Avatar not specified, but I get one in the grease monkey script

About This Message Board
221

As noted already that was under different circumstances and was a different request being made to Arnold. His opinion is valued in this new context but no longer required.

He has every right not to participate in an avatar system and to decline to make any changes to his gallery in order to accommodate avatar users. He has a right to ask people not to visit the site which is all avatar users are doing, but it doesn’t make a lot of sense to host it and ask people not to visit it.

I do respect Arnold’s request not to directly incorporate the image gallery into the script out of a courtesy to him for doing something nice for the Dope before avatars were available. And as I have posted those images amount to about 40 or 50 active users out of over 1800 avatars since most people who wanted to share a gallery image are also into avatars and have already specified something other than their gallery image to use. Unfortunately the horses are somewhat out of the barn at this point because it took almost 2 months to get a reply and the code has already been complete and in use for weeks. Not wanting to cause any traffic to his site that he doesn’t want(despite this again being somewhat contradictory in that it is hosted in order to allow people to visit it) I will work on some ideas and beg for more help from spinky to yet again modify the script when time permits.

However, the script will not be prevented from locating images on the web in general searches, and web archives, or any other legitimate means, and those results may include gallery images if they are available anywhere on the web. If they are available to casual users surfing the internet, they are also available to casual users looking for avatars to display next to posters names, and it isn’t directly “incorporating” the image gallery into the script to stumble upon an image and provide a link to it.

The SDMB Avatar Script :trade_mark: may at any time, now or in the future, locate any image, anywhere on the internet to suggest to users as a given poster’s avatar. This may include images from the image gallery or elsewhere, but direct links to the image gallery won’t be saved in the public copy of the userscript as a courtesy to Arnold.

Despite it not being necessary, and with no promises it will be continued, since the beginning all posters here have had the option to opt-out of having images presented to avatar users automatically by several different mechanisms. These work whether that image is hosted at the portrait gallery or anywhere else. They have already been discussed here and are also available in the proper avatar script thread. I suggest anyone interested enough in avatars read them, and use them if desired.

222

If you use the avatar script and would like to make feature suggestions please use the official script thread as I may or may not always check this one.

223

I sent you a PM but decided to answer here too for the benefit of anyone else attempting to figure out cumbersome schemes to opt-out of the default avatar suggestion instead of just reading the instructions about how to do so.

There is no need to vandalize your profile picture with white boxes or construct ugly URL’s in an attempt to accomplish this. All you need to do is add “SDMB Avatar: none” to your user profile. That’s it. Optionally you can specify a path to an avatar there of course - but if you want nothing at all, “none” is all you need.

224

Crazyhorse, I applaud you for taking the considerable time and effort to develop and maintain an independent script to provide an avatar feature for board members who wish to view avatars. I do realize you have put a lot of consideration into this script, both for ease of installation, and to accommodate the preferences of those who do not wish to participate.

What I see as a minor issue (it’s not a huge deal to me, but it is to some of the others posting here) is how the avatar system could be representing people. There is a difference between the following:

a) As a poster, I decide I wish to select an avatar to represent me. I pick one and link it.

b) As a script user, Crazyhorse (or any individual) decides he wishes to view an avatar for me, and picks an image and puts it in a script he runs for his own viewing.

c) As a script writer, Crazyhorse elects to supply an avatar for me to all users of the script, without any indication this is his selection rather than mine. Even if they can override the script manually themselves. Even if the selection is automated.

The difference, as has been pointed out by other posters like Chronos (and some of your script users) is one of presentation. An avatar as used in most places is a primarily a presentation that a poster chooses to represent himself. It indicates something about his personality and identity. A board reader assigned avatar is one step removed, but it allows the individual reader to assign their own choice based upon some aspect of the personality they wish to identify.

But a script selected avatar appears to the individual user no differently than a poster-selected avatar. Thus, it appears that I, as a poster, have chosen to say something about myself when in fact I have not. Because the user is not selecting the image, he is not aware the statement is not my statement, but Crazyhorse’s statement about me.

For me, if this feature were reimplemented, having a way to differentiate between poster-self-selected avatars and code/Crazyhorse selected avatars should be included. That is one thing that would reduce much of the negative reaction, I think.

