# Any chance of a forum software upgrade? **URL:** \ **Category:** About This Message Board\ **Created:** [April 24, 2015, 3:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-chance-of-a-forum-software-upgrade/718444 "2015-04-24T15:16:49Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 19\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![unwashed\_brain](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/a9adbd/32.png) [@unwashed\_brain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/unwashed_brain)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2015, 9:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-chance-of-a-forum-software-upgrade/718444/101 "2015-04-27T21:52:12Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Do conversations bore you? Are hardbound books incapable of holding your interest? > Yes, bells and whistles can be added onto pretty much any forum…and if you wanted to, you could make the letters in books glow in the dark to “enhance the experience”, or give people large rubber color-coded thumb extensions so that they “enhance” a conversation without having to actually participate in it. > Horror, hatred, fear? No, just my opinion that this board works pretty good at hosting conversations on pretty much every topic out there, just the way it is set up now. It someone could convince me(minus the histrionic name calling) how any one advancement could make the conversations here flow smoother, or make the board easier to work with. I’m open. OK - let’s start with improving an existing, opt-in feature. The implementation of the threaded conversations view only allows you to see the conversation tree through a tiny window. I’d like to be able to see much more of it without scrolling, and optimally view the content of each post within the structure of the tree. For a canonical example, see the comments to any Reddit post. Expanding the vertical size of the window that displays the conversation tree should be easy, in theory. Achieving a more standard UI for the threaded conversation view itself might be impossible in vB 3.8.7. ---
**Author:** ![Drunky\_Smurf](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/drunky_smurf/32/449_2.png) [@Drunky\_Smurf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Drunky_Smurf)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2015, 10:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-chance-of-a-forum-software-upgrade/718444/102 "2015-04-27T22:10:39Z")
> [@Amateur\_Barbarian](#): > > Facebook isn’t a forum, as much as it’s shoehorned in fifth-rate conversation-like features. > > Frankly, I don’t know what Facebook is, besides the useless knockoff Swiss Army Knife or Shopmaster of the internet. Wait, you DON’T know what Facebook is but you know it’s all these horrible evil vile things? :dubious: ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2015, 10:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-chance-of-a-forum-software-upgrade/718444/103 "2015-04-27T22:14:20Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Horror, hatred, fear? No, just my opinion that this board works pretty good at hosting conversations on pretty much every topic out there, just the way it is set up now. It someone could convince me(minus the histrionic name calling) how any one advancement could make the conversations here flow smoother, or make the board easier to work with. I’m open. I personally find that avatars help to encourage communication. They’re basically just an extension of usernames. We could, for the sake of pure and undiluted discourse, simply have every poster here use a username like “Poster #(user number)”. That would mean that it would be harder to tell each other apart; for that reason, it would be more difficult to judge a post by the poster. I’m sure everyone on here (well, everyone who posts in the Pit or in GD) has posters whom they see their name on and think “Well, here comes a whole load of bullshit.” We pre-judge, and having original usernames helps with that, to our detriment. But the opposite is also true - I’m sure most people have posters who, when they see they’ve chimed in on a thread, stop and read carefully because they want to see what that person has said. I’ll usually stop scrolling for a post by **Richard Parker** or **Bricker or Miller** , for example. Avatars are just an easier way to do that, especially if a thread devolves into uninteresting sniping. That works too for moderator actions; it’s easy to miss, even with a big bold “Moderator Note” or a \*\*clearing of the throat \*\* that a mod has chimed in. A big ol’ picture with a moderator banner or logo helps with that. On top of that - though this one is far more of a guess - I think that having avatars lends a certain level of sympathy that cold hard words don’t. Read a post, and you might as well be reading a book - nothing wrong with that, of course, but we can be predisposed to consider the written word sterile, and forget about the other people on the other end of the screen. Avatars mean personalisation. Not just in terms of recognition, but empathy, too. I’m not saying that avatars instantly make everyone kind, considerate, and helpful towards their fellow posters (because, haha). But I think they do better at representing someone in a way that’s liable to get across personality and, essentially, human existence. But hey, it doesn’t matter, it’s not going to happen. ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2015, 10:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-chance-of-a-forum-software-upgrade/718444/104 "2015-04-27T22:35:11Z")
