Avatars

[BDBoop]

@GSV_Consolation_of_Dreams

Check the link in my signature for how to get round this whole ridiculous issue.

Thank you!!

[Red_Barchetta]

@No_umlaut_for_U

No avatars, please.

They are optional.

[Revenant_Threshold]

Next time this whole debate comes around, I vote that “You actively have to turn them on to see them” gets put in the thread title.

[Jimmy_Chitwood]

@elmwood

Considering this request for a Google+ button and its immediate granting, and how the resulting thread lacks the handwringing and “OMG IT’LL ATTRACT THE WRONG CROWD!!!” responses that abounded when the idea Facebook like/share button was raised, maybe #3 should ask The Powers That Be for avatars. I’d bet the response would be much different from both the SDMB staff and the Old Bearded Ones than if one of us peons made the case for them.

On the SDMB, you have to use words to impress people. Unless you’re part of the Doperatti.

There is no Google+ link at the bottom of threads. Somebody made a joke about “+1”, is all that happened (or they were mistaken). Which is pretty funny, because that thread has been completely ignored by almost everyone, including the administration; just not by you. All that about #3 and capitalized phrases hinting at some kind of patronage system, and making fun of other people’s handwringing. But nothing happened.

On-topic, as long as we’re pretending to take a vote, I wouldn’t use them but have no problem with the opt-in. Why would I - why would anybody - even have an opinion about whether somebody else can see somebody else’s avatar? As far as the people who are against this know, the change could have happened already. Nothing would be any different.

[elmwood]

@Red_Barchetta

They are optional.

It’s the smartest message board on the Internet. You don’t actually expect people here to read, do you, when they already know everything?

[shijinn]

@Red_Barchetta

They are optional.

but, they’re optional like the ignore list. if you use it you’ll have chunks missing from what other people is seeing.

[Sister_Vigilante]

I vote for avatars. I visit plenty of message boards and most of them are quite intelligent (snopes, jref forums, infidels.org). You can use your own host for your avatars, and it can be a free one like imageshack. It wouldn’t slow down this board. And people who don’t want them can opt out of seeing them. I have never seen any trouble with avatars being used as porn, insults, or whatever, on any other board and I’ve been on message boards since this site was on AOL.

Now that we have polls, let’s just have one, and really vote, and count the votes.

[Red_Barchetta]

@shijinn

but, they’re optional like the ignore list. if you use it you’ll have chunks missing from what other people is seeing.

No. If anything, it’s akin to sigs, where the content is not directly related the discussion. It is not at all like the ignore feature.

[GSV_Consolation_of_Dreams]

@elmwood

Cool!

A couple of things, though:

1. It’s a bit cumbersome to configure.
2. You choose the avatar that represents others, rather than that user choosing their own avatar.

1. True, but it’s what we avatar-loving heathens have until the No-avatars-for-anyone-and-get-off-my-lawn crowd come to their senses or die from chronic stick-up-the-ass.

2. That’s why I put a link to my avatar in my sig as well. If everyone did this, it would be very easy to add them and if you changed your picture but kept the same URL, everyone would see your new avatar too.

[Irishman]

Back when I had dial up (and a flaky phone line) it was a matter of interminable time to download pages, with or without images. Doesn’t matter if the images come from the same page or are called from elsewhere, the download time to complete is still forever. Now that I have broadband, that’s less an issue.

Sure, for those opting to turn on avatars, it will change the look of the boards a bit. But then those of us who’ve been here a while have been through several changes to the look and feel of the board. And with them defaulted off, even that is not true.

Hmmmm. Assuming it doesn’t eat up bandwidth, cause SDMB server issues, or spawn avatar wars, I wouldn’t be against trying the opt-in method.

[Fenris]

@silenus

The last major trainwreck.

Yeah, which was from 3 years ago and almost everyone had the misconceptions that

A) It would somehow slow the servers down to a crawl (that was the #1 concern)

and

B) Everyone would be forced to see them. People didn’t get that avatars are turned off by default. If you want to see them, you have to proactively make the choice to turn them on.

Since both of those are completely and totally wrong, the thread really isn’t relevant. It’s like pointing to a debate about whether the US is a monarchy or a kibbutz-style collective…since both premises are totally wrong, it’s pretty much irrelevant.

