Signatures

[i3oilermaker]

The TOS says "signatures are limited to 777 x 70 pixels (1,000 characters max)"


Clearly this is not enforced....I was thinking what if we could enforce it in the template so that you can jam all you want into your allotted space but the site will only display the first 70 pixels of it.

[Photekq]

How come the vertical height is so restricted anyway? Most forums allow users to use images/text that's around 250-350px high.

[keymaster]

It's not a big issue, but there definitely needs to be some kind of enforcement.

[SmallFry]

Images are limited to that area, however you can cram a lot into 1000 characters, especially when using goo.gl or bit.ly etc.

[i3oilermaker]

It's not a big issue, but there definitely needs to be some kind of enforcement.

Its not a big issue, but without picking on anyone, it can sometimes be hard to tell where the post ends and the signature picks up.  There is a profile for all your personal info...the signature should just be some brief info and maybe some quick callouts.

[esoomenona]

What does your profile show? From what I can see, the only thing there that isn't in everyone of a person's posts is the dates registered, last active, and local time.

[CommunistWitchDr]

The vertical limit makes sense, but horizontal really shouldn't matter as long as its under the lowest common resolution.

[i3oilermaker]

The vertical limit makes sense, but horizontal really shouldn't matter as long as its under the lowest common resolution.

Agreed

[jdcarpe]

The one image in my signature only displays at 35pix tall, but it's not even the biggest part of my signature.

I know mine is big.

[Soarer]

Sigs... meh 

[i3oilermaker]

I'm reading about 220px high.... ಠ_ಠ

[rknize]

So in terms of pixels (not characters), what do folks think is a reasonable height limit?

[keymaster]

100px height

Width shouldn't matter much. I don't think it annoys anyone.

[rknize]

Done.  Let's see how long it takes for the clacks to hit the fan....

[The_Beast]

I know mine is big.

Someone sure is self confident!

[The_Ed]

Now if only Avatars could be 184x184... There's so much wasted space between the Avatar and post right now...

[sth]

only exception to the rule should be esoomenona

[rowdy]

Now if only Avatars could be 184x184... There's so much wasted space between the Avatar and post right now...

Wasted space?  All that space is there for people whose usernames are too long and (still) overwrite the post title

[jdcarpe]

rowdy is only 5 letters...

[rknize]

Oh yeah...I forgot about that.  Let me see if I can fix that for realz.

[jdcarpe]

What you trying to fix, something that's not broken?

[rowdy]

http://geekhack.org/index.php?topic=36137.msg780019#msg780019

[i3oilermaker]

What you trying to fix, something that's not broken?

Not broken? Your post is 45 pixels message, and 245 pixels sig. 

[jdcarpe]

What you trying to fix, something that's not broken?

Not broken? Your post is 45 pixels message, and 245 pixels sig. 

Just turn off sigs?

I mean viewing others' sigs, like Soarer showed.

[i3oilermaker]

I like sigs...they add some character, but like I think your listing of keyboards and projects is sufficient...the quote and image are a bit overkill in my opinion.

[jdcarpe]

Oh, so you don't want to see my military ribbons? That's okay. I served in the military so you can live in a country where you have the freedom to state your opinion. I respect that you have your opinion, I just don't share it.

[keymaster]

Images from sigs cab be removed altogether, but idk if it's necessary. the board would look much cleaner. Avatars could remain as they are.

[sth]

I served in the military so you can live in a country where you have the freedom to state your opinion.

hhnnnnnrnrrrghhhh must resist urge to derail topic

[i3oilermaker]

Oh, so you don't want to see my military ribbons? That's okay. I served in the military so you can live in a country where you have the freedom to state your opinion. I respect that you have your opinion, I just don't share it.

I didn't mean it that way...those are badass and I would love to hear an explanation for each of them.


I actually like your sig a lot more right now.

[rknize]

I'm getting a bit OT, but I fixed the overlap issue and also tightened up the left column.  LMK if you think it's too much.

[rknize]

I raised the character limit for sigs to 5000 chars.  So you can do whatever fancy markup that you want, but everyone gets 100 pixels and that is all.  Use it wisely. 

[jdcarpe]

I raised the character limit for sigs to 5000 chars.  So you can do whatever fancy markup that you want, but everyone gets 100 pixels and that is all.  Use it wisely. 

So you just get to decide this and we have no input?

