No Avatars Here? Why?

[Crazyhorse]

I think the figure of 20% is based on the number of posts that have avatars by the poster's name when using the script. It may be even higher, but it varies from thread to thread.

The disconnect here is that doesn't mean 20% (or whatever) of the board is using this avatar script. A large number of some of the most frequent posters already had an avatar image uploaded to their profile as a result of being charter members, mods, admins, SDSAB members, or any other member group that has been allowed to upload avatar images to their profiles all along.

These avatars, that have been there all along, now appear in posts to everyone running the Avatar script in addition to those avatars that have been linked in the profiles of script users by adding the line "SDMB Avatar: <url> "

For example I see Czarcasm's avatar by his posts even though he isn't (I don't think) using the avatar script. He hasn't added "SDMB Avatar: " to his profile, but has already uploaded an avatar image directly because he was allowed to do so as a charter member/mod. As more people use the script there will be more avatars in general but there was already a pretty high percentage of posters with avatars to begin with, they just don't appear in threads without using the script.

[jackdavinci]

Drunky Smurf, you are one of the few users whose username already conjured up the same clear image you ended up using as your avatar in my head, making it almost superfluous

[Crazyhorse]

Originally Posted by drewtwo99

I saw someone mention how we can assign other users avatars, but I didn't see any explanation how to do that. Was this explained somewhere already? If not, could anyone give me a brief instruction on how to do this?

To do this you need to edit the script. It is heavily commented with instructions about how to do so, but basically you assign an avatar image to any poster by adding them to a list in the script in the format:

'SDMB Username' : '<URL To Image>'

For example to assign an avatar to me instead of seeing the one that I selected, you could add:

'Crazyhorse' : 'http://www.crazyhorsesimageurl.com/avatarimage.jpg'


You can view the source of the script at the download site (http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/136815) by clicking "Source Code" to see a more complete example in context.

[Guinastasia]

Okay, now some of them aren't showing up -- mine included. WTF?

[Crazyhorse]

Originally Posted by Guinastasia

Okay, now some of them aren't showing up -- mine included. WTF?

I noticed that the CGI wasn't responding for a few minutes and now it seems to be again. I think occasionally ntucker's server might be busy doing something else - rebooting or doing a backup or something. During times the CGI doesn't respond, custom avatars you've entered manually still work, but automatically getting them from user's profiles doesn't.

This happened a few days ago and ntucker was pretty sure the script wasn't overloading his server, but it was already working again by then so I don't know if he investigated any other possible causes.

[Sister Vigilante]

It works!

Now off to find an avatar.

Thanks to all who put this together and it made it easy enough for a 5 year old to install.

[spinky]

Originally Posted by Crazyhorse

I noticed that the CGI wasn't responding for a few minutes and now it seems to be again. I think occasionally ntucker's server might be busy doing something else - rebooting or doing a backup or something. During times the CGI doesn't respond, custom avatars you've entered manually still work, but automatically getting them from user's profiles doesn't.

This happened a few days ago and ntucker was pretty sure the script wasn't overloading his server, but it was already working again by then so I don't know if he investigated any other possible causes.

That was actually me dorking with the configuration this time; sorry for the inconvenience. I upgraded some software on my server and hosed up fastcgi for a few minutes (twice). All should be good now.

[Guinastasia]

Can we have a "Make me an avatar" thread? That way we keep it all confined to one thread, and then all the dire predictions of endless comments of peoples' avatars derailing threads won't happen.

[Crazyhorse]

That is probably a good idea. I don't know if it should go in ATMB because it isn't about debating the avatar issue, but just discussion of the user script - which I guess would be MPSIMS. But it is related to using the board so it's anyone's call.

[Drunky Smurf]

Originally Posted by ntucker

Situations like that are the reason that this is a highly imperfect solution. If you really want avatars for real without hackery or weird exceptions, lobby the board administration, who will continue to display their regard for their customers' wishes as they see fit.

Oh well. It is what it is.

