Can't update signature

[Slickone]

Does anyone know a good way to check the character count, instead of having to keep updating the profile to check to see if it fits? I've tried textpad, but it doesn't seem to count the same, maybe not counting spaces. ie. It's says 231 chars right now but it's still being rejected.
Maybe something on the web? I don't have Word. Even better, something that counts in real time.

 

[Slickone]

OK, I've tried this, this, this, this one that says spaces are included in it's count, and even this one that only allows 255 characters, and they all say about 231 characters. So why is Anandtech rejecting it?

 

[allisolm]

I got 263-270, depending on the program (if I'm doing it right.)

Thunderhead @ Dollywood - voted #1 wooden coaster on the planet in Amusement Today's (=2005 Golden Ticket awards. )httq://www.amusementtoday.com/2005gta82705.html(/L)
(L=New Depeche Mode CD! )httq://forums.anandtech.com/messageview.aspx?catid=38&threadid=1721705(/L)

I replaced the [ ] with ( ) and the p in http with q so it would all print out without links.

 

[Slickone]

Yeah, I'm not trying my current sig., which obviously works.
Trying to put in a new one.

 

[allisolm]

Originally posted by: Slickone
Yeah, I'm not trying my current sig., which obviously works.
Trying to put in a new one.

Duh... of course it works. (Slaps forehead.) See, not only do I not know how to count it right, but I'm an idiot to boot.

Hopefully someone will come in and show us both.

 

[Slickone]

Hey, no big deal. Thanks for trying.

 

[Slickone]

Even down to 192 and I can't update.
Does it not allow tinyurl addresses for some reason?

 

[imported_Lucifer]

Have you tried disabling your firewall, then updating?

You can use tinyurl links. I've seen many people use them.

 

[Slickone]

Not yet, but why would you have to disable it to post a signature?

 

[natto fire]

Keep in mind that if you are posting links that the character count is reflected by the actual HTML code to make the link work. Not the watered down linking that you have to use.

From FAQ:

5. If you get a message stating your signature is too large when updating it, ensure you factor in the HTML it takes to create the link or bold the text you may have in your signature. So if your signature was:

Hey take a look here

That gets translated to:

<a href="http://www.anandtech.com" target="new">here</a>

Please don't ask us to raise the signature limit, as we have no plans to do so at this time.

 

[Slickone]

Yes, since you have to type out all that code when creating the signatures, it's all included in the character counts I've done.
Except of course I use the L= instead of <a href=, and I don't add target=new.

 

[natto fire]

Originally posted by: Slickone
Yes, since you have to type out all that code when creating the signatures, it's all included in the character counts I've done.
Except of course I use the L= instead of <a href=, and I don't add target=new.

That's exactly what it's trying to say though. Even though you use the watered down L=. It gets translated to true HTML. ie the <a href= target=new> fun stuff. So even though you type the shortened L=, the true HTML gets counted against your sig limit. So if you wanted to use an external program to count your characters, make sure to use the actual HTML code, and not the watered down L= linking that you are forced to use here. I personally think that is unfair to not let you use true HTML, and still have it count against the sig limit, but that is not my decision, and I think that if people were allowed to use true HTML, that many sigs would look horrendus, and abuse bandwidth.

Good luck.

 

[ProviaFan]

Originally posted by: Captain Howdy
That's exactly what it's trying to say though. Even though you use the watered down L=. It gets translated to true HTML. ie the <a href= target=new> fun stuff. So even though you type the shortened L=, the true HTML gets counted against your sig limit. So if you wanted to use an external program to count your characters, make sure to use the actual HTML code, and not the watered down L= linking that you are forced to use here. I personally think that is unfair to not let you use true HTML, and still have it count against the sig limit, but that is not my decision, and I think that if people were allowed to use true HTML, that many sigs would look horrendus, and abuse bandwidth.

Good luck.

I have no feelings about HTML usage (actually, I'm slightly glad that they don't allow it), but I do think it is ridiculous to limit sigs based on their length after the "HTML tax" has been added. If there is some real, valid reason (due to software limitations of the database that they use, for example) that the length can not exceed 255 chars, then why not store the links in the form we type them, and generate the HTML code later?

 

[Slickone]

Originally posted by: Captain Howdy

Originally posted by: Slickone
Yes, since you have to type out all that code when creating the signatures, it's all included in the character counts I've done.
Except of course I use the L= instead of a href=, and I don't add target=new.

That's exactly what it's trying to say though. Even though you use the watered down L=. It gets translated to true HTML. ie the a href= target=new fun stuff. So even though you type the shortened L=, the true HTML gets counted against your sig limit. So if you wanted to use an external program to count your characters, make sure to use the actual HTML code, and not the watered down L= linking that you are forced to use here. I personally think that is unfair to not let you use true HTML, and still have it count against the sig limit, but that is not my decision, and I think that if people were allowed to use true HTML, that many sigs would look horrendus, and abuse bandwidth.

Good luck.

Sometimes not right then, because using my current sig, and the HTML it generates, it comes out ~400 characters.
BTW, I tried to attach the HTML using the Attach Code, but it wouldn't accept it and kept giving server errors. Also had to remove some of the HTML in our previous posts. Strange.

 

[Slickone]

The mysteries of Fusetalk?

 

[Slickone]

^

 

[Jason Clark]

This one has been convered quite a bit here....sig length includes HTML, so 230 chars might be what it is before any html is converted. Nope we're not adding more length, some of the signatures around here are entirely too long as it is

Cheers.

 

[Slickone]

Yep we've covered that, but my last question was how my current sig. is working since, when converted to HTML, it's ~400 characters?

Hey, at least you don't have to look at the large photo banner sigs. many forums have. And animated GIF photo avatars.

 

[MikeyIs4Dcats]

what is it you are trying to put in your sig?

 

[Slickone]

I'm not.