That frame is smaller than the others in the series.
A small, and I do mean small, picture of a man with his mouth open is inappropriate? On my screen it was a little smaller than the image before it. About 3x4 inches. The picture of Ted Kennedy on the front of CNN.com is about as frightening. So either I have a stronger constitution than I thought or you are way more outraged than is warranted.
I don’t know if you ever saw any of those jack in the box links that the rule was made against. Usually a friend would say “turn up the volume there is something wrong with the sound” then a monster would jump into the picture screaming. This was not one of those.
And the word “intended” is right in the rule. Must be important.
ETA: Elmwood go ahead and take any further replies. It’s your link. I didn’t see anything wrong with it but thats just my opinion.
… the few who both think that avatars are so horribly distracting, and are too lazy to turn them off in the user control panel.
Ok, I realize this probably won’t be decided by vote, but for anyone who’s interested, here is the tally of votes so far, as best as I can determine**:
No Avatars under any conditions: 60 votes
No avatars preferred, but if they are allowed, they must be limited in some way: 8 votes
Avatars ok if limited in some way: 15 votes
Avatars preferred: 13 votes
Don’t care: 3 votes
** It wasn’t clear what the user was voting in all cases. Some seemed to argue for avatars, but never explicitly voted yes. Several people had multiple posts and it’s possible I counted a couple twice, or missed one, but I think I got them all.
You don’t think that was intended to annoy?
It was not small on mine, it was large. This points up a problem that seems to crop up in discussions of pop-ups. Different users really do seem to have not only different impressions and judgments of what is appropriate, but different physical pop-up sizes, speeds, frequencies. I have been accused before of being overly sensitive about these things only to gradually realize further down the page we are talking about apples and oranges. I give them the benefit of the doubt they are not saying something is small when it is really large. By the same token, you can believe me when I tell you mine was large, and so, mildly shocking and appallingly inappropriate for work.
In any case, did elmwood “check with a staff member first” before posting that link, as the FAQ suggests?
The only other avatarless “intellectual” general interest venue I can think of is Noise Level Zero (really a BBS, since it’s only usable through Telnet). The Well and Noise Level Zero are considered shrinking backwaters on the Internet; important in their day, but now no longer on the radar screen for most online.
There’s only a few avatar-less message boards I’ve stumbled across: Webmaster World, Silent PC Review, Urban75, and the holdouts still running Matt’s WWWBoard. There’s also mailing lists, but even there one will still encounter “clutter” like HTML-formatted mail, attached images, vCards, and the like.
The truth is that there really aren’t many general discussion forums out there, compared to forums dealing with more specific subjects. Here’s what I’ve found from some searching:
-
Unaboard, of course, which has a strong intellectual/creative bent – perhaps more so than the SDMB – yet which still permits avatars.
-
Science Forums is really more of a general interest message board, and avatars are a common sight.
-
SciForums also functions as an intelligent general-interest site. Some users have low-key avatars.
-
MBTI Central: General interest with a psychological twist. Small, but fairly intelligent discussion. Avatars? Yup; kind of big for my taste, but they’re there.
-
Something Awful isn’t what I’d call “intellectual”, but it definitely contains more intelligent discussion than many message boards out there. The bulk of “lulz” immaturity tends to be limited to a few “ironic” subforums intended for that purpose. Avatars? Yup, and often quite obnoxious too, but it doesn’t seem to have an effect on threads like this or this.
FWIW, here’s a typical thread on a teen board. Do people really think the SDMB will turn into this if avatars were introduced?
… double post. see below
No I think it was intended to be a funny representation of those who for some reason feel violently opposed to the idea.
We must be reading two different things. The FAQ states “If you’re going to post a link to that site” meaning the specific jack in the box site I mentioned before. Or if you are going to link to a similar site. That did not happen here. Just my opinion of course.
I’ll take your word for it if you tell me how big it was on your screen. From where I’m sitting 3 inches is not big.
This is simply ridiculous. “appallingly inappropriate”? It’s just a close up picture of some guy. What adjectives do you have saved up for surprise links to shemale bestiality porn? Sorry, you are definitely overly sensitive about this, apples and oranges ain’t going to explain it away.
Maybe elmwood should calm down a little on hammering the “You can turn them off!!” point, people are getting touchy, but I would imagine that a guy who runs an intelligent forum with avatars would be getting a little frustrated with all the doomsday predictions.
But seriously, can someone give me a non-SDMB example of no-avatars=intelligent conversation?
And by the way this was your quote. Since it is part of the same animated GIF I guarantee that it all of a sudden does not get very large. The second picture is smaller than the first, regardless of where you are viewing.
Now I’m having flashbacks on that Capital One credit-card ad: “And I want a picture of kittens!”
(FWIW, my vote is “avatars are OK if limited to reasonably small and inobtrusive (i.e. no animations)”)
War kittens?
Viking kittens. With horned helmets. Oh, anda funky moose.
Seriously, I can see a value (in the same way that icons are useful over text links) for avatars as quick visual reference of who said what. But I’m talking 4KB, 5x50 minimally intrusive ones. And only on condition that we get clear confirmation that there will be no present or anticipatible future drag on board performance.
Otherwise, they’re an unnecessary gimmick. That will open the door to oversize signature pictures that take a week to load and crash some computers’ Internet connections. With dancing hippos and LOLcats. Becuz U gotta B az 1337 az other bordz.
Kthxbai.
:rolleyes:
That was funny the first time. Now, not so much. Entertain me, sir!
No, because it is not a “jack-in-the-box” link or shock site.
Mark Ryle,
I don’t get where you’re coming from concerning elmwood’s animated gif. It is not even in the same league as the “jack-in-the-box” scare flash videos. While the image of a man (only an image, mind you, and rather whimsical pic at that) yelling was certainly unpredictable, it’s painfully clear elmwood did not set out to purposefully startle anyone. I showed it to my very sensitive 5 year old son, and he didn’t even flinch. In fact, he kind of smiled.
To report that post is laughable, IMHO.
To that end, we’re talking about avatars fer cryin’ out loud. Avatars! A small, square picture. Let’s all take a deep breath!
Since we’re tallying votes, I’ll vote Yea for avatars, but Nay on animated ones, which I find horribly distracting and annoying.
Even awesome ones like this?
(disclaimer: I don’t like animated avatars either, and don’t allow them on my own messageboard, but hey, when in Rome…)
I’ve read the entire thread, I didn’t see a lot violent opposition. I did see the vast majority opposing avitars.
By the “exaggerated” (elmwood’s word) “funny representation” I assume you mean mocking? Which of course can be annoying.