Originally Posted by jackdavinci

Drunky Smurf, you are one of the few users whose username already conjured up the same clear image you ended up using as your avatar in my head, making it almost superfluous

That toy was one of the reasons I changed my username.

[Drunky Smurf]

Yea! I can see avatars now. ( At home anyways.)

I do have one question. When I went to install the script and said ok to Chrome a little box popped up asking to install and that little box also said something like "Add SDMB Avatars? It can access: Your data on all websites."

So whats that mean? You guys better not be going to my porn sites and stealing my passwords.

[Crazyhorse]

Originally Posted by Drunky Smurf

Yea! I can see avatars now. ( At home anyways.)

I do have one question. When I went to install the script and said ok to Chrome a little box popped up asking to install and that little box also said something like "Add SDMB Avatars? It can access: Your data on all websites."

So whats that mean? You guys better not be going to my porn sites and stealing my passwords.

Damn you found us out.

It is an attention grabbing alert box, and it has a good reason to exist but this script is open-source, human-readable, and isn't up to any shenanigans. Here is a discussion on the google forums about it. (there are probably more but this was the first to come up in a search). The alert is displayed for any user script that changes the contents of the web pages you view. In this case the SDMB Avatar script only becomes active when viewing pages in the directory 'sdmb' on this website. You can see this at the top of the script:
"@include http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/*"

So unless you're stashing your porn on the SDMB you're safe.

(and even if you were it would be impossible to steal it with this particular script and any attempt to do so would be visible to all in the source code).

Depending on the extension you install, the extension might need legitimate access to various things to carry out its purpose. For example, if you see the message that the extension can have access to "your private data on all websites," this usually means that the extension is inserting content scripts into a page. Content scripts are used to make changes to what's being shown on a page. An extension for blocking ads is one such example since it needs to modify the execution of the page to not show ads. In this case, this ability to modify page content brings you a desired functionality. However, this same ability means the extension can have the ability to read information submitted on the page, which includes private data. This is not to say it's going to do this or do something malicious with it, but it *can* if the extension author is ill-intentioned and built his extension specifically for this purpose. This is why we always advise users to only download extensions from authors they know and trust (they have great reviews, have a lot of users, good reputation, etc).

[Nzinga, Seated]

I was anti-avi. I hate smilies, so I thought I would hate avatars. Turns out, I don't. But when I tried to link an avatar from my flickr, it doesn't work.

[Crazyhorse]

Originally Posted by Nzinga, Seated

I was anti-avi. I hate smilies, so I thought I would hate avatars. Turns out, I don't. But when I tried to link an avatar from my flickr, it doesn't work.

I see your built-in avatar, but to use a different one from flickr just put the URL anywhere in your SDMB profile (under bio, location, interests, etc.) in the format:

SDMB Avatar: http://www.flickr.com/yourAvatar.jpg

It takes up to an hour for the new avatar to appear after you add or change it.

[Nzinga, Seated]

Crazyhorse, thanks for the help. I just tried again. I hope it works.

[Crazyhorse]

Originally Posted by Nzinga, Seated

Crazyhorse, thanks for the help. I just tried again. I hope it works.

You're welcome. I see the new avatar now, so it did! Happy avataring.

[jackdavinci]

Originally Posted by Crazyhorse

I see your built-in avatar, but to use a different one from flickr just put the URL anywhere in your SDMB profile (under bio, location, interests, etc.) in the format:

SDMB Avatar: http://www.flickr.com/yourAvatar.jpg

It takes up to an hour for the new avatar to appear after you add or change it.

I used one from my flickr, and I had to make sure to reference the proper file. Flickr will give you a bunch of resized options in jpg format. I would go to the size options, and pick the one that matches the original size. Open the image in a new tab, and copy that url.

[jackdavinci]

Originally Posted by Crazyhorse

Damn you found us out.

All kidding aside, I encounter this sort of thing not only in java based websites but also in apps and facebook related logins. It's often not obvious why a script or app needs certain specific permissions. I wonder how this can be mitigated.