The second set of objections appears to be about source material for the automated selection of avatars. Just how wide-ranging is the search to find something associated with “Irishman”? Just how connected to me is this search? You mention looking at Facebook, for instance. Now I expect that in order for that to work, there either needs to be a post by me linking to my Facebook, or else a post on my Facebook where I describe a picture of me as “Irishman”, probably mentioning SDMB. Because otherwise how would the search feature detect my identity on Facebook and link it. But that is where it gets mushy.

Another possibility: suppose I do not post any pics or links myself. However, I attend an SDMB gathering. Someone there takes a group photo to commemorate the event. Then that person posts a link to the group photo, and identifies the folks in the image. Now that is one post buried on a board where my identity is visually recognizable, not posted by me, there but not easy to find.

Except your script comes along, digs it out, and recommends it to everyone as my avatar. Now despite any reasonable efforts on my part to keep my physical identity separate from my board identity, there’s a photo of me associated by my name for anyone who reads the avatar script and installs the plugin.

I realize this is getting far beyond the ability of one script-writer to control, that this is an inherent feature of the internet that we are all still learning and adapting to. But it is surfacing here.

Now, given that I am aware of this possibility, I see that you have built in a feature that can assist me. It is to put an avatar link in my profile that does not resolve. By doing that simple line, I can prevent this feature from working if it is ever reimplemented, assuming that you remain as considerate enough to allow this work around.

It still seems to me the feature that is generating the most hassle is the step where you go from providing people the way to post their own avatar (for themselves or to assign one to other posters for their own use) and having the code go looking for avatars to supply.

To make the script writer aware of the distinction, because he appears not to be, and hope that his goodwill will then prevail? That an unforseen consequence of his action has arisen, so he can take it into consideration?

The difference is that those are clearly labeled as pictures that you, spinky, has decided is correlated with me. It is not presented as something that me, Irishman, wishes to have as the first thing people think about me when they see my post.

225

This is a very rational and well worded response and I will give it the time that it deserves and a more complete reply when I’m off work, but I wanted to address this one point right away because it keeps coming up:

The script users actually do have a way to see that the suggested avatar was not self-selected by that poster (if and when the feature ever returns as an option for script users) If someone has “SDMB Avatar: …” in their profile that is what will be used. If they have an image uploaded to their SDMB profile directly, that is what will be used, and for a short time until spinky and I work out the best way to handle Arnold’s request, if they have an image uploaded to the SDMB gallery, that is what would be used. If none of those things exist, and there is still an avatar it has been suggested by the script and wasn’t selected by the poster. (although I know of at least a couple who said they were going to just leave that as their avatar and liked it - so there may be some who found their default avatar was to their liking and kept it without making any modifications to their profiles) And this is all beyond the general fact that if someone has installed a script to see avatars they, without any input from various posters, already know an image that is presented may or may not be related to or selected by that poster without need to even try to determine if it was which they can do if they want.

On the privacy issue I would agree if the image was named by that persons real name and not their user id (or if their user id is their real name in which case the cat is out of the bag anyway) but if it is just a photo with no identifying information it isn’t connecting a real life identity to a username, just a real life appearance. However that is a point that is worthy of further thought if and when such a feature is enabled again.

226

All of which could have been avoided if the PTB would have turned on the avatar feature. It can be set not to show them as a default. Anyone interest not participating does… Nothing! Those that enjoy avatars could choose to show them. The posters not participating would have no random image chosen for them.

In my opinion, it was silly to oppose something that would have no effect on your board experience.

.

227

I tend to agree with this to a point but don’t want to look at it like “if only they had listened…” because in fact the userscript is a lot better than the built-avatars ever could be.

With the scripted version everyone still has the option to opt in or opt out, but the built-in version doesn’t have any way to assign custom avatars, show one users avatar but not another, choose images that are either bigger, smaller, or in a format that built-in avatars doesn’'t support, etc.

If TPTB enabled built-in avatars I would definitely have one, but I would continue to use the script to see them to have all those additional features.

228

I was looking for instructions in how to install the script. I wanted to see it working so I was more informed about it.

