View Full Version : When are we getting / are we getting avatars and img sigs?

19-12-2004, 10:08 PM
This would be cool as...

However I guess the reason we haven't got it is because it makes things harder for n00bs and 56k'ers...

I'm on 56k and for me this forum loads a helluva lot faster than the javascript jive one... :D

So could we get avatars at least? Avatars are those little pictures under your name right?

19-12-2004, 10:13 PM
I'm puzzled?....what does bloating the forum with images have to do with n00bs?

19-12-2004, 10:56 PM
Avatars would be nice. The two carrot people can disable them if they wish.

Image sigs are bloatware, avatars are basically 64x64 jpg/gif files that take up a few kB at most.

Hamstar why do you spell 'rise' as "reise" in your sig?

20-12-2004, 12:26 AM
metla... cos it confused me when i first went to a forum with pics all over the place... it still does...

deci... reise is rammstein-speak... just ripped it off them... actually it probly means rise in german... yknow rammstien being german and all....

20-12-2004, 12:54 AM
I like the idea of Avatars, but having them turned off by default so that people who dont want them dont have to worry.

I would personally enable them.
Of course they too would then need moderation......

20-12-2004, 03:15 AM
img sigs are bad news, I touched on it here:

deci... reise is rammstein-speak... just ripped it off them... actually it probly means rise in german... yknow rammstien being german and all....

I thought it was a play on ReiserFS (http://www.google.co.nz/search?hl=en&q=reiserfs&meta=) ;)

20-12-2004, 09:42 AM
Of course they too would then need moderation......

Well on the bright side, you can't really hide it if your avatar is naughty.

20-12-2004, 03:34 PM
deci... reise is rammstein-speak... just ripped it off them... actually it probly means rise in german... yknow rammstien being german and all....
Sorry, but reise means "journey" or "traveller". A bit confusing in your context.

Graham L
20-12-2004, 03:37 PM
More bloat. Farmers use expensive drench to prevent their stock from getting it.

Why can't we be a bloat-free zone?

20-12-2004, 03:48 PM
They can be disabled if you don't like them. Win-win situation. Why should the rest of the forum conform to your wants when you can fix it yourself with a checkbox?

Avatars add some personality and character to your forum identity.

20-12-2004, 04:10 PM
I wouldn't mind them as long as I didn't see them. I'm not a picture guy anyways. But I like Chill's idea of having them off as default and for the guys who want it -enable it.

... as for the 56kers and Stu, probably not a good idea ;) (slow? eating too much broadband?)

Graham L
20-12-2004, 04:22 PM
I don't want to add personality and character to my "forum identity". I have a real identity.

20-12-2004, 04:34 PM
I fail to see how it could effect you in anyway, Or why you would want to inflict your prefences on anybody else?

Your quite welcome to keep your view of the forum on the vanilla settings.

Its like complaining about what someone somewhere else is watching on television.

Quite bizarre.

20-12-2004, 05:16 PM
Indeed. :lol:

20-12-2004, 06:58 PM
we didn't enable avatars as it just adds extra stuff to download, and we know how you guys dislike all those little extras (i.e. the ads)... ;)

we might review allowing avatars in the future, but for the time being they're turned off.

20-12-2004, 07:13 PM
Hooray - keep it simple Mary !
Cheers Tony

20-12-2004, 07:21 PM
I actually quite like the simplicity - It makes PressF1 stand out that little bit more than all the other 'average' forums that are out there on the Web :-)

Murray P
20-12-2004, 07:26 PM
Ta for the explanation Mary. Thought you people had shut down for Chrissy, did you draw the short straw?

So, if you turn off the ability to see avatar's you don't need to download them but, they're still taking up space and resources on the server are they not, does it amount to anything significant? If there was a choice, would there be something else that would put that space to better use.

Personally I don't want an avatar or to see one. If I can turn a previous analogy slightly, it could be viewed as having to fit sound proofing and blackout curtains because the neighbours TV is so intrusive, in fact the louder the better is their moto :yuck: However, If they take up minimal space and resources including maintenance, I have no real objection to those that like to play, playing with them.

20-12-2004, 07:27 PM
Yes, and it can quickly get very cluttered allowing avatars, and all the features in sigs!!!

20-12-2004, 07:50 PM
surely it would only get cluttered if it's already overloaded with features? :2cents:

20-12-2004, 10:01 PM
Simple,Let those who want to use them provide there own hosting.

Let those who don't want to see them have them hidden.

You were against them why?

20-12-2004, 10:53 PM
I resent the idea of allowing avatars to be located off-site. It's a security implication in it's own right.