How to make the SDMB more social?

[jackdavinci]

Looking for suggestion applicable to the Board in general, and also to members assuming the board remains the way it is...

I'm a visual person, so it takes me a really long time to associate any particular screenname with a mental idea of who the person is. Which is why I supported the idea of optional avatars - I would much more easily associate posts with a specific user if I had some image to latch onto rather than just a text name.

As it is, I have vague notions of only three users, one whose name is similar to an SDMB meme, one whom I met in real life once and have had a few communications with, and one who made some controversial posts and I found his screenname memorable because it was backwards.

So... anyone have suggestions for

1) Ways to make the SDMB more social / a community (i.e. when you see a post by somebody you have a sense of their identity / a feeling that they are a real person and not just an abstract concept).

2) Ways to have more of that experience, myself, without having to change the SDMB in any way.

[dzero]

I just want to comment on the idea of avatars. I think the place is pretty bare without them but they don't necessarily help you associate a post with a person since on most forums, you can change your avie whenever you want. Often, just when you're used to seeing a particular picture next to someone's posts they'll go and change it on you. Other people change them so often you never get your bearings.

I think there are a lot of good reasons for having avatars, but I'm not sure this would be one of them. I guess you could impose a limit on how often they could be changed. That might work.

[DrFidelius]

I hate to play devil's advocate here, but part of the reason I am still on this board is because it is not mimicing a social network site.

I like trivia, educated opinions, and snarky answers. I have paid attention over the past few years and so I recognize participants by name. On the LiveJournal boards I use, I know persons by name and not by picture, since the pictures can be changed more often than a tee-shirt.

Avatars tend to act as pictoral sigs, showing what the poster finds amusing today, not as photo IDs.

I know enough people in "Real Life," I do not need to know my Internet friends the same way.

And get off of my lawn, you young hooligans.

[Lynn Bodoni]

I hate to play devil's advocate here, but part of the reason I am still on this board is because it is not mimicing a social network site.

There are some social aspects to this board, but I really don't think that the world needs another internet social network. Yeah, I have a Facebook and Livejournal account, but I quit visiting Livejournal when I realized that the majority of people were posting accounts of the tedious minutiae of their lives...down to their exercise routines EVERY DAY, and what they had for lunch. It's interesting to read what lunch was at a four star restaurant...not so interesting to see that Tom had lunch at McDonald's again today.

I really doubt that we'll have avatars any time soon. Some of the staff are pretty firmly against them, and I think that most posters are OK without any sort of visual representation. I don't know about other people, but I can generally remember the usernames of quite a few people...and I don't know and don't care what they look like. I can pretty easily remember that this particular person is a vegetarian, or a kook with pretty strange ideas about rape, or is what I consider to be pretty old, or knows a lot about books and publishing...what a person LOOKS like doesn't really matter to me. Occasionally I've been surprised by the sex of someone, or by thinking that someone is white when s/he's actually black, or something similar, but that's OK. For the most part, it doesn't matter if someone is black or white or yellow or red or brown, or what sex the poster is. We don't judge people by the color of their skin here, but by the content of their posts.

Note that this is my personal opinion. I have knowledge of what various staff members think about avatars, but this post should not be taken as an official post or position.

[dzero]

One of the problems I have here is that the user names are often very long and not really intelligible unless you study them. As odd as it may sound, many I recognize by the visual pattern of the letters rather than what the letters actually say. If I ever had to search for posts from those people, I would have to find one and copy their name since there is no way I could ever recall it. Recognizing it isn't a problem, but recalling it is impossible.

Not to get off topic, but why do so many people here have such long and seemingly bizarre user names?

[DrFidelius]

Originally Posted by dzero

Not to get off topic, but why do so many people here have such long and seemingly bizarre user names?

Because we are an intelligent and literate group who enjoy language for tis own sake.

We also like little puns and jokes, and many Usernames reflect that.

[Giraffe]

I was always one of those who was against avatars, but now that I've gotten used to them, I quite like them (non-animated, of course). People can be pretty clever with them, so they can add a bit of fun / humor. Like the OP, I also have a terrible time keeping track of names -- the visual association really helps me keep more poster identities straight.

It may help to note that it's trivial in vBulletin to set the default setting of avatars to off, including for people who aren't logged in, so allowing people who wanted them to use them wouldn't change the look of the board to random passersby. Because you'd have to opt in, for anyone who disliked avatars the board would be indistinguishable from how it is now. Seems win-win to me.