[mkawa]

think not what you can do for your pixels, but think what your pixels can do for YOU

also personally i hate signatures (except for anonymoose's, which is hilarious). if it were up to me (like it was before) you'd get like 100 characters period.

[mkawa]

oh, and everyone's signature would be a fiat 500, except for anonymoose's, which would be a fiat 500 attacking him in his sleep

[mkawa]

also everyone's fiat will be driven by freddy mercury

I DON'T THINK YOU UNDERSTAND, HIS STACHE WILL BE STEERING

[rknize]

I raised the character limit for sigs to 5000 chars.  So you can do whatever fancy markup that you want, but everyone gets 100 pixels and that is all.  Use it wisely. 

So you just get to decide this and we have no input?

No, I'm not necessarily saying that.  We are taking this for a spin to see what kind of feedback we get.

Sigs are nice but they can be distracting when they are larger than your typical post.  They are repeated over and over again.  What would be a reasonable limit in your eyes?  1000 characters wasn't enough, so we went to 1500...but that probably won't be enough either.  The main purpose of the limit is to curtail the use of screen-hogging sigs.  So I modified the template to put the limit on the final render size, not the content that feeds it.

[rowdy]

I can still see overlap in the post I linked above with Nostalgia theme.

[mkawa]

part of experiencing nostalgia properly is recalling the grand times when the forum didn't work

[rowdy]

)

It only happens rarely, I can ignore it as I have been doing.

[rknize]

I can still see overlap in the post I linked above with Nostalgia theme.

Show Image

First, be sure to do a full reload (ctrl+shift+r).  Second, what browser are you using?  The CSS property I'm using is pretty well-supported.

[Sai]

i am seeing the same thing as well.
using chrome with default theme.

[sth]

part of experiencing nostalgia properly is recalling the grand times when the forum didn't work

ok but i think would do that nicely too

[rknize]

This is what is should look like:

[rowdy]

First, be sure to do a full reload (ctrl+shift+r).  Second, what browser are you using?  The CSS property I'm using is pretty well-supported.

Fixed now, thanks

I am using Chrome under Windows 7, and tried reloading the page a couple of times previously with no luck.  Doing Shift-F5 seems to have worked.

FWIW Safari and Firefox under Windows 7 also display wrapped text properly.

[Sai]

yep it looks fine for me as well.

[rknize]

I modified the bbc parser to support the "align" property in the "img" tag.  Hopefully that will help the process of folks making their sigs more space efficient.

[esoomenona]

Maybe instead of killing off people's creativity or their small portion of this site to express something, a checkbox could be added to block a person's signature individually? You're getting tired of looking at mine? Click my profile and turn it off.

[rowdy]

The moose with the big signature )

[esoomenona]

Also, if we're going to cut people's signatures off, we need some scrolling action...

[esoomenona]

Also, we should reintroduce polls, then have a vote on how people feel about signatures.

[jdcarpe]

Maybe instead of killing off people's creativity or their small portion of this site to express something, a checkbox could be added to block a person's signature individually? You're getting tired of looking at mine? Click my profile and turn it off.

Like Soarer suggested, there is a setting in "Look and Feel" where you can turn others' signatures off, if they bother you that much. Apparently some people can't be troubled to do that, though.

[BunnyLake]

i would also like to point out that on a forum so dedicated to customization it seems strange to want to remove options people have to express their individuality, i personally don't have a signature, but other people having them has never bothered me, and in some cases has saved me time and energy, and i found some of them made being a new member more accessible as there are a lot of people and characters to learn and it made some people more identifiable, i don't wanna get involved in any more of the drama just my 2 cents, sorry if i am offending anyone

[tsangan]

A. There's a 100 pixels vertically of space for you to customize whatever you want, we did not remove signatures.
B. The TOS stated before "777 x 70 pixels" which some people took advantage of it, and worked around it to make it a lot larger then intended.
C. You can choose A. the 100 pixels you have now to do many wonderful things or we can just go back to B. and put it down to 777 x 70 pixels and make sure you can't exceed that

[keymaster]

A. There's a 100 pixels of space for you to customize whatever you want, we did not remove signatures.
B. The TOS stated before "777 x 70 pixels" which some people took advantage of it, and worked around it to make it a lot larger then intended.
C. You can choose A. the 100 pixels you have now to do many wonderful things or we can just go back to B. and put it down to 777 x 70 pixels and make sure you can't exceed that

Also, people should realize that this forum has been more than privileged when it comes to signatures. Some forums don't even allow images in sigs, let allone 777 width of space.

