 RobIn Deo speramus.Premium
join:2001-08-25
Kendall, FL
kudos:3 | reply to Insight
Re: DSLR Avatars; Telephone Customer Service Representatives Would larger avatars make your visit to this site more enjoyable?
One thing I like about this site's forum system that it's about content, not about pretty colors, images, etc.
I think the current size is just fine.
Personally, I'd love to see an iPhone app for this site so that viewing posts and posting new threads is easier.
--
CheckSite.us | YourIP.us | Reverseip.us |
|
 vaxvmsferroequine fanPremium
join:2005-03-01
Wormtown
 ·Charter
| said by Rob:One thing I like about this site's forum system that it's about content, not about pretty colors, images, etc.
+1
--
It's not really power unless you abuse it. |
|
| reply to Rob
said by Rob:Would larger avatars make your visit to this site more enjoyable?
Yes, its a question of personal creativity or expression. The current size limitation is like being asked to describe your life in 10 words or less, and cite four life experiences of interest.
Larger or the size avatar I refer to are the industry standard. Doesn't one of the largest and most prestigious sites like DSLR offer their members the same level of personal expression and creativity as the so many lesser sites?
The question you and others that share the view the current size is fine should be asking the SERIOUS question why aren't the members offered the 100x100 or 120x120 size. DSLR should provide a SERIOUS answer of substance to that question. |
|
RobIn Deo speramus.Premium
join:2001-08-25
Kendall, FL
kudos:3 | said by Insight:The question you and others that share the view the current size is fine should be asking the SERIOUS question why aren't the members offered the 100x100 or 120x120 size. DSLR should provide a SERIOUS answer of substance to that question.
This is simple. The site's long-term, frequent (and often premium) users are not demanding 100x100 or 120x120 -- they are happy with the current layout.
--
CheckSite.us | YourIP.us | Reverseip.us |
|
| You aren't asking the question or any question, you are just assuming facts not in evidence, wildly speculating, and compensating for your puny avatar. (Insert good-nature sticking out tongue smilie--also not available.)  |
|
RobIn Deo speramus.Premium
join:2001-08-25
Kendall, FL
kudos:3 | said by Insight:You aren't asking the question or any question, you are just assuming facts not in evidence, wildly speculating, and compensating for your puny avatar. (Insert good-nature sticking out tongue smilie--also not available.)
Having been a member for over a decade, your question about larger avatars has been brought up more times than I can count.. and the outcome is the same.. us regular members are OK with the current layout.
--
CheckSite.us | YourIP.us | Reverseip.us |
|
davePremium,MVM
join:2000-05-04
not in ohio
kudos:8 | reply to Insight
said by Insight:Yes, its a question of personal creativity or expression. This is your only outlet for "creativity" ? |
|
 CylonRedPremium,MVM
join:2000-07-06
Bloom County | reply to Insight
There is a 'standard' for avatar size???? Not that I have ever heard of and when I was a mod for a website there were zero 'standards' for avatars and signatures - it all boils down to the owner of the site.
If you want outlets for creativity - then we have digital imaging forum and an avatar forum.
Sorry - but I think larger avatars won't do a thing to help your or anyone else's creativity. After all - there are a zillion other sites were creativity is the backbone of the site.
"The question you and others that share the view the current size is fine should be asking the SERIOUS question why aren't the members offered the 100x100 or 120x120 size. DSLR should provide a SERIOUS answer of substance to that question. "
I don't even think your issue to be serious - till you own the site.
--
Brian
"It drops into your stomach like a Abrams's tank.... driven by Rosanne Barr..." A. Bourdain |
|
1 edit | reply to dave
said by dave:said by Insight:Yes, its a question of personal creativity or expression. This is your only outlet for "creativity" ? Actually no. Just the opposite. It is, however, one of my many life venues that offers such little opportunity for creativity. Thanks for caring.
I like Rob's quasi "the emperor has no clothes logic argument." It is analogous to year after year the question at a pig farm of how good is the slop here being brought up by all the pigs time after time and the pigs continue to state the slop is just fine. Best slop around.
