dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
1810
share rss forum feed
Expand your moderator at work


rosco35
Premium
join:2003-11-10
USA
kudos:1
reply to Dustyn

Re: Avatars - Bigger

sign for both dimension & file-size increases



teh
Gekke Kraai
Premium
join:2003-03-21
Malaysia

I would sign for either requests.

»/r0/down···Sign.gif
--



Jon
Premium
join:2001-01-20
Lisle, IL
reply to Dustyn

»/r0/down···Sign.gif
me too.



removed
Premium,VIP
join:2002-02-08
Houston, TX
kudos:40
reply to Dustyn

((( - *object* - )))



Weirdal
Premium
join:2003-06-28
Grand Island, NE
kudos:21
reply to Dustyn

*sign* for larger file size



purelander
Premium
join:2003-07-11
reply to Dustyn

+1



Bob Sanchez
MOJO FOR BILL
Premium
join:2002-07-28
Margate, FL.
reply to Dustyn

With all the avatar help they have given me, I will also have to sign to this.

»/r0/down···Sign.gif
--
Go on-You know you want to!!



T Bell
You Can Fly
Premium
join:2003-10-23
Terra Firma
reply to Weirdal

said by Weirdal:

*sign* for larger file size
*sign*


mers2
Premium,MVM
join:2004-03-20
USA
kudos:8
reply to Dustyn

*SIGN* for larger Avatar or at the very least larger file size.



Macy
South Of Insanity
Premium,MVM,ExMod 2004-7
join:2001-12-02
Pink Beanbag
kudos:2
reply to Dustyn

I've just about given up on getting anything larger than 40x40 but will *Sign* to a larger file size. Even just raising the file size up to 7KB would make a world of difference to us A/G folks. Of course I'd never turn down an even larger file size or avatar size if it were made available.
--

If you're not living on the edge...you're taking up too much room.
Feel Your Heart Race



purelander
Premium
join:2003-07-11
reply to Dustyn

*sign**sign**sign**sign*



purelander
Premium
join:2003-07-11

1 edit
reply to Dustyn

100x100 would be nice, can see the baby blinking clearly.


FastEddie
Premium,Ex-Mod 2001-13
join:2000-12-29
Channel Z
kudos:6



Why not a slightly larger avatar that can be 45 x 45.


--
Here's To You



C_
Kill The Socialists
Premium
join:2001-03-19
kudos:3
reply to Dustyn

*object*



Dustyn
Premium
join:2003-02-26
Ontario, CAN
kudos:11

2 edits
reply to Dustyn

Thanks for the replies so far

The issue of larger file sizes ALONG WITH larger dimensions is something I would like to see one day be implemented. Hopefully this time-around, the motion for larger sized avatar dimensions 50x50 and larger file sizes will be granted. If not, don't act so surprised and use the "beating a dead horse" analogy when you see this being posted again a month or so later. I can almost bet you that this issue will just keep being brought up over and over until the motion is finally passed.

Out of all the objectionable responses so far, none have been convincing enough for me as to why the larger dimensions + file size could not happen. Although I did not ASK for your reasons, let's hear them. The objectionable responses so far are not valid reasons for dismissing the motion. So please speak your mind about why you dislike the idea? I'm quite interested! (maybe you can just change my mind!)

I think it would be a nice positive change to see implemented into this site. Instead of having features removed or altered for the worst. So lets bring it!
How could it be negative?
I see no real argument for voting against an increase in size.

Is 50x50 really THAT unreasonable?
I don't think so.

Anyone can change there mind at any time and change there votes. (including users who voted sign)

Thanks,
~ Steele ^..^ ~
--
"You have no idea what I am capable of. People who have tried to cross me, have lived to regret it... ~Michelle Stafford (Phyllis)



dandelion
Premium,MVM
join:2003-04-29
Germantown, TN
kudos:5
Reviews:
·Comcast
reply to FastEddie

said by FastEddie:



Why not a slightly larger avatar that can be 45 x 45.





"Hmmmm", 7.08k 45X45 she says while looking in mirror- "nice" and more fair for those "newer" premium users that don't have the advantage of an old larger avatar to use.
--
want to know what I'm doing?


