul
Reminds me of my son taking his ball away after losing a game when he was a little boy Laughing
deanhills
watersoul wrote:
Reminds me of my son taking his ball away after losing a game when he was a little boy Laughing
Glad I was able to bring fond memories back to you. Wink
Bondings
deanhills wrote:
I'm posting at four other forums and ALL of them have signatures coded in a way that it is IMPOSSIBLE to exceed the space limitations. If size limitations have become an issue at Frihost to the extent that AWITs are needed, why not code the signature space so that it would be impossible for someone to break the rule. If it can be done with our Avatars, why not with our signatures? I always assumed naturally, that if there is no warning message or a "disallow upload" message that my signature is OK.

Are you sure that is the case in all these forums and not just a limit on the number of characters (which we have too)? Do they maybe only allow text? Because normally if you are able to link to an image, there is pretty much no way to check the actual size unless the signature is hosted on the forum itself. To give an example, let's say you link to yourdomain.com/image.jpg . Sure it would be possible (but pretty hard) to render it at input by the server and check the size, but you can always change image.jpg to a bigger/smaller image at any time (quite a few people have a dynamic signature that changes the image every impression). If they are really able to do it, I definitely would like to know how. Could you maybe link to one of those forums?

I really don't see the problem with using awits to notify people that their signature is too big. We used to do it with a pm before the awits system, however that was pretty messy to begin with. And only the signatures that seem too big are measured. Besides, you could actually limit it to the top x posters, as those signatures have the most impact. Just imagine if you would have a gigantic 2-page-long signature, that would make it very annoying to browse most topics, while if 15-post-new-user has such a signature, it will be barely noticed. And yes if I remember correctly (it's 6-7 years ago), some people did have huge signatures, maybe up to 3-4 times what you had. So yes there was a need.
deanhills
Bondings wrote:
Are you sure that is the case in all these forums and not just a limit on the number of characters (which we have too)? Do they maybe only allow text? Because normally if you are able to link to an image, there is pretty much no way to check the actual size unless the signature is hosted on the forum itself. To give an example, let's say you link to yourdomain.com/image.jpg . Sure it would be possible (but pretty hard) to render it at input by the server and check the size, but you can always change image.jpg to a bigger/smaller image at any time (quite a few people have a dynamic signature that changes the image every impression). If they are really able to do it, I definitely would like to know how. Could you maybe link to one of those forums?
d'oh! You're right of course. And I'm horribly wrong. Just checked and it's the wording that is limited not the size of the picture, exactly as you said. I'd imagine if you could have controlled it in the same way as the avatars then you'd probably have done that already.

Bondings wrote:
I really don't see the problem with using awits to notify people that their signature is too big. We used to do it with a pm before the awits system, however that was pretty messy to begin with. And only the signatures that seem too big are measured. Besides, you could actually limit it to the top x posters, as those signatures have the most impact. Just imagine if you would have a gigantic 2-page-long signature, that would make it very annoying to browse most topics, while if 15-post-new-user has such a signature, it will be barely noticed. And yes if I remember correctly (it's 6-7 years ago), some people did have huge signatures, maybe up to 3-4 times what you had. So yes there was a need.
I doubt my signature was that enormous, it was 43px over the limit in height only, but I do get the point. While we're on the topic, I've seen huge pictures in posts as well. Maybe it would not be a bad idea to limit the size of pictures inside posts as well.

I think if I had an AWIT resistance it was because I had seen Mods threatening members with issuing AWITs along censure lines, i.e. I had a picture in my head along the lines of three of those and you're banned. Think that is why I thought an AWIT had to be a demerit or something instead of a friendly discussion with a Mod.
SonLight
deanhills wrote:
... I've seen huge pictures in posts as well. Maybe it would not be a bad idea to limit the size of pictures inside posts as well.


It is possible to specify the size a picture is rendered at, regardless of the size of the picture, with CSS coding. Usually you wouldn't want to do that with a user-posted picture, but if the user had some choice when he built the link it might make it possible to limit it while still allowing a range of choices. Theoretically the server could read the image and determine its size when the posting was done, and either give the user some choice or just limit it to the max size, perhaps displaying it centered and with scroll bars.

Presumably all pictures that fit would get width and height set in the styling so that if the image changed size it would use the size of the original image. Similar logic could possibly be applied to signatures, but it seems too complex to be used for that.

Does anyone know if there is a way to set width to min(800, width of image)? That would give the easiest solution, and all the work would be done by the browser.
ocalhoun
SonLight wrote:

Does anyone know if there is a way to set width to min(800, width of image)? That would give the easiest solution, and all the work would be done by the browser.


On my phpbb3 forum, I use a mod called 'reimg image resizer', which uses java to automatically resize large images to a specific size you set in the ACP, and it adds in an enlarge button to each one that you can click to see the full size image.

It's really awesome, and pretty much a perfect solution, but I don't know if they have a version for phpbb2.
deanhills
I also like the feature in Ocalhoun's Website where one can upload pictures directly from one's hard drive. They appear as a larger-than-thumb-nail size in the post and when one clicks on them they expand to full page.
Ankhanu
Such coding exists for phpBB2 as well.
Related topics
Windows Vista Official Thread
Not Voting is Reasonable for People Who Want Freedom
Is Valentine's Day Necessary??
Windows vista, necessary or waste of money?
Necessary evil? Windows defender/IE beta 7 questions.
is database necessary?
imgs r necessary?
MUSIC, is it necessary?
A new moderator is necessary for Turkish Language
why religion is necessary? what do u think?
is TLD Necessary for ads
Is college education necessary
Wartime sex slaves were necessary to maintain discipline,
Is religion really necessary?
Is necessary the most difficult word to spell?
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Support and Web Hosting -> Frihost Support

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.