[quote=“Gatopescado, post:378, topic:819255”]
As ibiquitous[\QUOTE]
This may have been part of the problem.
I was against them, but when they were turned on I went ahead and got one just to be fair and give them a chance. I’m not noticing any better retention of names that have avatars attached to them, nor have I noticed any membership/poster gains because of them…but that is just the personal observations of a dude with no access to the official stats. Do we know if adding avatars has helped either the reader/poster numbers? Has anyone here found it handy to have avatars attached to the names of other posters?
Goatse won a Pulitzer?
The avatars have been handy visual clues for posters that pick one and stick to it.
Have they helped you in that way?
[quote=“Omar_Little, post:381, topic:819255”]
On my keyboard ‘u’ and ‘i’ are next door to each other. Easy typo to make. IMO.
You know, being disingenuous about what you did isn’t going to convince us that you weren’t trolling with that avatar.
*Note. The images I linked to below are disturbing. Don’t click if you are squeamish.
I believe this was the image you used as an avatar. A monk immolating himself during the Vietnam War. Clearly intended to shock.
This comes after a previous incident when you used an image of a middle finger as your avatar, and when asked to change it posted a version of this image, of the execution of a Viet Cong prisoner, also from the Vietnam War and intended to shock. While low resolution, it was clearly intended to thumb your nose at the previous request. In response, you made the same defense that it was a Pulitzer Prize winning image. So what’s the follow up? Dead babies from the My Lai massacre? The naked girl burned by napalm?
Gatopescado, you are a prime example of the kind of poster who “spoils it for everyone else.” What you’ve been doing was one our the concerns about turning avatars on in general. Fortunately we haven’t had other examples of this kind of jerkishness with avatars.
Do they have to have a purpose? I just like looking at them. I guess the purpose they serve for me is that they break up otherwise boring pages.
They don’t have to have a purpose, but those were two of the reasons given over and over as to why we need them. If they have helped retain people here or have helped people remember names, all the better. If not, then it is no skin off my nose-I’m just curious.
I find them useful, in identifying certain posters posts as I scan through threads. This benefit is negated if posters regularly change their avatars.
Based on the Wayback Machine, on 8/11/18, a few days after they were started, the active member count was 3520.
Today (4/22/19), the active member count is 3352.
Nothing scientific or definitive because it’s impossible to know why people stay or leave, but those are some data points.
There was a faction of people who wanted them and a faction of people who didn’t. In general, it’s clearer now who those people are.
The very first thing that TubaDiva wrote was this (bolding mine):
In the FAQ section we also have this (again, bolding mine):
You posted an image of someone killing themselves in an extremely violent and horrific manner. The fact that it is a Pulitzer Prize winning photograph doesn’t excuse that.
Avatars are supposed to be fun. They are not supposed to offend people. They are not supposed to rile people up with politically charged images.
I personally don’t think that you are so stupid that you do not understand what the word “unsuitable” and the phrase “offensive images” mean in the context of the SDMB rules. Continued intentional violation of those rules is jerkish behavior, and can (and usually will) result in warnings and possibly a discussion about your posting privileges here.
I strongly advise you to stop being a jerk. I’d hate to see someone lose their posting privileges over a feature that is supposed to be fun and harmless.
They actually have, not a huge amount but they have.
It also has a nice added benefit, sometimes I’m not sure what the username is referencing and many users tie their avatar to their name. YMMV.
Her are a few other world-famous, Pulitzer Prize winning, edgy photos. Tell you what, I’m going put the links in a spoiler box, because some people may consider them NSFW.
1977, Thailand
1994, Sudan
1991, South Africa
1980, Iran
1976, Boston
2015, Liberia
And, according to Colibri, the one that drew the warning.
Still feel robbed,** Beck**?
Real life is “edgy” enough. Avatars don’t have to be.
That’s a pretty bad pickup line.
I find it easier to follow long discussions with avatars. I also find in much easier to quickly scroll through and find my most recent post in a thread.
I will also note that the few people, Czar not being one of them, who were giant cry babies and said that they would leave if avatars were to ever sully the board are still here. Every one of them.
I’ll also note that there are plenty of Pulitzer-winning photos that aren’t edgy or disturbing. Oddly, Gatopescado has not chosen to use any of them. I think it’s pretty clear that the pictures were chosen for their shock value, not for the quality of the photography (which wouldn’t come through in a 100x100 thumbnail, anyway).
For me, at least, the site looks exactly like it always has because I very quickly turned the feature off. The avitars are big enough to be distracting and tacky but too low resolution to be anything interesting, so they are the worst of both worlds and I’m very glad to have the option of not seeing them.
Wait–has it been upped to 100x100? It was 50x50 in the short time I left them on.
It’s very clear that he was being disingenuous at best. This was well moderated.
This is exactly why the pro-avatar crowd always wanted the option. I am very glad that you have that option too. It’s interesting that you even opened this thread. I trust that others having them if they want them hasn’t ruined things for you.