229

What I mean is that it is not immediately obvious, not that it can’t be figured out with some digging. Because does the script user think to check that out for every avatar they see?

Except the step of installing the script to run is separate from the step of setting up an avatar for the script to use. Typically, avatars are poster self-selected. The ability for the user to assign an avatar does not dismiss the expectation that default avatars are poster-selected.

Except my face is, itself, a connection to my real life identity, not just a connection to my presence at an event. The connection to my username comes via the person who posted the picture labeling my username along with the others.

230

I would guess about 50-100 of such images came from dopefests, most were actual posters saying “this is me and this is my username and here is my photo and I would like to share it with you”. In the Dopefest threads the question has come up several times where mods answered “of course you can post these photos but please only with usernames and not RL names” - I understand the perception that in one case they are in a dark, musty corner of the web somewhere and in another they are selected and presented to avatar users, however I tend to disagree and maintain there is no dark, musty corner of the internet since it is indexed and re-published by google, web archive, etc. So it amounts to doing a quick google search on behalf of an avatar user not mining for secret and hard to find information. Still though, one of the best points that has been made about possible unintended consequences of this feature and worthy of some thought.

231

and the built in system has no method of pissing off as many people as the custom script so easily, so the custom script really does have a lot more features

232

For version 2 I’m working on a way to opt-out of being pissed off.

Anyway don’t be so sure, any mention of avatars by TPTB or otherwise, pro or con, always pisses a lot of people off it’s just more customizable outrage with a user script. :slight_smile:

233

You should call it the “outrage” option where you auto-assign avatars

SDMB Avatar -outrage

234

I agree that the userscript is better. Much better. Upthread a poster bemoaned ‘I don’t want to look a pictures when I’m reading’. Neither do I - when I’m reading a book. But that’s one voice. I don’t have to keep up with who’s opinion is being voiced. There are thousands of posters here each with their own voice and opinion. Since I’ve been using the script (with avatars selected) I find reading is much clearer and enjoyable.

My response (aimed at the naysayers in general, but spurred by Irishman’s post in particular) wasn’t intended as a “if they had only listened” but reading back on it I can see how it reads that way. But some of the expectations expressed here boggle the mind.

If a poster here expresses an opinion in GQ that I think is wrong, I can’t call him or her an idiot. Their board, their rules. But I can go to Facebook and say ‘poster X at the SDMB sure is an idiot’. They might not like it but it’s a different part of the Internet they have no control over. Similar for the script. I’m using it off board for my own purposes. Some people might not like that and I’m not trying to offend anyone but that’s here we’re at.

235

Remember we’re talking about a third-party, non-sanctioned, YMMV, yada yada, script that was implemented in order to have avatars where they officially don’t otherwise exist. The definition of what an avatar means and conveys is a little bit more flexible in that environment and I think most script users understand that.

Instead of ‘SDMB Avatars’ if the script were known as the “SDMB crazy photo game”, those who weren’t interested in playing it just wouldn’t give it a second thought - it would never even occur to anyone to be bothered if some add-on game that some users were playing on the boards happened to take images from the web that seem applicable to various usernames and displayed them on the screen for some purpose of gameplay. But call it ‘avatars’ and people get all worked up about what those images might reflect about them if they aren’t playing the game but are aware that others are.

Users and non-users of the script can choose what image they want to display as per item A above. All users always have the ability to set their own choice for someone else despite this, as in B above, and with the added feature a few of those who had clearly indicated they wanted to share a photo with the boards, step C was applied.

I thought users of the script would pretty much all realize those in category C were for placeholder/entertainment purposes only, but you are right that the indications that these were assigned avatars were not clear to all script users even though they really are obvious to anyone interested in knowing. The feature should have been optional and it should have been better communicated. When it returns it will definitely be optional. Script users will probably be able to choose from a variety of choices for what avatars to load like ‘totally random avatars’, ‘photos from SDMB posts’, ‘wild and wacky web searches’, ‘Dopefest galleries’, etc. In those cases it will be clear to all who use them what they are seeing.

All of those objections were based on not having any idea how the process works and stating their imaginings about some idiotic random google search that just returned the first thing it found blindly as if that is what it must be doing. But it isn’t.