[TBG]

Originally Posted by DrFidelius

part of the reason I am still on this board is because it is not mimicing a social network site.

This, +1, QFT, etc.

[AClockworkMelon]

Originally Posted by TBG

This, +1, QFT, etc.

AClockworkMelon likes this.

[jackdavinci]

Originally Posted by DrFidelius

I hate to play devil's advocate here, but part of the reason I am still on this board is because it is not mimicing a social network site.

Just to be clear, I don't mean social in the sense of networking or journaling, but in the sense of, to have a notion of the person who is posting as a real person and not an abstract entity, such that the next time I see a post by them, I realize it's the same person, and maybe remember what kind of viewpoint they are probably coming from. Otherwise, reading threads seems more like conversations between Anon878, Anon234, and Anon142.

[BigT]

<nevermind>

[dzero]

Being a newbie I have to remind myself that it's not really my place to be overly critical of how things are run. I would however like to add a +1 to the comments from BigT and Giraffe. With vbulletin, I think you could easily add avatars as an opt-in type of choice and no one would even notice it had happened. If you have to affirmatively choose to allow them, I don't see how anyone could get upset.

I'll be quiet now.

[BigT]

Originally Posted by dzero

Being a newbie I have to remind myself that it's not really my place to be overly critical of how things are run. I would however like to add a +1 to the comments from BigT and Giraffe. With vbulletin, I think you could easily add avatars as an opt-in type of choice and no one would even notice it had happened. If you have to affirmatively choose to allow them, I don't see how anyone could get upset.

I'll be quiet now.

Something about it drawing in a lower quality crowd or something. Yeah, really.

[Martini Enfield]

Originally Posted by jackdavinci

Just to be clear, I don't mean social in the sense of networking or journaling, but in the sense of, to have a notion of the person who is posting as a real person and not an abstract entity, such that the next time I see a post by them, I realize it's the same person, and maybe remember what kind of viewpoint they are probably coming from. Otherwise, reading threads seems more like conversations between Anon878, Anon234, and Anon142.

Not meaning to be snarky, but it's really not that hard to just pay attention to usernames. Most of us manage just fine, at least.

In theory, Avatars are a good idea, but in practice people (at least IME) tend to change them often they're no good as an identifier. The person who had the Smiling Cat Avatar for months (thus earning themselves a mental designator of Smiling Cat Poster) might suddenly change to a dancing penguin for no reason, meaning that you're going to miss their posts anyway because you're looking for a smiling cat and not a dancing penguin.

Also, lots of people here don't want a greater sense of socialisation on the boards, either.

[Stranger On A Train]

Originally Posted by Martini Enfield

Also, lots of people here don't want a greater sense of socialisation on the boards, either.

Aye. I can barely stand to be social around the people I know in person, and then, only by trading Arrested Development references and obscure jokes about Unix shell commands. Love you guys, but the last thing I want to hear about is how your weekend went, or that little Sally stopped peeing her bed three times a night. And there are frankly about two dozen posters who I can identify by name (about a third of them are the Village Idiots that I avoid like a Jehovah's Witness), which is probably just as well.

Stranger

[Arnold Winkelried]

Originally Posted by jackdavinci

1) Ways to make the SDMB more social / a community (i.e. when you see a post by somebody you have a sense of their identity / a feeling that they are a real person and not just an abstract concept).

2) Ways to have more of that experience, myself, without having to change the SDMB in any way.

Dear jackdavinci: please send in your photo for the portrait gallery.

[Lynn Bodoni]

Not meaning to be snarky, but it's really not that hard to just pay attention to usernames. Most of us manage just fine, at least.

In theory, Avatars are a good idea, but in practice people (at least IME) tend to change them often they're no good as an identifier. The person who had the Smiling Cat Avatar for months (thus earning themselves a mental designator of Smiling Cat Poster) might suddenly change to a dancing penguin for no reason, meaning that you're going to miss their posts anyway because you're looking for a smiling cat and not a dancing penguin.

I think that the OP has a problem that most of the regular, longtime members don't.

And if I change my avatar from Smiling Cat to Dancing Penguin, it's because I'm playing an old Infocom game which has dancing penguins in a dream.

[Red Barchetta]

Originally Posted by Lynn Bodoni

I don't know about other people, but I can generally remember the usernames of quite a few people...

Yeah, but most people here aren't administrators or moderators.

I fully support the avatar option. In fact, I don't see a negative--they can be disabled in the control panel, allowing those who resist them to not see them. I do think it would help many people tremendously in remembering who's who.