[Measure for Measure]

CarnalK's avatar is interesting. It displays one thing on the screen, but when you save it to disk, it displays something else. Not clear how he did that.

Apropos nothing, my SDMB avatar script stopped working today. So I uninstalled it. I had only tried it out of solidarity with those who had to view my hideous animated avatar, now removed.

[Crazyhorse]

Originally Posted by Measure for Measure

CarnalK's avatar is interesting. It displays one thing on the screen, but when you save it to disk, it displays something else. Not clear how he did that.

Apropos nothing, my SDMB avatar script stopped working today. So I uninstalled it. I had only tried it out of solidarity with those who had to view my hideous animated avatar, now removed.

It looks like CarnalK has their avatar hosted on a site that doesn't allow image linking. If you go to the URL in their profile the image loads, but their avatar displays as a 'freepages' notice that remote image linking isn't allowed. There are dozens of sites that not only allow but specialize in remote image linking.

Your animated avatar wouldn't bother anyone who doesn't want to see it. That's the beauty of choice.

I haven't noticed any problems with avatars loading today but occasionally the server goes down for short times and comes right back. You probably just hit one of those times.

[Crazyhorse]

Originally Posted by jackdavinci

All kidding aside, I encounter this sort of thing not only in java based websites but also in apps and facebook related logins. It's often not obvious why a script or app needs certain specific permissions. I wonder how this can be mitigated.

With user script installation it's good to have a notice that you're installing something that changes the behavior of the browser. Otherwise without any message, and one-click installation possible a malicious script could be installed without permission by just clicking any link on the web. They need to at least ask 'Are you sure you want to install a user script?', and at that point they might as well mention there are possible security considerations if you have a malicious script. But without a human reading it and determining what it does there isn't any way they can say that it is or isn't malicious but just to be aware that it could be.

Unlike facebook apps and whatnot, scripts are wide open and able to be read by everyone. The SDMB Avatar script is simple and even non-programmers can pretty much understand what it does by just reading it. Anyone with even a modicum of scripting knowledge can quickly determine it is safe. So a malicious user script is possible but it won't make it very far due to that transparency in the code. What goes on behind the scenes at Facebook is another question.

[elmwood]

Imgur (http://www.imgur.com) is a fairly reliable image upload/remote hosting service that doesn't require an account. It's the go-to image host for Reddit users.

EDIT: I found one bug with the script. Links to images on other vBulletin-based message boards will display as images.

[Drunky Smurf]

Originally Posted by Crazyhorse

Damn you found us out.

I wasn't really worried about it since it was made by SDMBers and I did read the script just becasue I wanted to see if I remembered any info from high school when we made scripts for our calculaters back in '95. A couple things looked familiar.

[Crazyhorse]

Originally Posted by elmwood

EDIT: I found one bug with the script. Links to images on other vBulletin-based message boards will display as images.

Do you mean "will display as images [other than those that were linked to]"?

Normally you'd want images to display as images, but I'm guessing you mean they return some "remote image linking not allowed" image, which is understandable. Other than sites specifically intended for linking to images most others don't appreciate it. It uses their bandwidth without increasing direct visitors to their sites.

[Measure for Measure]

Originally Posted by Crazyhorse

It is an attention grabbing alert box, and it has a good reason to exist but this script is open-source, human-readable, and isn't up to any shenanigans. ...

(and even if you were it would be impossible to steal it with this particular script and any attempt to do so would be visible to all in the source code).

I noticed my installation was set to automatic update. That could represent an intriguing point of attack for crims from foreign lands and bridge dwellers at home with a habit of breaking into less than airtight servers. Of course they would presumably be attracted to distributed code with a larger set of users.

[Crazyhorse]

Originally Posted by Measure for Measure

I noticed my installation was set to automatic update.

I don't know what you mean exactly. It may be that your browser was offering you an automatic update. From what I've seen so far when installing SDMB Avatars in Chrome you get a message that you are installing a user script and in FF you get a message that you are installing a user script. Userscripts.org does have a means of offering automatic updates of user scripts but the SDMB script doesn't make use of it.