The way it selects avatar suggestions is as accurate as it can be for the purpose it is intended without being intrusive. People here share a ton of personal information and it could easily find a bunch of facebook accounts or otherwise just from profile text without even considering posts. While such a process could be completely automated I would probably never want to do that and doubt that script users would have much interest in seeing sometimes totally inaccurate and sometimes intrusive and far-too-accurate results. Each avatar suggestion is for the most part a photo of the poster that they shared, a photo of a pet or thing of interest to them that they shared, or something of interest to them that they linked to, all things that one might select as an avatar. It followed an order starting with the lowest hanging fruit (i.e. the least work for me in double-checking things) so dopefest photos were naturally up on the list of known-accurate images.

The huge majority came from years and years of picture threads here. Starved for a way to share images reflecting ourselves and our interests like avatars and inline images provide, the visually-oriented among us have shared a lot of links to such images over the years in threads, and the script just grabbed them and offered me suggestions which I then allowed or didn’t depending on various factors. These factors included my own opinion of whether the poster might not appreciate it being used even though they had posted it, and whether or not it was something I wanted to see as an avatar for them.

236

Besides that, the exact same problem would exist if built-in avatars were enabled. Some would use them and some wouldn’t. The ones who did would say things like “hey nice avatar” and the one’s who didn’t would say “what, what’s his avatar?” and that they didn’t like or use avatars but as long as people were talking about them they had a right to complain about someone else’s avatar. And then someone would write a script that allowed you to assign your own avatar if you don’t like someone else’s or they don’t have one, and we would be right back in here.

The problem isn’t avatars.

237

As this message board’s Wholly Unofficial Avatar Policy Manager, Crazyhorse has receive a fair amount of flak in this and other threads. While he shoulders a mighty burden, one might ponder for a moment the narrowness of his responsibilities, in a purely relative sense, to that of the volunteer mods. In other words all of this quasi-rational avatar drama is but a thimble in the SDMB’s vast ocean of ATMB butthurt.

Pretty much.

I’ll be interested in learning the extent to which this helps allay concerns.

While I have the microphone
Bug report, FYI only: I’ve tried multiple times to install your script and it hasn’t worked on my machine. I haven’t contacted you, since my purpose was only to see whether I had an avatar and how it rendered. Didn’t want to waste your time. That said, I suspect I’m not the only person who has had difficulty. And yes, I’ve given the script a couple of days to work on multiple occasions. (I’ve fooled around with my flashblock installation and it hasn’t mattered. I have not explored my ad-block, avast, or other firefox extensions, security programs.) (Also, I did press the blue joy button upthread, because I hadn’t attempted an install in a couple of months and possessed a) faulty wetware memory and b) concerns about a possible change in policy. [Click, click, click, the hell? ] Obviously I didn’t double-click any .exe file.)

238

Its not likely to be antivirus software or such as userscripts just run within the browser and as far as anything external is concerned it is the browser making requests to the web as it always does anyway.

It might be some in-browser ad blocker or other setting within the browser blocking scripts but if you can view pages with javascript (like the buttons and menus here at the SDMB) that probably isn’t it. One note, earlier you mentioned you use Firefox and Chrome and in Firefox you also need the Greasemonkeyaddon. If you are using Chrome you don’t need it.

If you do have Greasemonkey or are trying with Chrome another simple thing to try is to just save the script and then drop that text file right into any open browser window. You can right-click the green install button from the userscripts website, choose ‘save link as…’ and then drop that saved file onto the browser. You should get a confirmation asking if you want to install the script.

If none of that works please post in the script thread (Want to see avatars on the SDMB? Here's a script. - About This Message Board - Straight Dope Message Board) with details about what browser, etc.

239

Thank you for the replies, Crazyhorse. I’m trying to decide if I will bother to go set a non avatar, or just ignore it. But I appreciate that you’ve put thought into the topic and attempted to accommodate the issues as best as you can.

240

Thank you Crazyhorse, you are a gentleman. In Crazyhorse’s defense, I would like to say that he did try and ask for my permission ahead of time, but this was during my “away time” period and I never answered him.