As for being able to change the avatar--sure, but that hasn't been much of an issue (and it's not even really an issue) with other forums I post to, and can't see it being one with this demographic.

Originally Posted by BigT

Something about it drawing in a lower quality crowd or something. Yeah, really.

Then why do we allow sigs?

[Lynn Bodoni]

I fully support the avatar option. In fact, I don't see a negative--they can be disabled in the control panel, allowing those who resist them to not see them. I do think it would help many people tremendously in remembering who's who.

I rather like avatars, and I use them myself in places that allow them. However, the majority of the staff is against them, the last time we talked about it, IIRC. Part of the reason is because we'd have to screen every damn one of them, or else offer a limited selection for people to use.

And in the forums/social networks that I've seen them used, avatars are more like emoticons than distinct images. That is, someone might use a different one for each post, or change them every day or week, depending on mood. Avatars are more like clothes than faces, IME.

We allow text sigs. We don't allow sigs with images, especially moving images.

I remember one person signed up, started a new thread, and the whole post said "It's called signature ownage"...with some coding. Said person was quite put out that his/her monster sig wasn't showing up.

The thing is, not allowing avatars appeals to a lot of people, who would not be happy if we did allow them. And then there are people who want avatars, and are not happy that we don't offer them. While people can choose to view them or not, most people don't go digging around in their user control panel on a regular basis, and don't want to do that, either.

Different message boards/forums/social networks try to appeal to different groups. What appeals to one group will draw in more people in that group...and that includes avatars.

[Lanzy]

I like the board the way it is, avatars add nothing to the experience. I like to read what people have to say not what they choose to display at any given mood.

[CarnalK]

Originally Posted by Lynn Bodoni

Part of the reason is because we'd have to screen every damn one of them, or else offer a limited selection for people to use.

I really don't think that's true. If you really are worried about porn or copyright infringement they could easily be taken on a case by case basis just like sigs or even posts. No need to pretend it'll be some enormous workload.

As to the OP, there's a grease monkey script floating around that lets you customize the display here to add all sorts of tags to posters. Someone else was floating around a script to put pics to users as well.

[Red Barchetta]

Originally Posted by Lynn Bodoni

However, the majority of the staff is against them, the last time we talked about it, IIRC.

The majority of the staff has historically been opposed to change. How many years was it before we were able to make edits, again?

Originally Posted by Lynn Bodoni

Part of the reason is because we'd have to screen every damn one of them, or else offer a limited selection for people to use.

CarnalK covered this pretty well above, but this is hardly the case. If someone were to have an offensive avatar (just as if they were to have an offensive sig, or to post an inappropriate link), they would either be reported or you would find it through your natural moderating duty.

Originally Posted by Lynn Bodoni

And in the forums/social networks that I've seen them used, avatars are more like emoticons than distinct images. That is, someone might use a different one for each post, or change them every day or week, depending on mood. Avatars are more like clothes than faces, IME.

Apparently we visit vastly different forums, because this has been anything but the case where I post. Most stick with them for the long haul. But even if they don't, I find it still helps with the initial name recognition--changing an avatar is more like getting a haircut.

Originally Posted by Lynn Bodoni

We allow text sigs. We don't allow sigs with images, especially moving images.

I agree moving images can be annoying. A rule could be setup to not allow them, or again, they can be disabled on a personal basis.

Originally Posted by Lynn Bodoni

The thing is, not allowing avatars appeals to a lot of people, who would not be happy if we did allow them.

The thing is, allowing avatars appeals to a lot of people who would be happy if you allowed them...do you really consider this an argument? Seriously? Plus, again, they'd be optional.

Originally Posted by Lynn Bodoni

most people don't go digging around in their user control panel on a regular basis, and don't want to do that, either.

I think it's pretty clear that is someone isn't willing to "dig around" (and there is hardly that much 'digging involved) for the option, then the issue simply isn't that important for them. And boo hoo if someone is inconvenienced by a 15-second option--I didn't complain when I had to disabled sigs, which took all of 10 seconds.

Originally Posted by Lynn Bodoni

Different message boards/forums/social networks try to appeal to different groups. What appeals to one group will draw in more people in that group...and that includes avatars.

And what evidence do you have to support this? And why do you think that a group who favors avatars is necessarily less desirable than that doesn't?

The SDMB, for being a forum about dispelling ignorance, sure does seem awfully close-minded at times.