777x100 is more than enough space to be as creative or informative as you need to be without being obnoxious.

[baldgye]

Baldgye, could you copy your post in the signature thread? You summarized it quite well.

sure

Hurt feelings? Nah. I'm all for everyone having their opinion, and you were on topic. There was just no need to be aggressive or focus on one person. So I was hoping you were speaking in generalities.

I was, as its a problem that is prevalent on many forums... another forum (I don't post on because its user base is mostly children) I browse MGSforums allows sigs of seemingly any size, so you have people posting one or two lines which is then followed by about a 300px high sig, every, time, they, post. It makes the forums look a mess adds needless scrolling and page loading (especially those with 20mb+ gif's) and it adds nothing to the content.
You have a username, an avatar and a sig. If you (or anyone else) struggles to be able to express them self's within all those places they really need to have a sit down and think about why that is.

In my own personal opinion a sig should be simply a small be an image or what ever, of no more than 100px high and be a simple way to sign off every post you make, that accompanies your avy. If you have some super cool 1337 **** you need people to know about make it a link to a blog...

I can't think of any reason how a massive pointless sig can be reasonably argued as a good thing that benefits the community or forum.

[jdcarpe]

It's an easy fix, if it's that offensive to you. Soarer posted it in Reply #9 to this thread.

[keymaster]

It's an easy fix, if it's that offensive to you. Soarer posted it in Reply #9 to this thread.

Show Image

KMAC :: KMAC Mini :: KMAC Pad :: LZ-S :: Phantom :: GH60 Prototype :: TypeNow Solid

Projects GH60 Project :: GHpad Project :: Keyboard Prototyping

GH60 Group Buy

Except, why should everyone make this change for one person?

[jdcarpe]

It's not for one person. There are many of us who like expressing ourselves in a signature. And a small vocal minority who don't want to see them. Those people can simply turn them off. We don't have the option to "Show obnoxiously big signatures" or whatever.

[i3oilermaker]

It's not for one person. There are many of us who like expressing ourselves in a signature. And a small vocal minority who don't want to see them. Those people can simply turn them off. We don't have the option to "Show obnoxiously big signatures" or whatever.

I think that is the best option.  I didn't bring this up to pick a fight, nor did I think people were so passionate about it.  I just personally felt that its easier to read a thread when sigs are not too vertically long.

[esoomenona]

You know, some sites I've been on used to charge for more elaborate signatures. Would people feel better knowing I paid to have a signature as grandiose as I chose to pay for?

I didn't think it was such a big deal. I, like many others I presume, enjoy seeing people's signatures. Seeing what they choose to let shine through. And I'm sure there are many others who don't care one way or the other.

But I know there are ways around it. I honestly think the personal option is a good one. It's obvious that certain people's signatures bother others more than some. And, as jd mentioned, there is always the option to turn them all off (I personally don't like the all or none deal; it is a bit unfair to some to not be able to be seen due to the signature of others).

Anyway, I've handled mine. For those that wish to see it, there is a link somewhere down there now. Enjoy, to those who liked it and those who don't.

[baldgye]

It's an easy fix, if it's that offensive to you. Soarer posted it in Reply #9 to this thread.

Show Image

KMAC :: KMAC Mini :: KMAC Pad :: LZ-S :: Phantom :: GH60 Prototype :: TypeNow Solid

Projects GH60 Project :: GHpad Project :: Keyboard Prototyping

GH60 Group Buy

Did I pm an admin/mod about this and make this thread? No, I didn't.
I don't really care but my point remains. Forums with large sigs look a mess, your sig, is a mess. Why do I have to dig around to turn them off when there is no need for them to be there in the first place? Why should I have to disable all sigs just because of the few who lack the ability to condense there pointlessly large sigs?

Seems like a dumb solution to me;
why are you incapable of being able to condense your sig?
Why is there so much wasted space in it, is it designed to be obnoxious?

this is how much room your sig uses;
http://sadpanda.us/images/1568901-DFY2LPH.jpg

I've put it as a url and not img because it uses some rude words which I know can offend some people, but it highlights just how silly your sig (as an example) is. If we stay on your sig specifically, why is it so tall? It could be condensed into a few lines, its large for the sake of it and to the detriment of the forum as a whole.

