quoteThis is such an incredibly arbitrary numerical value and I don't even get the logic behind it. It's not even a nice round number, so I don't know what the heck. If it was 150x550 or whatever it'd have the same max area but make more sense. My main issue, though, isn't with the width but with the height. Screen real estate (which I'm sure plays into it somehow) isn't an issue anymore given how, as I said in the first sentence, it's 2012. For technical reasons I'm using a netbook laptop at the moment for, well, everything and my screen is still more than big enough to accomodate images over thrice as tall with plenty of room to spare!System returned the following error(s):
Your signature is linking to a graphics file that fails to meet the image dimensions requirements. Images in signatures may only be 125 x 575 (height x width).