[bucketybuck]

Originally Posted by Red Barchetta

The SDMB, for being a forum about dispelling ignorance, sure does seem awfully close-minded at times.

Why is it automatically "close-minded" for many people to vastly prefer uncluttered boards?

Also, the tone of your last reply does you no favours.

[Red Barchetta]

Originally Posted by bucketybuck

Why is it automatically "close-minded" for many people to vastly prefer uncluttered boards?

Also, the tone of your last reply does you no favours.

It is optional. Why, pray tell, are you so opposed to something which you'll never have to deal with? It's "close-minded" because of, primarily, the administration who pretty much deploys the Appeal to Tradition fallacy. "It's always been that way here, so why change it?" is basically the crux of the argument. This is hardly a fundamental change, particularly as you have the option to never experience it.

And I'm not looking for favors, thanks for the insight though.

ETA: And the argument that enabling avatars would somehow magically draw the unsavory type strikes me as elitist.

[Eutychus]

Originally Posted by bucketybuck

ETA: And the argument that enabling avatars would somehow magically draw the unsavory type strikes me as elitist.

But we ARE elitist! In the good sense of the word. We want to attract the best and the brightest (although we don't always succeed); people who want to be known for their thoughts rather than their ability to dress up their posts.

[Red Barchetta]

Originally Posted by Eutychus

But we ARE elitist! In the good sense of the word. We want to attract the best and the brightest (although we don't always succeed); people who want to be known for their thoughts rather than their ability to dress up their posts.

And that comes through in the content of the posts and the responses to thereof, instead of setting arbitrary options that apparently attract them like flies. Avatars are not why people join forums.

(You mis-attributed the quote, btw.)

[Eutychus]

Originally Posted by Red Barchetta

(You mis-attributed the quote, btw.)

You're right. My bad.

[Czarcasm]

Poll and discussion on the subject of avatars.

[Giraffe]

Thanks for the link, Czarcasm, although I note a key option was missing from that one, i.e. does anyone have a problem with avatars being allowed but off by default. I went ahead and made a new poll asking that very question.

[Cat Whisperer]

I support having avatars here, as long as they can be off by default; I am aware that a lot of stodgy old folks don't want any of those newfangled sparkly things cluttering up their spartan website. (Hell, they're probably against the flashy colours here, and would prefer shades of black, grey, and white.)

[Jackmannii]

Originally Posted by jackdavinci

So... anyone have suggestions for

1) Ways to make the SDMB more social / a community (i.e. when you see a post by somebody you have a sense of their identity / a feeling that they are a real person and not just an abstract concept).

I hate to shatter your illusions, but there are only about a half-dozen actual posters here. Everyone else is a random jumble of electrons or an Ed Zotti alter ego. It's a scheme to get money out of advertisers.

[DrFidelius]

Originally Posted by Cat Whisperer

I support having avatars here, as long as they can be off by default; I am aware that a lot of stodgy old folks don't want any of those newfangled sparkly things cluttering up their spartan website. (Hell, they're probably against the flashy colours here, and would prefer shades of black, grey, and white.)

Black, grey and white?

My dear, I still miss the soothing green shade that text should be.

[Acsenray]

I also like the lack of "socialness" on the site. I also do not form an idea of the "identity" of a user perhaps not until reading hundreds of posts that have distinctive content. That's fine with me.

[Red Barchetta]

Originally Posted by acsenray

I also like the lack of "socialness" on the site. I also do not form an idea of the "identity" of a user perhaps not until reading hundreds of posts that have distinctive content. That's fine with me.

But you wouldn't be--the avatar would merely (imo) help you keep track of who has posted what, enabling you to better form that same "identity," just quicker and easier.

And again, you could disable it...

[Cat Whisperer]

I should also say that I am also against this site becoming more like a social site like Facebook, too - I cancelled my Facebook account for a reason. I don't think allowing avatars will make us all Facebook-y, though.

[Peremensoe]

Would avatars typically be fixed, or would people be changing them all the time?

[elmwood]

Originally Posted by bucketybuck

Why is it automatically "close-minded" for many people to vastly prefer uncluttered boards?

Why do people automatically assume that message boards with avatars are cluttered? Do you guys get out much, virtually speaking? Yes, there's teen boards out there where people go over the top with animated avatars, huge sig images, and the like. Then there's boards like Giraffe Boards. Mellophant and the one I run, which have a clean appearance, yet permit small, static avatars.