> [@kayT](#): > > I just don’t get what can be gained by having avatars. I hear you saying it’s easier to keep track of who’s who with avatars, but I belong to another board which has them and I do not find this to be true. People change their avatars (at least on that board) often, leaving me confused. Names do get changed occasionally but not at a whim and not often. I wonder, do those of you who say it’s easier to keep track of who’s who with pictures not remember the names of people in real life, just their faces? I don’t get it. > > And I get tired of being told I’m hysterical about change just because I’m happy with things the way they are. If the concern is that from a business point of view we are not keeping up with the times, well, that’s been the case for the past ten or so years and we haven’t been fired yet. And since there is little the Dope could do without spending money, well, I suspect the powers that be are perfectly happy to indulge our little hobby as long as it doesn’t cost them anything more. It’s not so much that, as it’s the anti-avatar/change people predicting, “o noes, we’ll have sparkly gifs and tubgirl all over the place!!!” Chillax, people. If you don’t want it, fine. But don’t act like this place is going to start looking like Claire’s Accessories circa 1985. (Anyone who’s used the grease monkey script that allows avatars could actually tell you otherwise. We had ONE person use an offensive avatar – and strangely enough, it was someone who was against avatars in the first place, trying to piss people off on purpose.) Whatever. ---
**Author:** ![dzeiger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/46a35a/32.png) [@dzeiger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dzeiger)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2015, 12:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-chance-of-a-forum-software-upgrade/718444/105 "2015-04-28T00:25:00Z")
Well, I was just “zapped” again for the third time in as many days (and many other times over the past couple of weeks, after a period of a month or two when it had calmed down). Last word we got was Ed saying the problem causing it was identified as an issue that would require some sort of upgrade to fix, but that wasn’t in the cards for the foreseeable future. If the board admins are not currently able to expend the resources to fix significant usability-impacting bugs, why on earth is anyone bothering to debate about avatars? ---
**Author:** ![cmyk](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cmyk/32/3353_2.png) [@cmyk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cmyk)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2015, 2:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-chance-of-a-forum-software-upgrade/718444/106 "2015-04-28T02:10:22Z")
> [@dzeiger](#): > > Well, I was just “zapped” again for the third time in as many days (and many other times over the past couple of weeks, after a period of a month or two when it had calmed down). > > Last word we got was Ed saying the problem causing it was identified as an issue that would require some sort of upgrade to fix, but that wasn’t in the cards for the foreseeable future. > > If the board admins are not currently able to expend the resources to fix significant usability-impacting bugs, why on earth is anyone bothering to debate about avatars? Well, that’s just it, isn’t it? vB is on what now? Version 5? I’ve read it’s abysmal to upgrade to the version from vB4, let alone vB3. How long until the software is totally outmoded? Or becomes crucially incompatible with some sort of system or hardware in the future? And the powers that be don’t seem to have the resources, fortitude or the wherewithal to maintain even minor upgrades. Eventually a migration to new software will have to occur, or the ship will go down. In the mean time, some of us want avatars. ---
**Author:** ![kayT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kayt/32/3633_2.png) [@kayT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kayT)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2015, 2:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-chance-of-a-forum-software-upgrade/718444/107 "2015-04-28T02:43:57Z")
The board I visit that has avatars does not make them optional. I keep hearing that if we had them here they would be optional. My experience has made me suspicious, I guess. If it were totally optional, I’d have no problem. It does seem like there are more useful fixes to spend time on, though. And thanks to those of you who offered explanations of why you like avatars. Do people not change avatars frequently in the places you see them? because to me that counteracts all the benefits. ---
