The difference is that the administration actively encourages people to search using Google. On the other hand, they are merely tolerating a workaround for avatars. It’s no mystery why they wouldn’t agree to offering official information on the workaround.
So why is admitting that they have a sucktastic search engine a good thing but requiring users to literally work around the software to have avatars a bad thing?
I would kind of like to see the avatars, but it seems immoral to use the script. Know what I mean? The board is not mine. I feel like I should play by the rightful owners’ (and their agents’) rules. It’s not like those rules are so very repressive either…
Is that a serious question? (responding to Inner Stickler)
whoops. sorry. this is not what the thread was about. i guess i should go back to an earlier avatar thread…
It’s not at all immoral and some mods and admins have expressed that they would like to use avatars. It is a board policy for the board not to enable avatars for whatever reason, but not to dictate how individuals might prefer to customize their own browsers. There are hundreds of people using the script it isn’t a slap in the face to the board administration in any way just an option for those who would like to use it.
If you would like to use it and have Chrome or Firefox, you can install the script via the link in the thread dedicated to info about the script (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/…d.php?t=657890)
I don’t think they’re the same at all. vBulletin has a built-in search function which is enabled but which doesn’t work as well as Google for some things. It’s also server-intensive, so the staff has to limit search frequency. Providing information on how to do SDMB Google searches is an attempt to supplement a supported feature, not replace it with a slightly clunkier version with nearly identical functionality.
The script doesn’t do anything to the board. It only changes things in your browser. As far as the board is concerned it’s really no different than changing the color of the border around your windows from the default color.
I have customized my browser all kinds of ways. Don’t tell!
You are bringing up all these scintillating philosophical questions. Why don’t you head on over to GD or IMHO with them?
Not necessary-I think you’ve pretty much answered them.
I’ve gotta admit Czarcasm, Avatars seem to be your white whale.
Notice that quite a number of mods and admins have taken advantage of the script themselves. So it’s not just a case of “looking the other way”.
The distinction is that the search feature is a software feature that the board administration has no control over making better. (Well, they could remove the 2 min search limit, but that is a response to the server load issues.) So admitting the software sucks is not a claim with regards to the board’s policy on search engines.
Whereas the Board’s official position is that it does not wish to support avatars, ergo, the board software feature is not activated. However, users can change their own browser however they wish, and allowing a discussion of how to implement a work around is not the same as saying “We do not wish to have avatars, but here is how you can have them if you wish.”
A better analogy is to discuss the policy on ads. The board runs ads by third party ad servers, which despite policies are prone to having bad advertisers game the system and sneak in video/sound clips, etc. The board admin has officially stated that you can either pay for membership and thus not receive ads, or you can run ad blocking software. That is a case where the policy is to allow something but they actively support board users circumventing the feature.
But it’s sort of the reverse case from not running something, then supporting work arounds.
The board mods and admins as individual users is different than the board admin as an official body.
The thing is, the greasemonkey script and avatar feature seems like something that could be used on any board site, even ones that officially allow avatars. So there is some justification for allowing discussion under that kind of loophole.
I personally wouldn’t see a big issue with putting a comment in a sticky to direct to the thread on the topic, with or without a disclaimer, but I do see the oddity of doing so.
I did? Please explain, professor.
Ya know, thinking about this issue just made me wonder about something…
As I understand it, the script will automatically utilize the picture in someone’s profile if they have one there. Otherwise, it will follow a link provided by the user in their profile to a picture on a third-party site.
So, what would happen if a user decided to link to a wildly inappropriate picture? The picture isn’t hosted by the board, and they have no control over what is displayed from a 3rd-party site by a browser tweak, but the link itself is present in the user’s profile, and so it does fall within the purview of the admins to compel removal of a link to a potentially offending image. So, basically, even though the administration has not allowed or endorsed the use of avatar images, they’ve been effectively back-doored into monitoring and potentially moderating them.
In light of that, those who enjoy the easy workaround that allows the use of avatars would be wise to not get too imposing about the issue. The more hassle that arises over it, the more likely the administration would be to take steps to make it more difficult and less convenient to implement.
And, yes, I’m aware that there will always be a workaround if the mods decide to disallow the linking to offsite images in users’ profiles - my point is that if it all becomes a hassle to them, they could easily make it more of a hassle to those who wish to use avatars.
Just sayin’… the less rigmarole there is over this, the better it will be for everyone.
The best analogy is the sticky about the SDMB Portrait Gallery, hosted by **Arnold Winkelried **
That is a third-party, independent effort that allows SDMB users to post images of themselves if they choose to, and for others to view those images. It could be described as an off-board avatar system, not sponsored or supported by the SDMB staff in any official way, though participated in by some.
Back in the day, the discussion about making a sticky with information about that third-party project went down very differently:
While it doesn’t really matter to me if the Avatar script is stickied or not, I would like to point out that it, too, is the result of a lot of time and effort by several posters to provide a requested service that a large number of posters find very useful.
The avatar system exists through the generosity of several posters donating their time, scripting, and even a server to handle the avatar requests - all gratis. I wouldn’t expect huge thanks from the staff or users of the script but it certainly isn’t something that should be considered a sore subject, or something just barely being ‘tolerated’ by the staff. It is a good thing! It does what a lot of posters want for free, with no downside.
Question: Crazyhorse has already crafted an avatar instructional thread. What, exactly, is the harm in sticky-ing it? Is sticky-ing a post an implicit yet official endorsement by TPTB of the content within said post/thread? I mean the only difference is that it won’t slip off the top of the front page, right? So what’s the harm?
I see that Crazyhorse just ninja’ed me on this exact topic. 
That came up several times in the last big Avatar thread in ATMB. Putting offensive material in your SDMB profile would be a rules violation whether or not it was intended to display as an avatar in an unsupported script, or just to offend random profile viewers, which it would also do.
But the script has a mechanism for blocking any avatar so it never need be a problem anyway. It should be no more of a hassle to mods than users ability to put offensive links in their posts or profiles in general now.
Temptation large… must resist… must warn others…
Okay, I’m going to do it then. (Besides being morally obsessed, I also have a pathologically open mind.)
But if God smites me…