OMG we're gonna' get sued by Fox! Probably not. Using a copyright-protected image or character in an avatar should be considered fair use under US copyright law. Has a message board ever been sued or gotten a cease-and-desist notice because some member has a Peter Griffin avatar?

OMG every avatar will be animated! Think of the epileptics! No. You can configure vBulletin to permit only static avatars.

OMG slippery slope! Slippery slope! If we permit avatars, we'll end up like 4chan and Offtopic! Blarrrrrgh! No. Some seem to believe that if avatars are permitted, the site will gain instant appeal among the lulz or immature teen crowd. Again, see my site, or Giraffe Boards.

OMG people will change their avatars every day, confusing everybody and defeating their purpose! Maybe a few will, but my experience is that most people hold on to the same avatars for months, or even years. They may change for a holiday or special occasion, and return back to their traditional avatar.

OMG people will use inappropriate avatars, like Goatse, Tubgirl, turds, penises and other NSFW images! In my experience, I haven't seen that. People seem to have pretty good judgment with the avatars they use. Nobody wants to make a site they regularly visit NSFW for themselves or others. If someone should use an inappropriate avatar, the mods could just DELETE IT and warn/suspend the user. Besides, if staff thinks a good chunk of Dopers are going to have NSFW avatars, they must not think that highly of their users to begin with.

OMG I want a minimal look because my Stanford-Binet IQ is 165 and avatars are so beneath me and my superior intellect! Turn avatars off in your user preferences. That's it. You don't have to see them if you don't want to.

Also, Ed, think about this ... avatars could be a source of revenue generation! Charge members to use them, as with a custom title.

This is all pointless, anyhow. Many have argued for avatars in the past, and gotten nowhere.

[Northern Piper]

Originally Posted by Elmwood

Then there's boards like Giraffe Boards. Mellophant and the one I run, which have a clean appearance, yet permit small, static avatars.

I appreciate that opinions on these issue are subjective, but yes, I've been to those boards and I've found the avatars messy, cluttering and distracting - not a clean look at all.

[I Love Me, Vol. I]

Short version:

Originally Posted by Lanzy

I like the board the way it is, avatars add nothing to the experience.

Actually, they do add something to the experience. They add a lot. Too much, actually, because they add an entirely new level of powerful subtext which might not even be intended, and in any event, would be unavailable to anyone who opted to turn avatars off.

Even if a poster opts to have it turned off their overall Board experience would be affected—involuntarily—by the very presence of random images in threads. Because a poster who sees all of the various pictures in a thread and a poster who sees none of them are seeing two very different threads and thus, are not entirely talking about the same thing (see smilies example below). That's OK if you're on some message board devoted to frippery, but it really wouldn't fly here.





Longer version:

Except for a banner, smilies, and a few small icons, all of the information on the SDMB is in text form. If multi-color image "information” (some of which would be very elaborate and distracting) was added to the mix then the overall message conveyed would be altered—often drastically. A smaller-scale example of this is the use of smilies.

Think how much a single "big grin" smilie can change the entire meaning of a post. Imagine if some posters saw the smilie, and some didn’t. Actually, I think that's an available choice, but I'm not sure because I can't even imagine trying to parse a thread without knowing, for example, whether Longtime Poster X was communicating…

You just don’t get it, do you?

or,

You just don’t get it, do you?

…in a post directed at Longtime Poster Y. I think the use of smilies can come across as a bit obnoxious if they’re overused or employed in a certain way, but I could never turn the feature off lest I miss important information. Dopers are too clever to merely use smilies as adornment—it’s our wont to convey meaningful information through them. Avatars would only raise the stakes.

If they were allowed then a much deeper, and at the same time, far more nuanced subtextual conversation (than smilies can convey) would probably be taking place inside every thread. If one wanted to even mostly understand and participate in any given thread, they’d feel compelled to set their avatar viewing to “on”. That’s a pretty distasteful decision to be “forced” to make if you don’t enjoy random pictures cluttering up every thread.

[I Love Me, Vol. I]

I meant to start off my post with this:

Originally Posted by Red Barchetta

Why, pray tell, are you so opposed to something which you'll never have to deal with?

This is hardly a fundamental change, particularly as you have the option to never experience it.

Everyone would have to "deal with" this—not just people who turned the avatar feature on. No one would "have the option to never experience it". (See my above post for why i think this is so).

[Red Barchetta]

Originally Posted by I Love Me, Vol. I

Everyone would have to "deal with" this—not just people who turned the avatar feature on. No one would "have the option to never experience it". (See my above post for why i think this is so).