**Author:** ![cmyk](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cmyk/32/3353_2.png) [@cmyk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cmyk)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2015, 4:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-chance-of-a-forum-software-upgrade/718444/108 "2015-04-28T04:56:03Z")
> [@kayT](#): > > The board I visit that has avatars does not make them optional. I keep hearing that if we had them here they would be optional. My experience has made me suspicious, I guess. If it were totally optional, I’d have no problem. It does seem like there are more useful fixes to spend time on, though. And thanks to those of you who offered explanations of why you like avatars. Do people not change avatars frequently in the places you see them? because to me that counteracts all the benefits. There’s about 5 or 6 MBs I visit quite often, and most are very different types of communities or user bases from one another, and only very, very rarely do I see anyone change their avatars. But when it does happen, you just get used to that one. ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2015, 7:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-chance-of-a-forum-software-upgrade/718444/109 "2015-04-28T07:49:03Z")
This board has opt-in avatars. There’s a plugin available via Greasemonkey. I have an avatar. I don’t know what people are going on about. Of course, I do know what they are saying. They say: a) we want _other_ people to have avatars. Simultaneously, they stress that _Oh, we’re only calling for an option._ They are seemingly unaware of the contradiction. They already have an option. b) They say there will be no problems if avatars are introduced. Of course there _were_ in fact problems when a poster decided to make his avatar a PG-13 image of bouncing boobies. I opposed that dubious imaging, but felt it was indicative of the need for an Avatar Control Board should avatars be introduced here. We are a troll magnet after all. But let us not speak of things that have been spoken of. Much better to complain. ---
**Author:** ![Ramira](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ramira/32/344_2.png) [@Ramira](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ramira)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2015, 8:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-chance-of-a-forum-software-upgrade/718444/110 "2015-04-28T08:20:35Z")
You MfM have a very strange way of reading people. It is hard to recognize your understanding in what I read… This whole discussion does show one of the typical close minded habits of this board though. ---
**Author:** ![puzzlegal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/puzzlegal/32/3827_2.png) [@puzzlegal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/puzzlegal)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2015, 10:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-chance-of-a-forum-software-upgrade/718444/111 "2015-04-28T10:53:27Z")
I like avatars. I use them in other forums, and it makes it easier to keep track of who is saying what. And yes, I am bad with names in person, too. It’s not a huge deal, and I wouldn’t have started a thread to request it. But I have wondered why they aren’t used on this site, and I do miss them. ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2015, 1:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-chance-of-a-forum-software-upgrade/718444/112 "2015-04-28T13:31:53Z")
> [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > This board has opt-in avatars. There’s a plugin available via Greasemonkey. I have an avatar. I don’t know what people are going on about. I generally find that plugins are less than stable. They’re also not an option for those who don’t run compatible browsers. > [@](#): > > Of course, I do know what they are saying. They say: > > a) we want _other_ people to have avatars. Simultaneously, they stress that _Oh, we’re only calling for an option._ They are seemingly unaware of the contradiction. > > They already have an option. I’d prefer other people to have avatars, but I have no particular interest in forcing people to have them. So, in my case at least, you are incorrect. > [@](#): > > b) They say there will be no problems if avatars are introduced. Of course there _were_ in fact problems when a poster decided to make his avatar a PG-13 image of bouncing boobies. I opposed that dubious imaging, but felt it was indicative of the need for an Avatar Control Board should avatars be introduced here. We are a troll magnet after all. Who said there will be no problems? By all means - point them out. Or is this another example of you knowing what people are \*really \*thinking? Of course there will be problems with avatars. Just like there are problems with the written word. There are rules to cover the written word. There can be rules to cover avatars. This doesn’t really seem to be a unique threat. > [@](#): > > But let us not speak of things that have been spoken of. Much better to complain. I’ve addressed your points, now that they have been brought up. Would you care to retract your characterisation? ---