Dustyn
Premium
join:2003-02-26
Ontario, CAN
kudos:11

45x45 is cool too. I guess ANYTHING is better than 40x40. I just never asked for a 45x45 motion since it is almost an undetectable change. However, upon closer inspection of your new avatar....yeah... it is better. Cleaner, and sharper.

But the reason why I asked for at least 50x50, is because it is a small, YET MEANINGFUL difference. It's visually pleasing and occupies that nice blank space that resides to the right of our 40x40 avatars. Fills up the residential space that is just being wasted a bit better.
--
"You have no idea what I am capable of. People who have tried to cross me, have lived to regret it... ~Michelle Stafford (Phyllis)



Sat_Man
Monotonous Isn't It
Premium
join:2001-09-14
Gray Court, SC

1 recommendation

reply to Dustyn

I'll **SIGN**, the old 40X50 standard worked, too little detail in the 40X40 standard.



Dustyn
Premium
join:2003-02-26
Ontario, CAN
kudos:11

4 edits
reply to dandelion


50x70
Now after seeing this reasonably sized avatar... you'd want 50x70.
However, I can work with 50x50.
Even this 50x70 is acceptable in my mind. The width is perfect, and the length isn't to bad either.
Come one... let's have a little fun and show what we can do with a fair avatar image tests.

I can't go back and change the motion by editing the reloultions just to satisy myself. However I will ask that if the motion is passed... allow it to be a MAXIMUM of 60x60 as stated in my original post.

This is a fair request based on my tests.

NOTE: I would love to keep this thread going *obviously*, but let's continue to do an excellent job so far by keeping things polite and civil. Thanks!


zeone
Me
Premium
join:2003-04-24
Msia
reply to Dustyn

* SIGN * for bigger avatar &/filesize!

Any suggestions 4improvement of this Forum always supported!
:)
--
NO man has right 2take away what Only GOD can give...Life!



Macy
South Of Insanity
Premium,MVM,ExMod 2004-7
join:2001-12-02
Pink Beanbag
kudos:2

1 edit
reply to Dustyn


Edit: Removing my post so as to not take this thread too far off topic.



fatness
subtle
Premium,ex-mod 01-13
join:2000-11-17
fishing
kudos:14

1 recommendation

reply to Dustyn

said by Dustyn:

I see no real argument for voting against an increase in size.
This is a primarily technical site. Posts and text should be the dominant feature. The larger that avatars get, the higher percentage of visual space they take up on a page. On every page. And style will have stolen a little more room from substance.

Once 45x45 or 50x50 avatars are approved, it's only a matter of time until the requests come in for 60x60. Then 100x100. Have you seen sites with 100x100 avatars? They don't look like tech sites, that's for sure.

The 40x40 limit was made to allow for all the customization features in the "I See People" feature. Many of those customizations came from requests in this forum. Larger avatars do not work with "I see people". It would take a lot of coding, or loss of visible features in the customizable box, or loss of space in the text box, to make them larger.

There are 3 reasons. I understand that you won't agree, and that's fine, but they are valid reasons for opposing the request.

Though I'm happy with 40x40 avatars, I'd rather see avatars get smaller than larger.
--
I know what I'm doing.


INTENS1
Never Stop Trying
Premium,MVM
join:2002-04-21
Midwest
kudos:2

1 edit

said by fatness:

said by Dustyn:

I see no real argument for voting against an increase in size.
This is a primarily technical site. Posts and text should be the dominant feature. The larger that avatars get, the higher percentage of visual space they take up on a page. On every page. And style will have stolen a little more room from substance.

Once 45x45 or 50x50 avatars are approved, it's only a matter of time until the requests come in for 60x60. Then 100x100. Have you seen sites with 100x100 avatars? They don't look like tech sites, that's for sure.

The 40x40 limit was made to allow for all the customization features in the "I See People" feature. Many of those customizations came from requests in this forum. Larger avatars do not work with "I see people". It would take a lot of coding, or loss of visible features in the customizable box, or loss of space in the text box, to make them larger.

