Signatures

When you get a photoshop sig made, do you do it yourself, or do you have a buddie who does it for you?

Most of the ones I use are made by Freshfish, one of the guys on my forums.

Some of his work (no this is not advertising...)-

http://www.d3scene.com/forum/showcase/10516-three-new-images.html

http://www.d3scene.com/forum/signature-avatar/17448-freshfishs-sig-showcase.html

 

I don't have a sig, but if I did I'd make it myself.

 

I don't get the point of a sig, just more pointless stuff to load and slow down my browsing..

 

Mine changes too often to worry about pretty. It goes with my moods and the phase of the moon / number of pain pills imbibed in last 8 hours.

John - off to change sig.

 

bit-tech's no images in signatures rule has spoiled me. now whenever i got to a forum that does allow it i get incredibly pissed off at everybody with images in their sigs, until i remember that i can turn signatures off.

 

Insert:

Fast car
Asian chick
Blonde chick with huge tits
Anime girl with cat eats and tail
Hardware company logo
Hardware image, usually watercooling or graphics card
Lots of indecipherable text in a font and size no one will ever read

End product = sig image.


Not meaning to piss on your fire here, Volund

 

I also don't really like image sigs, I see them as forum bling. I don't wear a massive gold chain round my neck in real life (unless I'm taking the piss), so I wouldn't online either.

 

yeah, big images on forums are really annoying, i mean them ones you advertised above are MASSIVE. Imagine picking your way through a thread full of them.

 

QFT.

Signature images are the (badly) pimped-up Vauxhall Corsa's of the forum signature world. Lots of pointless garish bling creating noise and wasting space and bandwidth to compensate for an inadequate sense of identity (and lack of creativity) of the poster.

We have Avatar images, custom titles and text sigs. What more do you need? A chorus of playboy bunnies with golden trumpets heralding your every post?

 

Volund: You have the same picture under your nick on that forum as Krikkit have here.


And I agree with the rest here. Images in signatures tend to be really annoying. Especially those huge ones. Most (all?) of them are utterly pointless anyway.

edit: Avatar images have a practical use, though. They separate people from each other, so you don't have to actually read the nicks to know who wrote it. They are also useful when looking for a user in a long thread. It's easier to find a picture than a name when scrolling fast.

 

Completely agree, I rarely look at a username, I just see the avatar. Confuses me when someone changes their avatar. Also helps me find the last post I made in a thread so I can read on. I just scroll on down till I come to my little blue face.

 

I agree entirely with Bit-Tech's no picture sig and limited size avatar policy. I find it really annoying when you're reading threads and every other post is followed by some MASSIVE picture of no apparent relevance whatsoever...

 

Ok, I seem to have my answer, so this may as well be closed.

 

I'm glad bit doesn't allow images because most of my viewing is at work and the internet is pretty slow.

 

Since I have zero artistic skills i coudnt create a sig that goes beyond text anyway, so I woudnt have any picture in my sig even if bit would allow them.

 

Yes please.

 

Pictorial, not physical, sorry.

 

Here you go.

 

That is Destination Calabria featuring a girlywhirly with a saxophone, not a chorus of playboy bunnies with golden trumpets. You, sir, are messing with our minds.

On topic, images based sigs are pointless. I've seen forums where you have to download the equivalent of the entire Flickr database before you can read a single thread. Not fun.