**Author:** ![cmyk](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cmyk/32/3353_2.png) [@cmyk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cmyk)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2015, 2:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-chance-of-a-forum-software-upgrade/718444/113 "2015-04-28T14:47:24Z")
> [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > This board has opt-in avatars. There’s a plugin available via Greasemonkey. I have an avatar. I don’t know what people are going on about. You could at least try to be intellectually honest about it. This board has the capability for opt-in avatars (which means, it’s a native vB feature under the User’s Control Panel, it’d be off by default, and if you want to see avatars, you’d turn that option on). That Greasemonkey script is an old script written by an old user here, whom I’m not sure is even still around, and requires you to install the Greasemonkey plugin into the browser you’re using. Then it’ll only display an avatar if the user pastes a URL to a pic somewhere on the net in your Biography field. If it doesn’t find one, it’ll see if you’ve bothered to at least upload a profile pic, and display that. But it’s not a native system, which mean’s everybody already has it, so in order for it to be remotely useful, it’d have to reach a critical mass of everybody downloading and installing these two things (wherever they are at this point), and jumping through the hoops to get theirs to display. If there isn’t, you’ll see nothing for that user, which is about \>90% of this board. It’s a solution made of duct tape and bailing wire. So no. This board does not have opt-in avatars activated for some weird reason. ---
**Author:** ![cmyk](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cmyk/32/3353_2.png) [@cmyk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cmyk)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2015, 3:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-chance-of-a-forum-software-upgrade/718444/114 "2015-04-28T15:03:26Z")
I also forgot to mention, the GM script only works for browsers that support GM. Safari is not one of them at the moment. For posterity, here’s the script: ```auto // ==UserScript== // @name SDMB Avatars // @namespace testing // @description SDMB Avatars // @include http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/* // ==/UserScript== (function() { var allNameHeaders = document.getElementsByClassName('bigusername'); for (var i = 0; i < allNameHeaders.length; i++) { var username = allNameHeaders*.href; var SplitID = username.split("u="); var userid1 = SplitID[1]; var imageurl="http://splitter.august20th.com/sdmbav.rb?userid=" + userid1; var img = new Image(); img.src = imageurl; imagewidth=img.width; if(imagewidth > 1) { var imageurl1 = ""; allNameHeaders*.innerHTML = img_html + allNameHeaders*.innerHTML; } } })(); ``` ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2015, 1:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-chance-of-a-forum-software-upgrade/718444/115 "2015-04-29T01:57:43Z")
> [@Revenant\_Threshold](#): > > I generally find that plugins are less than stable. They’re also not an option for those who don’t run compatible browsers. They work in Firefox and Chrome, which have pretty good penetration. The author of the plugin is Crazy Horse: he’s been receptive to fixes in the past. But you have to install Greasemonkey, so there’s a potential security vulnerability which I have been assured is slight. > [@](#): > > I’d prefer other people to have avatars, but I have no particular interest in forcing people to have them. So, in my case at least, you are incorrect. Cutting to the chase, participants of past discussions, who presumably are at least vaguely aware of longstanding objections to avatars, haven’t really addressed these sorts of objections. Or at least all of the major ones. I mean it’s pretty relevant that there is an avatar option, right? > [@](#): > > Who said there will be no problems? By all means - point them out. … > > Of course there will be problems with avatars. Just like there are problems with the written word. There are rules to cover the written word. There can be rules to cover avatars. This is the sort of reasonable tone that I’d prefer. > [@](#): > > This doesn’t really seem to be a unique threat. I’ve addressed your points, now that they have been brought up. Would you care to retract your characterization? I plead guilty to applying broad brush strokes, but I maintain that complaining that nothing changes here evah while ignoring longstanding objections to a policy proposal is a variant of whining. **cmck** : IIRC, there’s an option in the script to assign avatars to those who haven’t expressed an avatar option. But I also recall a lot of drama regarding that feature, so I can’t recall whether it was retracted. I don’t use it. At any rate, you’ve put your finger on a highly salient point: avatar advocates want this to be a default option, because they want others to choose avatar images for themselves. ISTM though that if they feel so passionately about this, they might put up a promotional thread, one that encouraged all users to put a link to an image in their profile. That’s the sort of constructive behavior that might precede complaints that nothing every changes here. Stating the obvious, not all avatar advocates are whiners. Crazy Horse, for example, was uniformly even tempered and highly constructive. ---