That could represent an intriguing point of attack for crims from foreign lands and bridge dwellers at home with a habit of breaking into less than airtight servers. Of course they would presumably be attracted to distributed code with a larger set of users.

Depending on what you mean, well I don't know what you mean so I can't really address this concern. Individual users going to a link specifically to get a user script probably won't worry too much about the security alert but I don't see how it presents an opportunity for 'attack' beyond any that exists in the nature of using computers and the internet in general.

[Measure for Measure]

Originally Posted by Crazyhorse

Userscripts.org does have a means of offering automatic updates of user scripts but the SDMB script doesn't make use of it.

Ok. I don't know whether that setting could be changed or not.

By default Greasemonkey enables automatic checking for updates of scripts and automatic installation of the same. Here are some screen grabs:
http://wm40.inbox.com/thumbs/5b_130b...1_oP.png.thumb
Those options can be unchecked. I see that there's a box that says "Require secure updates".

Frankly, I'm unfamiliar with all of this.

[Crazyhorse]

Originally Posted by Measure for Measure

Ok. I don't know whether that setting could be changed or not.

By default Greasemonkey enables automatic checking for updates of scripts and automatic installation of the same. Here are some screen grabs:
http://wm40.inbox.com/thumbs/5b_130b...1_oP.png.thumb
Those options can be unchecked. I see that there's a box that says "Require secure updates".

Frankly, I'm unfamiliar with all of this.

Ah, I thought you were describing an alert message you received while installing the SDMB script. That is a setting within Greasemonkey itself. Even though GM has a feature to make it easy to do, the script itself still needs to be written with auto-updating in mind, at least as far as I can tell from this blog post about the feature.

[Sister Vigilante]

This is looking great for me at home. Can't do it at work but that's okay. Welcome to the 21st century, SDMB (even if done by haxxing and not adminning).

[Crazyhorse]

An updated version of the SDMB Avatar script is available here.

This release includes 2 new optional features:

1. Ability to specify a default avatar to display for all posters that don't have an avatar specified.

2. Ability to set an avatar to display for any poster who has been banned.

Thanks to cmyk for the feature requests, and ntucker for doing most of the work. They are both good ideas (personally I prefer not to have a default avatar for all users without avatars, but I did set up a 'banned' avatar for banned posters.)

This screenshot demonstrates the new features in use. It shows, in order of appearance, a poster with no avatar specified displaying a 'default' avatar, a poster who has added the 'SDMB Avatar' line to their profile, a banned poster, and a poster with a built-in profile avatar.

Additionally the comments have been cleaned up and instructions have been added for using these new features. There is no need to get the updated version unless you want to make use of these new features.

[elmwood]

Originally Posted by Crazyhorse

Do you mean "will display as images [other than those that were linked to]"?

I mean links to images using the URL tag on other message boards; e.g. not the SDMB. Images linked with [url](image URL)[/url] will display as images, not remain as links to those images.

The script should not have any affect on sites other than the SDMB, but it does. This can be a problem because most sites have a one-click NSFW policy, rather than the two-click rule of the SDMB.

[elmwood]

EDIT: It's the SDMB inline image script that has the problem.

[Yookeroo]

This script has stopped working. The page endlessly loads and no avatars. I'm in Firefox on a Mac.

[Tangent]

Still working for me in both Chrome and Firefox on PC.

[Crazyhorse]

They are working fine for me too. Occasionally the CGI stops responding for short times but it's usually back within minutes. During those times avatars linked from user's profiles don't load but custom-assigned avatars, default avatars and banned user avatars still do.

I PM'ed ntucker with some details about the occasional outages and he said he would look into it and do some logging on the server to see if he could identify any problem there. That was several days ago and I haven't noticed any outages in recent days.

[Crazyhorse]

Originally Posted by Crazyhorse

An updated version of the SDMB Avatar script is available here.