Why do you object to other people having the choice to view avatars?

[TubaDiva]

The staff is busy enough now as it is without having to vet everybody’s avatar on top of it, so on those grounds alone I would find them objectionable.

[hajario]

@TubaDiva

The staff is busy enough now as it is without having to vet everybody’s avatar on top of it, so on those grounds alone I would find them objectionable.

Why would the staff have to vet avatars? The board setting would make sure that they weren’t animated and limited to a certain size. It’s been shown that copyright isn’t an issue for small message board avatars. All they’d have to do, and this would be extremely rare assuming it would happen at all, would be to respond to a complaint about one for being obscene or something.

And, because this apparently can’t be said enough, the membership would have to opt in to even see them.

[Acsenray]

@No_umlaut_for_U

avatars and pictures in sigs.
Visual clutter: there’s a lot in society today

I say we should nix the sigs as well, and also ban in-message signatures, such as “regards, you-know-who.”

[TubaDiva]

@hajario

Why would the staff have to vet avatars? The board setting would make sure that they weren’t animated and limited to a certain size. It’s been shown that copyright isn’t an issue for small message board avatars. All they’d have to do, and this would be extremely rare assuming it would happen at all, would be to respond to a complaint about one for being obscene or something.

And, because this apparently can’t be said enough, the membership would have to opt in to even see them.

There’s the serious question of graphics that are appropriate. I suspect it would not be “extremely rare.”

Why have this hassle – especially for our users who read from work or from public terminals? Why add to the workload for so little benefit?

[Red_Barchetta]

@TubaDiva

There’s the serious question of graphics that are appropriate. I suspect it would not be “extremely rare.”

Why have this hassle – especially for our users who read from work or from public terminals? Why add to the workload for so little benefit?

Because the value of the benefits are subjective and the “workload” entirely hypothetical. Why not give it a trial so we have some real numbers to work with instead of hyperbole?

And if you want to reduce your workload, why not ban sigs which no doubt inconvenience you a great deal, if your stance on avatars is to be believed.

[Fenris]

What workload? As I said above, in like 3 years of modding a board that’s maybe 1/4 the size of the SDMB, I’ve had to remove 1 (one) avatar. I’d suspect that Una would report similarly low numbers of avatar problems. Or Opal. Or Elmwood. Or the Bad Astronomer site and Snopes (I lurk there and I’ve never seen a “Your avatar was bad, we removed it” post or note.)

And one more time, with feeling: Members who read from public terminals or from work won’t see avatars at all unless they turn them on.

So: no workload for mods/admins, unless you think the population here is dumber/crasser/more lowbrow than most other intelligent messageboards. No drawback to users who don’t want to see them.

[Guinastasia]

@shijinn

but, they’re optional like the ignore list. if you use it you’ll have chunks missing from what other people is seeing.

Missing how? You just won’t be able to see pictures on the side. That’s the only thing “missing”. It’s not going to skip the people who have avatars. :rolleyes:

[hajario]

@TubaDiva

There’s the serious question of graphics that are appropriate. I suspect it would not be “extremely rare.”

This is just insane. Based on what? I don’t believe it would be any kind of problem and if it is, just say, “this experiment failed. No more avatars.” Most message boards use avatars and I have never seen this be a problem.

Why have this hassle – especially for our users who read from work or from public terminals?

Do you, really, seriously need an answer to this? What is honestly so difficult to comprehend about the fact that viewing avatars would be an “opt-in” feature?

I understand that the staff here gets to set the rules and I have no problem with it. You obviously don’t have to enable the feature if you don’t want it but your reasoning is ridiculous.

[elmwood]

@Guinastasia

Missing how? You just won’t be able to see pictures on the side. That’s the only thing “missing”. It’s not going to skip the people who have avatars. :rolleyes:

This thread is like teaching old people about the Internet, isn’t it?

I’d still like to know from the folks who think the “tone” or “character” of discussion will change with avatars, even when they have their display turned off. “I know it will be different.” How? In what way? Can you back that up based on the experiences at other formerly avatar-less message boards when they implemented avatars? Yeah, avatars might make some difference here, but any effect will be practically homeopathic.