There are 3 reasons. I understand that you won't agree, and that's fine, but they are valid reasons for opposing the request.

Though I'm happy with 40x40 avatars, I'd rather see avatars get smaller than larger.
I may not agree, but I see your point/opinion fatness See Profile...in the posts above, there's been a lot of references to increasing the file size only...not the width x height. Any possibility there?
--
Anticipate Nothing...Expect Everything


MSeng
Premium,Ex-Mod 2001-08
join:2000-07-13
Ork
kudos:6
reply to Dustyn

**Object** to larger dimensions but **Sign** to a larger file size.
--
My software never has bugs. It just develops random features.



ilikeme
I live in a van down by the river.
Premium
join:2002-08-27
Sugar Land, TX
kudos:1
reply to Dustyn

*object*



Dustyn
Premium
join:2003-02-26
Ontario, CAN
kudos:11

4 edits
reply to fatness

You'd be happier with smaller avatar sizes? Well, I can't agree to that personally but I will respect your take on this.

As for your second reason... are you sure your concern is about the amount of people coming back and making new polls for even larger avatars in the future? Or is it more to do with the fact that this motion may *bites his nails* actually pass and the mods had to BREAK on the issue *ahem* for once.

*NOTE: I'm just kidding of course.

But seriously... has this ever been an issue in the past? I'm not talking about how many threads have been created in the past trying to sway a MODs decision in allowing a larger dimension avatar. What I'm asking is, has the avatar size restrictions ever been broken by a motion in the past?

SPECIAL REQUEST: Why not allow this new change to be implemented into this site for "1" full year?

Upon "1" year of implementation of larger avatars review the new change. At the end of "1" years time, see how the larger sizes affected the quality of the site. Only then can you draw realistic conclusions about the "hypothetical therioes" you are drawing your basis on... how it would take a load of coding to make an avatar resoltion ever so sligtly bigger... how were going to lose visable features in the customizable box or a loss of space in written text.

I hear everything you have said but... the reasons that you have given me do not convince. What I'm hearing is that it's a difficult idea to implement, it's a bad idea because tech sites should not have AVERAGE sized avatars, and it's simply an unreasonable request.

One last note, I am not a premium user. So how can I comment on the "I See People" feature argument?

EDIT: Spelling and grammar.
--
"You have no idea what I am capable of. People who have tried to cross me, have lived to regret it... ~Michelle Stafford (Phyllis)



Dustyn
Premium
join:2003-02-26
Ontario, CAN
kudos:11

1 edit
reply to INTENS1

":/bquote] INTENS1 See ProfileI may not agree, but I see your point/opinion fatness See Profile...in the posts above, there's been a lot of references to increasing the file size only...not the width x height. Any possibility there?
"

Sorry my browser is messing up auto-quote

I am not opposed to larger file sizes?
But I can't deny the real fact that I have no use for this request at the moment. I can achieve a decent quality avatar at 60x60 without the need for larger file sizes. I'm also not a premium user... so maybe this request is justified by those who have flashy animations. I am simply not one of those users requesting this.

I am simply requesting a larger dimension size for a plain non-animated avatar. Maybe you can persuade me in how it would be useful. No... correction persuade me in how it WILL be useful.
--
"You have no idea what I am capable of. People who have tried to cross me, have lived to regret it... ~Michelle Stafford (Phyllis)



fatness
subtle
Premium,ex-mod 01-13
join:2000-11-17
fishing
kudos:14

1 edit
reply to INTENS1

said by INTENS1:

I may not agree, but I see your point/opinion fatness See Profile...in the posts above, there's been a lot of references to increasing the file size only...not the width x height. Any possibility there?
If it doesn't mess up anything that currently is displayed, I'd support that. The visual space and the features already included in "I see people" are my concerns.

edited to add by way of explanation: the default view (currently 40x40) is what readers who are not yet members see. To the extent we make that larger we look less like a technical site and more like a social site. And while we're quite a sociable community, the tech side of things is what draws readers (some of whom will become members) here.
--
I know what I'm doing.