This release includes 2 new optional features:

It just came to my attention that I included a typo in the latest release that would case the custom-assigned avatars to fail. There is now a corrected copy at the link above, or to fix it directly just make the following edit to your existing script:

if(username in CustomAvatars)             imageurl = customavatars[username];

Should be changed to:

if(username in CustomAvatars)             imageurl = CustomAvatars[username];

"customavatars" should be changed to "CustomAvatars"

Sorry about that.

[MsWhatsit]

Dude. This script rules. Avatars! At last!

Would it be possible to break this out into its own thread, or rename the current thread (something like "Want avatars? Here's a script" or something) because I've been avoiding this thread on the grounds that I am tired unto death of the ongoing avatars/no avatars fight.

[Irishman]

I would suggest a new thread, with link backs.

[PlainJain]

I'll start one.

[Crazyhorse]

I think it's a good idea. I wasn't sure if it should be an ATMB thread or not. PlainJain if you start one up I will add a post with all the details (installing, configuring, etc.) one time in that thread too.

It might be a good idea to specify in the OP that the new thread is for discussion of the SDMB Avatar script and not for debating the merits of avatars in general or asking TPTB to enable them board-wide.

[PlainJain]

Link to new thread.

I thought since this wasn't about a board feature it should go in MPSIMP.

[Crazyhorse]

Perfect thank you. I added a little info to that thread.

[Full Tilt Boogie]

Originally Posted by DrFidelius

Because we are a group of conservative old farts who miss the wild and woolly days of USENet.

We know people by their ideas and spelling skills, and not on what picture they can find to put up next to their names.

That's if they can be bothered to stay here because in asking for small 'nice-to-have' features, they run the risk of interrupting the sleep of the ruling clique?

So the regime here's not yet caught on to the fact that people remember/respond to visual stimulus more readily that written? And then having the temerity to ask them to pay for same?

Impressive. Although not a way to grow the board's membership. Quite the opposite.

[Vinyl Turnip]

How's your board doing?

[Full Tilt Boogie]

Originally Posted by Vinyl Turnip

How's your board doing?

So I guess answering the question was/is too hard? OK.

Ignoring your juvenile crassness, mine's a free board merely for a handful of friends who are geographically dispersed gloablly (we don't prevent others joining - however neither we don't actively seek out new members).

And besides, we now FB which is has made it easier to get together.

Oh, and both allow free avatars.

Let me know when you have a point.

[Vinyl Turnip]

Originally Posted by Full Tilt Boogie

So I guess answering the question was/is too hard?

The questions weren't really addressed to me personally, and were more a series of snide comments with question marks at the end than actual questions. So I just added my own.

[Full Tilt Boogie]

Originally Posted by Vinyl Turnip

The questions weren't really addressed to me personally, and were more a series of snide comments with question marks at the end than actual questions. So I just added my own.

And yet you reacted as if personally slighted.

Stultifying. Like I said, so let me know when you have a point.

[Drunky Smurf]

Originally Posted by Full Tilt Boogie

So I guess answering the question was/is too hard? OK.

Your question has been answered in this thread if you had read it.

Your question about this issue, which you asked, in another thread was also answered before you came to this thread to reask the question.

[Colibri]

Originally Posted by Full Tilt Boogie

Ignoring your juvenile crassness . . .

Let me know when you have a point.

Moderator Note

Full Tilt Boogie, ATMB is for discussing board policy, not for engaging in bickering with other posters. Dial back on the snark. No warning issued.

This goes for everyone.

Colibri
Moderator

[Yookeroo]

Originally Posted by Full Tilt Boogie

So the regime here's not yet caught on to the fact that people remember/respond to visual stimulus more readily that written? And then having the temerity to ask them to pay for same?

These are the same people who think that not allowing your location/post count to be visible (only paying members' info is visible) will be incentive for the non-payers to pay up. When the ability to see everyone's location/post count is the real incentive. I don't care whether my own location is visible to others, I do care where others may be posting from (it can provide valuable context). Their thinking isn't always clear when it comes to this stuff.