Help with Signature?

[blackmusicbox215]

How can I post a picture in my signature? I thought I did it once, but it never showed.

[nick]

Goto the edit signature page (http://www.virtualteen.org/forums/profile.php?do=editsignature) under User CP

In the input form labelled "Upload signature picture" enter the path to your image then click on the "Upload" button.

Then place the cursor inside the "Edit signature" box at the point where you want the image to appear and click on "Insert Signature Picture"

[Jess]

so..you aren't allowed to put image tags in it? even if the image is...like small and not intended to be a sig pic........?

[blackmusicbox215]

Thanks Nick :)

[Scarface]

so..you aren't allowed to put image tags in it? even if the image is...like small and not intended to be a sig pic........?

IMG tags are no longer accepted, you have to use those two options that Nick has mentioned. Direct link or from your hard drive.

[Jess]

may I ask why image tags aren't accepted (not that I'm opposed to that. just curious)

[nick]

Thanks Nick :)
It seems to have worked, glad if I helped.

[Scarface]

may I ask why image tags aren't accepted (not that I'm opposed to that. just curious)

Because we only allow 1 image per signature and it will be a lot more on the server to take with a lot of images in a signature than just one. It's just a lot better for the server. So this system works perfectly fine.

[Commander Thor]

Because we only allow 1 image per signature and it will be a lot more on the server to take with a lot of images in a signature than just one. It's just a lot better for the server. So this system works perfectly fine.

I just know I'm going to get flamed for this but....
This is dead wrong.

AFAIK, vB is very much capable of limiting the number of images per sig, to 1. Go ahead, search around the AdminCP (If they've given you FULL admin access), I gaurentee you'll find the option.
Also, our server, doesn't serve the off-site images. Those images load from their respective servers, not ours.
Also 2.0, the current system we have in place actually puts MORE stress on the server, as every. single. signature. picture. has to be stored, and loaded, from our server.

If I remember right, we switched to the method we have now because people were using image hosting services that were either slow, or you'd get the standard Photobucket "This user has exceeded their blah blah blah".

[Scarface]

I just know I'm going to get flamed for this but....
This is dead wrong.

AFAIK, vB is very much capable of limiting the number of images per sig, to 1. Go ahead, search around the AdminCP (If they've given you FULL admin access), I gaurentee you'll find the option.
Also, our server, doesn't serve the off-site images. Those images load from their respective servers, not ours.
Also 2.0, the current system we have in place actually puts MORE stress on the server, as every. single. signature. picture. has to be stored, and loaded, from our server.

If I remember right, we switched to the method we have now because people were using image hosting services that were either slow, or you'd get the standard Photobucket "This user has exceeded their blah blah blah".

Okay, let's take this from the top shall we? We have a near close to 8000 images in albums okay? Just in albums, so that's rounding 11 gigs and that's really pushing it so before you go off on a tangent of how, we have plenty of space, you're wrong.

Secondly, I'm full aware of the "1 image per signature" that's just common sense in permissions, you misconstrued what I said. IMG tags aren't used anymore because of that reason that I said before and the fact that this is a very convenient way, 2 easy steps, bada bing you're done. That message you claim with Photobucket is very well possible, I will have to get back to you on that, BUT this is how it's operating now.

[Commander Thor]

Okay, let's take this from the top shall we? We have a near close to 8000 images in albums okay? Just in albums, so that's rounding 11 gigs and that's really pushing it so before you go off on a tangent of how, we have plenty of space, you're wrong.
I would like to point out that no where in my post did I say we have plenty of space. Please, do not put words in my mouth.

If anything, I voiced concern for our lack of space available, and also, lack of server power (For lack of a better word). Please refer to the following:
Also, our server, doesn't serve the off-site images. Those images load from their respective servers, not ours.
Meaning, when you use an tag, to display a picture from say, Photobucket, none of our bandwidth, both disk bandwidth, and network bandwidth is used. Photobucket is the one serving the image, not us.
When you have a system in place, that forces all users to upload their signature pictures to OUR site, ALL signature pictures MUST load from our server, clogging up disk bandwidth, and clogging up network bandwidth for OUR SERVER.

Also 2.0, the current system we have in place actually puts MORE stress on the server, as every. single. signature. picture. has to be stored, and loaded, from our server.




Secondly, I'm full aware of the "1 image per signature" that's just common sense in permissions, you misconstrued what I said.
Did I now?

may I ask why image tags aren't accepted (not that I'm opposed to that. just curious)
Because we only allow 1 image per signature and it will be a lot more on the server to take with a lot of images in a signature than just one. It's just a lot better for the server. So this system works perfectly fine.
[I]"Because we only allow 1 image per signature" implies that you have no control over how many tags are used in a signature, which is not the case.
[I]"and it will be a lot more on the server to take with a lot of images in a signature than just one." says that, when you use an [img] tag (Or multiple [img] tags), it somehow adds extra stress to the server, which is not the case, as the server literatly has to do nothing. (Besides generate the obvious HTML code, but that's practically nothing, compared to loading an image from the server itself)





IMG tags aren't used anymore because of that reason that I said before and the fact that this is a very convenient way, 2 easy steps, bada bing you're done.
It's actually rather /inconvenient/. As we're limited to a small selection of 'static' images for our sigs.
I, for one, would like to be able to display a dynamic image in my sig, such as my GamerCard, or display my 'L33TSig' stats, or some other dynamic image type, but that's impossible, under the current setup.



I'm not saying that we should get rid of allowing users to upload a [sigpic], using a [sigpic] option is an 'OK' solution to help speed up page loads. I mean, 1 look in the VT photo album can tell you how long it can take for a page to load when people use slow image hosts.
I was simply saying that your reasoning behind us not allowing [img] tags to be used in signatures, was wrong.



That message you claim with Photobucket is very well possible, I will have to get back to you on that, BUT this is how it's operating now.