Not calling Rob or ANY members pigs or suggesting that DSLR in anyway offers or serves slop--well except for one forum that offers slop in the form of its posts and that will remain unnamed. But that's the crazies that post there, not DSLR's fault or responsibility for the loons and their posts in said site.
Regarding the avatar, gee I didn't know some peoples identity was so dominated by their membership here. If one even constructively and civilly offers up a criticism some, not Rob and Dave, of course, respond with how dare my site and by extension my ego be attacked.
But how about an official answer from DSLR on why unlike all most all other sites 100X100 or 120X120 avatars are not offered. I mean its a simple question that should be able to be reasonably and easily offered.
Meanwhile about those CS reps. LOL! (Help, help the mother ship is being "attacked.") |
|
 JohkalCool CatPremium,MVM
join:2002-11-13
Happy Valley
kudos:5 | If you want to suggest a change, then post here: »Forum Feature Requests
Personally; I could give a goat's arse what size the avatar is. |
|
 WeirdalPremium
join:2003-06-28
Grand Island, NE
kudos:20 | reply to Insight
said by Insight:But how about an official answer from DSLR on why unlike all most all other sites 100X100 or 120X120 avatars are not offered. I mean its a simple question that should be able to be reasonably and easily offered.
You can see pages upon pages of discussion in the correct forum, including plenty of posts from dslr staff.
»Larger Avatars
»Avatars - Bigger
»Allow for a bit larger Avatars
--
»[Info] The DSLR Orangeface extension 2.0! |
|
 MsradellP.E.Premium
join:2008-12-25
Louisville, KY
 ·AT&T U-Verse
| reply to Rob
said by Rob:One thing I like about this site's forum system that it's about content, not about pretty colors, images, etc. Why waste page space and bandwidth with avatars? They don't make the information provided any better and just distracted people. On many sites you can actually turn them off, which I do if I can since they are useless! |
|
1 edit | Wow it looks like all of the Linus Van Pelts of the DSLR world have had a constructive criticism or suggestion of a change regarding their blanket. Their response is not surprising.
Meanwhile how about those customer service representatives? (Both US and outsource.) LOL.
I would speculate that the reason, and it is just speculation, why DSLR doesn't offer the OPTION of larger avatars is because the forum software or setup either won't permit it or in order to make the change to allow it if possible the software is so old that it would be to big of a project, literally a project, to do so.
As for the argument about the extra bandwidth--gosh, I seriously can't tell if people are joking when they say that or are delusional, or uh, just misinformed in terms of relevancy.
Meanwhile about those CS Reps! |
|
| reply to Insight
said by Insight: (Insert good-nature sticking out tongue smilie--also not available.)
Is this the one you refer to? 
--
mbsastronomy.com |
|
WeirdalPremium
join:2003-06-28
Grand Island, NE
kudos:20 | reply to Insight
said by Insight:I would speculate that the reason, and it is just speculation, why DSLR doesn't offer the OPTION of larger avatars is because the forum software or setup either won't permit it or in order to make the change to allow it if possible the software is so old that it would be to big of a project, literally a project, to do so.
Here's a real answer for you...
Avatars here used to be between 40x30 and 40x85 (possibly larger?). The user-info box to the left of posts was standardized for everybody and having a fixed-width worked well for the layout. The avatars could be expanded downward without screwing up the layout so we were allowed a variable height. Eventually that restriction was changed to 40x30 - 40x50 for some reason.
In 2004, the "I See People" feature was implemented. (see this thread) You do not have access to this since you're not premium. This allows users to create a completely customized user info boxes by using their own html. ALL avatars were resized to 40x40 (and the restrictions for new ones were changed) so that people wouldn't have to worry about odd-sized avatars screwing up their layouts.
In 2005, after years of bitching by members, Justin implemented 50x50 avatars. Every new avatar must be 50x50, but there was still the question of what to do with the grandfathered 40x40 avatars (and also the even-older odd-sized ones). The solution was to keep resizing the tall avatars to 40x40 and display the 40x40 ones at their native res. I seem to recall a short period where everything was resized to 50x50, but that didn't last long. So now there is effectively two possible avatar sizes you can encounter on here, and you have to design your "I See People" settings to work with both sizes. Since it's only 10px, most layouts didn't have any problems with the larger avatars.