I'm in no position of power or of any level of caring, I never brought up this issue and have simply scrolled past it in the past, but I find the mere concept of having large sigs a dumb one and something that should be confined to (100px max).
The biggest part of your post should be the content of said post and not the over-sized sig you use in EVERY POST.



>edit; seems your sig changed while I was posting this rant.

[keymaster]

It's not for one person. There are many of us who like expressing ourselves in a signature. And a small vocal minority who don't want to see them. Those people can simply turn them off. We don't have the option to "Show obnoxiously big signatures" or whatever.

Would you say it's okay then for someone to have a 500x500 sig? At what point does it go from expressive to obnoxious? Like some have stated already, large signatures (whether text or image) add a lot more scrolling and visual space. A post with one sentence followed by one-third of my screen for a signature seems excessive.

Just my two cents

[jdcarpe]

It's not for one person. There are many of us who like expressing ourselves in a signature. And a small vocal minority who don't want to see them. Those people can simply turn them off. We don't have the option to "Show obnoxiously big signatures" or whatever.

Would you say it's okay then for someone to have a 500x500 sig? At what point does it go from expressive to obnoxious? Like some have stated already, large signatures (whether text or image) add a lot more scrolling and visual space. A post with one sentence followed by one-third of my screen for a signature seems excessive.

Just my two cents

You know what's way worse than a tall signature? Someone posts several images in a thread to show off several angles of a new keyboard or whatever, and then every person after him quotes the post, AND EVERY IMAGE AGAIN, and then has one line of text at the bottom like, "nice get" or whatever.

[Grim Fandango]

It's not for one person. There are many of us who like expressing ourselves in a signature. And a small vocal minority who don't want to see them. Those people can simply turn them off. We don't have the option to "Show obnoxiously big signatures" or whatever.

Would you say it's okay then for someone to have a 500x500 sig? At what point does it go from expressive to obnoxious? Like some have stated already, large signatures (whether text or image) add a lot more scrolling and visual space. A post with one sentence followed by one-third of my screen for a signature seems excessive.

Just my two cents

You know what's way worse than a tall signature? Someone posts several images in a thread to show off several angles of a new keyboard or whatever, and then every person after him quotes the post, AND EVERY IMAGE AGAIN, and then has one line of text at the bottom like, "nice get" or whatever.

True, but if it is truly magnificent then it may be worth emphasizing

[i3oilermaker]

It's not for one person. There are many of us who like expressing ourselves in a signature. And a small vocal minority who don't want to see them. Those people can simply turn them off. We don't have the option to "Show obnoxiously big signatures" or whatever.

Would you say it's okay then for someone to have a 500x500 sig? At what point does it go from expressive to obnoxious? Like some have stated already, large signatures (whether text or image) add a lot more scrolling and visual space. A post with one sentence followed by one-third of my screen for a signature seems excessive.

Just my two cents

You know what's way worse than a tall signature? Someone posts several images in a thread to show off several angles of a new keyboard or whatever, and then every person after him quotes the post, AND EVERY IMAGE AGAIN, and then has one line of text at the bottom like, "nice get" or whatever.

Agreed...I always kill the image when replying to a post with one.

BTW I love the new sig - it utilizes the horizontal space and keeps everything (i think) from before.

[jdcarpe]

BTW I love the new sig - it utilizes the horizontal space and keeps everything (i think) from before.

Thanks. That's how it would have always been, had the option been available before. I never cared about the vertical space (or waste thereof), I just want all that info there.

[Soarer]

You guys should try just turning sigs off - threads are so much easier to read, even if all the sigs were only small.

If someone says "see my sig ... " you can just view it in their profile.

Honestly, the only one you'll miss is your own... and what does that say about you?

[jdcarpe]

Did this new signature height limit setting break image attachments hosted by the site?

http://geekhack.org/index.php?topic=42997

[rknize]

I'm not seeing that.  Anyone else?

[rknize]

There seems to be 3 schools of thought, not including those that don't care at all:

1) People who hate all sigs - they can simply disable them.

2) People who like seeing people's sigs, but find it annoying and distracting when they consume vast quantities of vertical real estate.

3) People who want absolute freedom in the size and content of their sigs.