**Author:** ![Irishman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b487fb/32.png) [@Irishman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Irishman)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2015, 3:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-chance-of-a-forum-software-upgrade/718444/116 "2015-04-29T03:25:05Z")
Oh god, not the fucking Avatar argument _again_. Haven’t we beaten that dead horse into glue yet? Do we really need to do that again, here? What is that going to accomplish, other than get both sides pissed off at each other again? Can’t we just agree that both sides are big idiots and intentionally misrepresenting each other’s arguments, so we’re much better off dropping the topic, or starting a _new_ avatar thread, preferrably in GD or maybe even the Pit, but at least in a different thread so it doesn’t reek up this one? Oh wait, too late. > [@unwashed\_brain](#): > > Besides that, it lacks some features other modern discussion software offers such as simple upvotes and threaded replies. > [@LSLGuy](#): > > tldr: Threaded view doesn’t work with the style of communication most folks use here most times. > > Long form: > > As to the OP’s Q about threaded reply view … > > That view works OK _when the dominant paradigm of posters is to explicitly reply to single specific posts earlier in the thread_. > > Conversely, when one post replies to 3 or 4 earlier posts, or when a reply is simply an addition to the sum total of all posts to date, the threaded model merely confuses matters by trying to impose an automation-derived structure on what’s inherently an unstructured cluster of messages. What I came to say. Way back in the old days, I participated in boards that were branched. Then I found the SDMB, running on UBB. The nice appearance of conversations that flowed instead of every comment potentially starting a new line of conversation. So good was it, the other board I followed soon replaced their old system with one running UBB, with the same layout. One big disadvantage of that system is that, when every remark starts a new offshoot, then you end up rehashing every point a dozen times in a dozen places as each person enters the conversation in a different branch. Whereas a single threaded conversation for a topic means everyone can potentially follow the same conversation and contribute as they see fit, or jump back to a previous point and still be in the flow with the whole group. Branched comments seem to be back in vogue. I’ve noticed it in the comments systems for blogs I follow. It’s okay when you wish to make a single point at a time, but becomes tedious when you wish to make two or three points. I don’t want the board to shuffle comments by rankings - “most popular”. Talk about making the conversation hard to follow. I don’t care for clutter added for voting boxes or _likes_ whatever. I already read with signatures off because those are usually just interruptions to the conversation and the clutter makes it harder to follow unique contributions to the conversation. I don’t need a box of usernames under each post for how many people agree with a comment. This board does what it is supposed to do in the manner that seems best suited: it provides a forum for conversations that flow in words. Sure, there are probably some things that could be improvements if we had them, like inline charts and graphs, but it mostly works for what it is intended to be. It would be nice if the search feature worked without killing the servers, but whatever. ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2015, 11:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-chance-of-a-forum-software-upgrade/718444/117 "2015-04-29T11:07:04Z")
> [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > I plead guilty to applying broad brush strokes, but I maintain that complaining that nothing changes here evah while ignoring longstanding objections to a policy proposal is a variant of whining. Really, all things considered, we’re pretty much all whiners, because nothing’s actually going to change. 100% of the board wanting change would have no effect, and 100% disinterested by or actively against change wouldn’t be necessary. Thank you for being very reasonable, though! ---
**Author:** ![cmyk](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cmyk/32/3353_2.png) [@cmyk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cmyk)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2015, 3:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-chance-of-a-forum-software-upgrade/718444/118 "2015-04-29T15:11:27Z")
I thought that script was originally written by weirdaaron? Anyhow, works on only 2 browsers and does all squat for mobile. ---
**Author:** ![Drunky\_Smurf](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/drunky_smurf/32/449_2.png) [@Drunky\_Smurf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Drunky_Smurf)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2015, 4:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-chance-of-a-forum-software-upgrade/718444/119 "2015-04-29T16:03:25Z")
> [@kayT](#): > > The board I visit that has avatars does not make them optional. I keep hearing that if we had them here they would be optional. My experience has made me suspicious, I guess. If you were to actually go and look at what the opt-in option says you would not be suspicious. I copied and pasted what the board actually says about it. > [@](#): > > You have the option to show or hide various elements of messages, which may be of use to users on slow internet connections, or who want to remove extraneous clutter from posts. > Show Signatures > Show Avatars > Show Images (including attached images and images in [IMG] code) There is a check box next to the three options. You have to go and click on that box for you personally to see avatars. Every other poster but you could have that checked and have avatars but if you don’t click on that check box you would never know that because you personally would not see them [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-chance-of-a-forum-software-upgrade/718444.md?page=5)