Page 5 of 9
Re: The Top 100 Scientifically WORST Signatures on SMBX Forums
Posted: Thu Feb 18, 2016 4:34 pm
by Zeldamaster12
Horikawa specifically said that every signature under number 50 isn't that bad, she just used 100 instead so the list would look cooler. I suggest you go back and read posts before you call me out on such a harmless comment.
Re: The Top 100 Scientifically WORST Signatures on SMBX Forums
Posted: Thu Feb 18, 2016 5:06 pm
by mechamind
Well, I guess I'll try harder next time.
Re: The Top 100 Scientifically WORST Signatures on SMBX Forums
Posted: Thu Feb 18, 2016 5:31 pm
by TDK
Well if someone wanted to make really terrible signature all they need to do is add the image code to make the worst signature in their signature.
Re: The Top 100 Scientifically WORST Signatures on SMBX Forums
Posted: Thu Feb 18, 2016 6:21 pm
by perhaps
I'll test that signature, but only for a very short time, just to laugh at it.
Oh jeez, it's so big!
Re: The Top 100 Scientifically WORST Signatures on SMBX Forums
Posted: Thu Feb 18, 2016 7:44 pm
by Alagirez
Ok i was spoilered some stuffs in my signature. Update the list pls.....
Re: The Top 100 Scientifically WORST Signatures on SMBX Forums
Posted: Thu Feb 18, 2016 10:33 pm
by The Thwomp King
Harvey36Dice wrote:Ok i was spoilered some stuffs in my signature. Update the list pls.....
Yeah an update would be nice.
Re: The Top 100 Scientifically WORST Signatures on SMBX Forums
Posted: Thu Feb 18, 2016 11:04 pm
by Nanaya
People really want good signatures
Just calm down jesus Christ its like it is the end of the world
Its just a thing that is scientific not like you have to make it smaller but it would be nice
Anyways you can relax and do whatever you want
Re: The Top 100 Scientifically WORST Signatures on SMBX Forums
Posted: Fri Feb 19, 2016 7:50 am
by Gameinsky
Ness-Wednesday wrote:Tinkerbell wrote:maybe you should spoiler the villager one also.
But I love Villagers.
I do think it's a good idea as well, it has been there showing off ever since I joined.
Another alternative is to simply make the image smaller. There's no need for it to be so big.
Re: The Top 100 Scientifically WORST Signatures on SMBX Forums
Posted: Fri Feb 19, 2016 8:19 am
by Mable
Zeldamaster12 wrote:Horikawa specifically said that every signature under number 50 isn't that bad, she just used 100 instead so the list would look cooler. I suggest you go back and read posts before you call me out on such a harmless comment.
You mean above 50
1-50 is the worst
51-89 ok
90-100 good.
Re: The Top 100 Scientifically WORST Signatures on SMBX Forums
Posted: Sat Feb 20, 2016 8:39 am
by ShadowLabrys101
Why, thank you!
Re: The Top 100 Scientifically WORST Signatures on SMBX Forums
Posted: Sat Feb 20, 2016 2:28 pm
by MegaCDFan235
Re: The Top 100 Scientifically WORST Signatures on SMBX Forums
Posted: Sat Feb 20, 2016 2:40 pm
by Mable
MegaCDFan235 wrote:I'm leaving these forums.
I quit.
Everyone is just going to insult me now.
:oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops:
What? If you acting like this it won't help you at all.
Nobody was insulting you. It's just that some people tend to have huge sigs, which take longer to load. Did you see anybody else getting hurted over something like that?
It's just a signature, nothing that matters in real life you shouldn't get hurt by that.
Re: The Top 100 Scientifically WORST Signatures on SMBX Forums
Posted: Sat Feb 20, 2016 2:46 pm
by MegaCDFan235
Tinkerbell wrote:
What? If you acting like this it won't help you at all.
Nobody was insulting you. It's just that some people tend to have huge sigs, which take longer to load. Did you see anybody else getting hurted over something like that?
It's just a signature, nothing that matters in real life you shouldn't get hurt by that.
I'm a total idiot then.
And I'm about to explode because I am a bomb now.
A ticking one.
Re: The Top 100 Scientifically WORST Signatures on SMBX Forums
Posted: Sat Feb 20, 2016 2:47 pm
by Mable
Jesus, calm down now. It's nothing serious and stop, insulting yourself that will make people think you are one.
Re: The Top 100 Scientifically WORST Signatures on SMBX Forums
Posted: Sat Feb 20, 2016 2:59 pm
by Ecruteak
Even if they tried to make them smaller, a lot of people's signatures are impossible to fix until they get a higher rank, since a lot of people are at the Pokey rank, and that rank is huge.
and I'm surprised people are giving shits about their signature sizes
Re: The Top 100 Scientifically WORST Signatures on SMBX Forums
Posted: Sat Feb 20, 2016 3:25 pm
by Trace
damn, now i regret making my giant signature short, else i wouldve been on this list.
Re: The Top 100 Scientifically WORST Signatures on SMBX Forums
Posted: Sat Feb 20, 2016 6:17 pm
by Alagirez
Uh I never insult you....
I will miss you :'(
also horikawa pls update the list.
Re: The Top 100 Scientifically WORST Signatures on SMBX Forums
Posted: Sat Feb 20, 2016 9:03 pm
by mechamind
Tinkerbell wrote:It's just that some people tend to have huge sigs, which take longer to load.
There's a problem with this. The 100 worst signatures were judged based on their height, not their bandwidth usage. Some people may have animations which aren't as high, but those images alone are 5 MB in size. The "SCIENCE" images that SecondScolipede had (the old and current one) both exceed 5 MB, while a tall but plain signature might only reach 1 MB with all its content
combined.
Re: The Top 100 Scientifically WORST Signatures on SMBX Forums
Posted: Mon Feb 22, 2016 3:14 pm
by penguin21
Really? . I am 56 XD
Re: The Top 100 Scientifically WORST Signatures on SMBX Forums
Posted: Mon Feb 22, 2016 6:03 pm
by lighthouse64
penguin21 wrote:Really? . I am 56 XD
That's because your sig gif scientifically needs more shading