I have never encountered this “subtext” endowed upon by avatars that you speak of. This is especially puzzling as there are few reminders what your avatar actually is while you are posting yourself.
Outside of the very occasional “nice avatar,” I’m having trouble trying to figure out what meaningful context and conversationally relevant information avatars would add that those who have disabled them would be missing out on.
And even if, hypothetically, a post did come along that demanded seeing said avatar, you could click on their profile to see it, much as I need to in order to see someone’s cited sig (which I never actually need to, seeing as I’ve never seen them mentioned in any meaningful way.)
But according to you, I’m missing out on important subtext. So by your logic, we should also remove signatures form the forum.
I’m mainly considering avatars that can be changed post-by-post. I’m sure that Dopers would sometimes change their avatar to further illustrate the point they’re making in their post. More often, even with static avatars, there would be comments, asides, and significant tangents based on avatars. This is the subtext that would be completely lost on those of us who prefer not to view distracting pictures in SDMB threads.
Speaking only for myself, I would have no problem remembering what my avatar is even when faced with the daunting prospect of not having it on the screen in front of me. I fear there may be other Dopers who share this freakish ability, but I accept that you might not be one of them.
Strictly speaking you are correct, in that by my logic, sigs offer additional information that could be changed by a user to fit each new post, adding information that would be totally missed by Dopers like me who have their signature viewing setting set to ‘off’. If you have something to say, just say it in your post.
I’m not sure I like the fact that we allow signatures for the same reasons I am wary about avatars. However:
Images, especially if employed to add something extra to the tone of a post, convey far more subtext than a sig does. Images demand your brain’s attention and are very powerful, especially if they are iconic. Anyone not seeing those images is missing out on part of the discussion.
Sigs are already allowed. I might not care for that a whole lot, but allowing avatars does not make the sig/subtext issue go away. Allowing avatars only adds a newer, larger interference to the flow and comprehension of board threads.
I appreciate that opinions on these issue are subjective, but yes, I’ve been to those boards and I’ve found the avatars messy, cluttering and distracting - not a clean look at all.
[/QUOTE]
Ditto. In fact that’s why I haven’t been back to Giraffe Boards in forever.
If you have an account there, you can turn them off. That’s what I do.
I believe this conversation has drifted away from it’s original intent. The only reason avatars were brought up in the first place was because the OP thought they would make the place more “social”. I think that premise has been pretty well killed by now (and, IMO, it never needed to be more social in the first place).
Do you visit any other message boards then?
[/QUOTE]
The only other one I frequent doesn’t have avatars either. It has real pix of the moderators, and no pix or avatars of the members. It’s a good visual way to highlight when a mod posts.
This. Is there some sort of hole that needs filling here? We converse with each other, argue, share pain, share joy, teach, learn, and sometimes even meet in person. What does a small picture of the Tasmanian Devil to the left of a post add?
You’re making a mountain out of a molehill. You are quite right that a signature could be changed on a per-post basis. But you missed one important fact: they’re not.
In all my years visiting dozens of forums, I have never seen this behavior in regards to either signatures or avatars. I mean, really, who does that? You’re inventing arguments to justify your dislike of avatars.
Maybe I haven’t been around the block as many times as I would like to believe, but I’ve never seen forum software that maintains avatars on a per post basis. If you change the avie, you change it forever and always - at least retrospectively. If you go to a post you made 5 years ago, it will have the new avatar.
Let me see if I’ve got this right.
Because it isn’t possible to post using the same name as someone else, the closest that is possible is to post using a name that is kind of like someone elses’, and this confuses you.
On the other hand, you would have no problem using pictures to identify posters, although it is possible(and with this many posters, damn likely) that two or more posters will have the exact same pictures. I’ve been to boards that use avatars, and what I see are popular cartoon characters, current television stars and popular symbols all over the place.
The best method for adding a little visual uniqueness to each poster, without stooping to the garishness of avatars, is to allow variable font color in the user-name. Allow a plethora of shades and even the ability to alternate color per character in order to maintain an endless array of possibilities—the only caveat being the inability to change your color scheme once chosen. Associating two characteristics (name + color) with any given poster would more firmly ingrain them in your memory. Let it be done.
“Damn likely”? I post to forums with many. many more posters than the SDMB and haven’t yet seen this. Of course, I can only speak for myself, but I have never confused, to my knowledge, someone by their avatars. But let’s say for the sake of the argument it did happen: oh noes, I might confused two dopers (which I already do with names)–it no where nears outweighs the benefits gained, imo.
Also, it’s not that I identify people only by their Avatars–I do look at the name too, and helps me remember it. They work hand-in-hand, and doesn’t serve as a replacement.
ETA: I think you meant to post this to the other thread, in IMHO.
I have, in a couple of places. Along with fights over whose Avatar it is, as the longstanding member politely asks a newcomer to change it since people are getting confused (“Since When was Quirky McOldPoster a Conspiracy Theorist???”) and the newcomer arcs up with some crap about “stifling their expression” or “you don’t own [the image]!” or whatever.
FWIW, there’s also another advantage to the SDMB’s fairly… utilitarian look, and that’s that it doesn’t immediately look like a discussion forum to the casual observer (ie people that have just wandered in to wherever you use your computer)- It can be awkward trying to explain other poster’s avatars to your colleagues or wife/girlfriend if they look over your shoulder and see something that doesn’t look as funny out of context as it does within.
I think at some point the Straight Dope Message Board is going to have to offer avatars or else end up being passed over by more prospective posters than would be lost due to having avatars.