I have never encountered this "subtext" endowed upon by avatars that you speak of. This is especially puzzling as there are few reminders what your avatar actually is while you are posting yourself.

Outside of the very occasional "nice avatar," I'm having trouble trying to figure out what meaningful context and conversationally relevant information avatars would add that those who have disabled them would be missing out on.

And even if, hypothetically, a post did come along that demanded seeing said avatar, you could click on their profile to see it, much as I need to in order to see someone's cited sig (which I never actually need to, seeing as I've never seen them mentioned in any meaningful way.)

But according to you, I'm missing out on important subtext. So by your logic, we should also remove signatures form the forum.

[bucketybuck]

Originally Posted by Red Barchetta

But according to you, I'm missing out on important subtext. So by your logic, we should also remove signatures form the forum.

Yes, they too are childish and a poor substitute for a personality demonstrated by the content of posts.

[Red Barchetta]

Originally Posted by bucketybuck

Yes, they too are childish and a poor substitute for a personality demonstrated by the content of posts.

Neither are a substitute.

[I Love Me, Vol. I]

Originally Posted by Red Barchetta

I have never encountered this "subtext" endowed upon by avatars that you speak of.

I'm mainly considering avatars that can be changed post-by-post. I'm sure that Dopers would sometimes change their avatar to further illustrate the point they're making in their post. More often, even with static avatars, there would be comments, asides, and significant tangents based on avatars. This is the subtext that would be completely lost on those of us who prefer not to view distracting pictures in SDMB threads.

This is especially puzzling as there are few reminders what your avatar actually is while you are posting yourself.

Speaking only for myself, I would have no problem remembering what my avatar is even when faced with the daunting prospect of not having it on the screen in front of me. I fear there may be other Dopers who share this freakish ability, but I accept that you might not be one of them.

So by your logic, we should also remove signatures form the forum.

Strictly speaking you are correct, in that by my logic, sigs offer additional information that could be changed by a user to fit each new post, adding information that would be totally missed by Dopers like me who have their signature viewing setting set to 'off'. If you have something to say, just say it in your post.

I'm not sure I like the fact that we allow signatures for the same reasons I am wary about avatars. However:

1. Images, especially if employed to add something extra to the tone of a post, convey far more subtext than a sig does. Images demand your brain's attention and are very powerful, especially if they are iconic. Anyone not seeing those images is missing out on part of the discussion.

2. Sigs are already allowed. I might not care for that a whole lot, but allowing avatars does not make the sig/subtext issue go away. Allowing avatars only adds a newer, larger interference to the flow and comprehension of board threads.

[MrDibble]

Originally Posted by Northern Piper

I appreciate that opinions on these issue are subjective, but yes, I've been to those boards and I've found the avatars messy, cluttering and distracting - not a clean look at all.

Ditto. In fact that's why I haven't been back to Giraffe Boards in forever.

[CarnalK]

Originally Posted by MrDibble

Ditto. In fact that's why I haven't been back to Giraffe Boards in forever.

Do you visit any other message boards then?

[srzss05]

Originally Posted by MrDibble

Ditto. In fact that's why I haven't been back to Giraffe Boards in forever.

If you have an account there, you can turn them off. That's what I do.

I believe this conversation has drifted away from it's original intent. The only reason avatars were brought up in the first place was because the OP thought they would make the place more "social". I think that premise has been pretty well killed by now (and, IMO, it never needed to be more social in the first place).

[Northern Piper]

Originally Posted by CarnalK

Do you visit any other message boards then?

The only other one I frequent doesn't have avatars either. It has real pix of the moderators, and no pix or avatars of the members. It's a good visual way to highlight when a mod posts.

[Giraffe]

Originally Posted by MrDibble

Ditto. In fact that's why I haven't been back to Giraffe Boards in forever.

We turned your room into a home gym, with a foos ball table and a Wii and a soda machine.

[Czarcasm]

Originally Posted by srzss05

If you have an account there, you can turn them off. That's what I do.

I believe this conversation has drifted away from it's original intent. The only reason avatars were brought up in the first place was because the OP thought they would make the place more "social". I think that premise has been pretty well killed by now (and, IMO, it never needed to be more social in the first place).

This. Is there some sort of hole that needs filling here? We converse with each other, argue, share pain, share joy, teach, learn, and sometimes even meet in person. What does a small picture of the Tasmanian Devil to the left of a post add?