I must be reading this PM wrong...

[Furry Sparks]

It says that the sig limit is 200 pixels. This has to be a mistake, right? I mean, 200 is nowhere near big.

 

[SL92]

200 pixels in height is extraordinarily cramped if you want to have even just two images in a sig.

570 width for images is pretty weird if the posts in the forum have about 50 pixels more horizontal space than that, and long images like banners at the top of threads get squished if they go over that limit.

I'm complaining about ZB width limits in general here, I know you can't change it.

 

[Tyler]

200 has always been the sig limit. It just wasn't really enforced. I'll talk to the staff about making it bigger.

As for width, the original with IF was 590. The width of the board is still the same however it takes 10 pixels off each side for signatures.

 

[Jeremy]

It won't be bigger. Most forums have sig limits far smaller. Some forums don't allow images at all.

 

[ƒish]

It won't be bigger. Most forums have sig limits far smaller. Some forums don't allow images at all.

Since we're totally all about being like everyone else.

 

[Jeremy]

That's the same old excuse they all try to pull.

The point is that when you compare the limit to other forums, it's not small at all. It's surprising that somebody would be surprised about the sig limit.

(and especially considering it's been 200 for three years)

 

[Nate]

At least it's not 550 by 48 like NSider was. ;] That was small.

 

[TwilightKing]

At least it's not 550 by 48 like NSider was. ;] That was small.

I have to fully agree with you there Flygon

 

[sunate]

yea the sig linmit there pissed me off! I had a new sig and i couldnt use it.

 

[JJRamone2]

Oh, BAAAAAAAAWWWWW.
The sig limit here is fine, quit crying about it.