That brings us to where we are today. Adding significantly larger avatars would screw up a lot of people's I See People settings. It's difficult to design a good user box that makes effective use of space when you don't know if you'll be seeing a 40x40 or 100x100 avatar. Even if you made the larger size mandatory and just upscaled everything to be consistent, people would still have to redesign their user boxes, which they haven't had to touch for the past seven years.
So your request would be much more reasonable if it weren't for that one site feature.
--
»[Info] The DSLR Orangeface extension 2.0! |
|
| Thanks for the input on the CS reps! 
As for the size of avatars--the standard in most modern forum sites/boards and so on is users are limited to a MAXIMUM size for their Avatar and are significantly limited to shape--the finished image usually has to be square or very close to it.
So the maximum many be the industry standard of 100 x 100 or 120 x 120 but the member can choose a 50 x 50 if they want--just as long as it conforms to the shape requirement.
Thank you sincerely for both the quality of your explanation and the time you took to write and post it.
However, it appears to me in interpreting your post that it seems by inference and some fact to indirectly substantiate what I said.
The current avatar 50 x 50, way small by industry standard, size is on the current, "clunky" outdated forum software just too complicated to offer up what I explain above in terms of choice. |
|
vaxvmsferroequine fanPremium
join:2005-03-01
Wormtown | industry standard ??? |
|
WeirdalPremium
join:2003-06-28
Grand Island, NE
kudos:20 | reply to Insight
said by Insight:The current avatar 50 x 50, way small by industry standard, size is on the current, "clunky" outdated forum software just too complicated to offer up what I explain above in terms of choice.
I've read this sentence a few times now and still don't know what you're trying to say.
The forum software here is custom-built, and certainly robust enough to allow for avatars of any size. After all, avatar sizes have changed plenty of times in the past. The problem is that this forum, unlike any other forum that I know of, allows users to create a custom user-box layout that has very few limitations at all. If you can't enforce a standard user-box layout, you can't radically change avatar sizes because it will screw up layout for MANY people.
For example, here's my custom layout I designed:
Increasing avatar size would force me to change that layout completely. A lot of other users would be in the same boat.
--
»[Info] The DSLR Orangeface extension 2.0! |
|
 Cthen
join:2004-08-01
Detroit, MI
 ·Verizon Wireless..
·Comcast
1 edit | reply to Insight
said by Insight:said by Rob:Would larger avatars make your visit to this site more enjoyable?
Yes, its a question of personal creativity or expression. The current size limitation is like being asked to describe your life in 10 words or less, and cite four life experiences of interest. Larger or the size avatar I refer to are the industry standard. Doesn't one of the largest and most prestigious sites like DSLR offer their members the same level of personal expression and creativity as the so many lesser sites? The question you and others that share the view the current size is fine should be asking the SERIOUS question why aren't the members offered the 100x100 or 120x120 size. DSLR should provide a SERIOUS answer of substance to that question. So in other words you mean that you would like to express even further to everyone here that you are a bigot, racist, and wish slavery was still around? Am I perceiving your expression correctly by the current expression in your avatar? 
--
"I like to refer to myself as an Adult Film Efficienato." - Stuart Bondek |
|
| said by Cthen:
So in other you mean that you would like to express even further to everyone here that you are a bigot, racist, and wish slavery was still around? Am I perceiving your expression correctly by the current expression in your avatar?
You need even more than one other previous poster to study or learn the psychological concept and in your particular case the affliction and influence of "projection."
Slavery is and was the most heinous crime committed by man against man over time.
I'm not a bigot. I even tolerate illogical bigoted ingnorant rants like yours coming out of nowhere--even when based upon a wild imagination, hostility, and historical ignorance. In fact there is zero basis anywhere in this thread for you to make such a post not to mention one that is completely off topic and a blatant trolling attempt. I know you aren't trying to start a blatant flame war becasue you lack the ammunition in a variety of categories.
All people as a class including but not limited to race, gender, sexual orientation, citizenship, or global location are completely equal in their worth as humans or persons. There is no difference. We all are of equal worth and value.
Dude, get some help. |
|