It seems like jdcarpe and some others are in camp 3.  The site has always had sig content restrictions with a goal of achieving something akin to #2.  The old restrictions didn't really achieve that goal and caused other problems.  So, I have largely removed the content restrictions, enhanced the site's bbc parser a bit, and placed the restriction exactly where it is needed: on the final content.  It seems like a nice compromise, does it not?  You have a clearly-specified amount of space and more freedom on how you fill it.

I chose 100px somewhat out of the air based on one person's suggestion.  It seemed reasonable.  This can be adjusted based on feedback in this thread.  One suggestion from an admin was to add another knob in the user profile to "allow gigantic sigs".  This would let people choose between all three options.

[Dubsgalore]

Don't think i'm in any trouble

[jdcarpe]

One suggestion from an admin was to add another knob in the user profile to "allow gigantic sigs".

That would be awesome. Then people could put content in that area below 100px that only certain people would get to see.

[keymaster]

It's not for one person. There are many of us who like expressing ourselves in a signature. And a small vocal minority who don't want to see them. Those people can simply turn them off. We don't have the option to "Show obnoxiously big signatures" or whatever.

Would you say it's okay then for someone to have a 500x500 sig? At what point does it go from expressive to obnoxious? Like some have stated already, large signatures (whether text or image) add a lot more scrolling and visual space. A post with one sentence followed by one-third of my screen for a signature seems excessive.

Just my two cents

You know what's way worse than a tall signature? Someone posts several images in a thread to show off several angles of a new keyboard or whatever, and then every person after him quotes the post, AND EVERY IMAGE AGAIN, and then has one line of text at the bottom like, "nice get" or whatever.

I've seen this alleviated on a popular forum by removing the display of the image in all subsequent quotations and replacing it with the url. This url can be clicked to reveal a dropdown display of the image

Example: [img]url.com/image.jpg[/url] would be in place of the actual image

I think this would work rather nicely.

[esoomenona]

One suggestion from an admin was to add another knob in the user profile to "allow gigantic sigs".

That would be awesome. Then people could put content in that area below 100px that only certain people would get to see.

Agreed, and agreed.

[i3oilermaker]

One suggestion from an admin was to add another knob in the user profile to "allow gigantic sigs".

That would be awesome. Then people could put content in that area below 100px that only certain people would get to see.

Agreed, and agreed.

I think this option makes everyone happy...its just the hardest to implement.

[rknize]

I fixed the attachment cut off issue (oops) and also increased the height limit to 120px to give a bit of breathing room.

[jwaz]

You guys should try just turning sigs off - threads are so much easier to read, even if all the sigs were only small.

If someone says "see my sig ... " you can just view it in their profile.

Honestly, the only one you'll miss is your own... and what does that say about you?

good call. Nostalgia and no sigs FTW

[SpAmRaY]

You know what's way worse than a tall signature? Someone posts several images in a thread to show off several angles of a new keyboard or whatever, and then every person after him quotes the post, AND EVERY IMAGE AGAIN, and then has one line of text at the bottom like, "nice get" or whatever.

That is a good example of why having proper spoiler tags is useful but I'm not sure if/how they work on this forum.

And actually if we had proper spoiler tags we could use those in signatures possibly, just a thought.

[baldgye]

You know what's way worse than a tall signature? Someone posts several images in a thread to show off several angles of a new keyboard or whatever, and then every person after him quotes the post, AND EVERY IMAGE AGAIN, and then has one line of text at the bottom like, "nice get" or whatever.

That is a good example of why having proper spoiler tags is useful but I'm not sure if/how they work on this forum.

And actually if we had proper spoiler tags we could use those in signatures possibly, just a thought.

yeah other forums use spoiler tags to hide images in cases like these and give warning to people who don't do it... but the spoiler tags on here simply highlight the spoiler'd text in black rather than 'minimising' them

[rknize]

SMF's spoilers are not very useful for this.  They are more for...hiding actual spoilers.    But I know what you mean and something akin to the upshrink on the top of the forum would be a nice feature.

[baldgye]

SMF's spoilers are not very useful for this.  They are more for...hiding actual spoilers.    But I know what you mean and something akin to the upshrink on the top of the forum would be a nice feature.

yeah but being able to essentially hide the images from the quotes would mean that each page isn't full of the same images over and over, but at the same time if needed (due to context of the reply or what have you) you could click to 'maximise' the spoilered image to see what it was they were talking about etc etc... seems like a pretty good way to do it IMO

[esoomenona]

Another thing that is good about one of the latest updates on 4chan is when you hover over the quoted post, it has a pop-up of said post. Maybe that might be an option (probably not).

[rknize]

Yes, I understand the benefit of a collapsible area.  I'm cooking up something right now.

[Binge]

Live to fight the system!!!

[hashbaz]

Seems like this fight is mostly over, so I'll keep quiet about sigs.

But re: quoting images, maybe we could insert "height=100" in quoted IMG tags?  I usually do that manually when I quote images.

[CommunistWitchDr]

Seems like this fight is mostly over, so I'll keep quiet about sigs.

But re: quoting images, maybe we could insert "height=100" in quoted IMG tags?  I usually do that manually when I quote images.

Sounds great. And maybe only let quotes go thee deep.

[esoomenona]

Seems like this fight is mostly over, so I'll keep quiet about sigs.

I think more opinions about signatures are more than welcome here. Taking a sample of five peoples' opinions does not represent the entire community.

[hashbaz]

I've been on forums where a large number of people have meandering, poorly laid out, image-filled sigs, and it's really obnoxious.  I don't think it's fair to just say "well turn off sigs then".  I like to see them because they typically say something about the personality of the user.  So I think there should be generous limits.

I'm not crazy about the "show/hide gigantic sigs" idea.  And I do wish we had proper spoiler tags.

[esoomenona]

I've been on forums where a large number of people have meandering, poorly laid out, image-filled sigs, and it's really obnoxious.  I don't think it's fair to just say "well turn off sigs then".  I like to see them because they typically say something about the personality of the user.  So I think there should be generous limits.

I'm not crazy about the "show/hide gigantic sigs" idea.  And I do wish we had proper spoiler tags.

I said pretty much exactly that a page back.

Here's another idea. Have a checkbox right under the Show Signatures option, that says Limit Horizontal Pixel Size of Signatures, then a field next to it where each user could customize their ability to see how much of a signature they wish to see?

[The_Ed]

One of the fixes is breaking a lot of peoples usernames onto 2 lines. For Ex: WhiteFireDragon. To fix that problem I suggest that the Avatar limit be raised to 184x184. That way usernames won't be broken, and there won't be so much wasted space with tiny Avatars. The average person has a 1080P screen now, so that amount of space is perfectly reasonable.

[esoomenona]

.

[longweight]

It's not for one person. There are many of us who like expressing ourselves in a signature. And a small vocal minority who don't want to see them. Those people can simply turn them off. We don't have the option to "Show obnoxiously big signatures" or whatever.

Would you say it's okay then for someone to have a 500x500 sig? At what point does it go from expressive to obnoxious? Like some have stated already, large signatures (whether text or image) add a lot more scrolling and visual space. A post with one sentence followed by one-third of my screen for a signature seems excessive.

Just my two cents

You know what's way worse than a tall signature? Someone posts several images in a thread to show off several angles of a new keyboard or whatever, and then every person after him quotes the post, AND EVERY IMAGE AGAIN, and then has one line of text at the bottom like, "nice get" or whatever.

People need to use noparse.

[longweight]

One of the fixes is breaking a lot of peoples usernames onto 2 lines. For Ex: WhiteFireDragon. To fix that problem I suggest that the Avatar limit be raised to 184x184. That way usernames won't be broken, and there won't be so much wasted space with tiny Avatars. The average person has a 1080P screen now, so that amount of space is perfectly reasonable.

A larger Avatar increases the height of the post which would be annoying.

[The_Ed]

I just noticed that even "Asperger's... SQUIRREL!" is broken onto 2 lines now... Not cool bro...

[longweight]

I just noticed that even "Asperger's... SQUIRREL!" is broken onto 2 lines now... Not cool bro...

Works fine for me, just a single line.

[The_Ed]

I'm using Nostalgia theme, and the entire left column is smushed right now.

[longweight]

Ah, that would be because it sucks.

[rknize]

More

http://geekhack.org/index.php?topic=43009.new#new

[rknize]

I just released a change to folds so that if you put one in your sig, the entire sig will unroll.

[esoomenona]

Done. Thanks, rknize.

[tjcaustin]

This is a good compromise.

[baldgye]

More

More

More

More

just trying it out