Are avatars against the rules here?

They are not enabled, therefore the rules don't come in to play.

With this crowd of wild hosting people, can you blame them? ;)

Ha! I am guessing that the images would def cause the page load slower and that would be a bad thing. Besides - who in their right mind would want to see my pink hairless white ba'hook'eee

Well most forums have size limits on avatars and signatures, nothing more annoying then an animated ava with a video sig, but still how large is a 50-100px GIF? Less then 10 kb, it's not like it would hurt page loading times.

Well most forums have size limits on avatars and signatures, nothing more annoying then an animated ava with a video sig, but still how large is a 50-100px GIF? Less then 10 kb, it's not like it would hurt page loading times.

IMHO, it has more to do with the image of the board than it does the space / resources. To me, when I see boards with avatars and images in their signature, just seems childish and not professional.

Just me .02

Sirius

Well, we might see a lot of professional hosting logos. ;)

WHT loads too slowly already, we don't need any more images, regardless of their small file size, to slow it down more. JMHO

What's the max number of posts on a page, 10? Thats 10x 10kb max if you only allow GIFs at 100 pixels, which is a whopping 100kb, not going to be killing anyone's machine.

I do see your point about it making a board look unprofessional though, I agree when it comes to obnoxious graphical signatures and such, but I don't know about avatars, maybe I guess.

Thats 10x 10kb max if you only allow GIFs at 100 pixels, which is a whopping 100kb, not going to be killing anyone's machine.

What about people still on dialup? That's an extra 20-25 seconds loading time!

Who's getting 4k a second on dialup?

What speed would you say people get on dialup? I used to connect at around 44-48,000bps which is 4-5k download speed.

I haven't had dialup in years so I really don't know, but there's no way it's 4-5k a sec, that would take years to download anything.

Well do the calculations yourself! If we lived in a magical world where we could connect at the top speed of 56k that is still only a 7KB download speed. I've never managed to connect at much more than 48k and downloads would be around 4-5KB/s.

And yes, it did take a while to download things!

What equation is this where an 1/8th of your bandwith is the fastest you can download at? Honestly I don't know that much about the subject, just wondering how you reached that conclusion.

8bits (b) = 1byte (B)

Pretty basic computing ;)

Haha guess I skipped that stage then, I still can't believe that the max download speed you can get is 5k a sec though, that's ridiculous.

how about enabling them, and having the display turned off by default?

Sounds like a good idea to me

and I HATE this flood control :(

Haha guess I skipped that stage then, I still can't believe that the max download speed you can get is 5k a sec though, that's ridiculous.

The first time I connected to the Internet it was at something like 24k (on a 28k modem) offering 3KB/s download speed! Then I got an upgrade to 33.6K and finally up to the blazing fast speeds of 56k.

how about enabling them, and having the display turned off by default?

I believe this was discussed as an option before. Not quite sure why it was never followed up on though. I'm sure there is a thread around here somewhere with all the info though.

I don't really care that much, the place is just kinda dull though, that would liven it up a little IMHO. I'd rather get that flood control reduced to 60 seconds though...

Flood control has also been discussed to death before. If anything it would go up in the future, not down!

Why? What is a 90 second flood control going to prevent that a 60 second wouldn't?

Spammers!

How many more posts would you have had if it was 60 seconds? :eek:

57.31 posts per day at 90 seconds.

They have excessive and un-necessary rules here, I've noticed alot.

They don't want this to turn into just a big advertising forum.

Spammers!

How many more posts would you have had if it was 60 seconds? :eek:

57.31 posts per day at 90 seconds.
haha I prefer the term pro post whore, I'm not a spammer, I'm just quick :D

They don't want this to turn into just a big advertising forum.
A little late...?

Everyone here keeps talking about page load times and how fast your connection speed is. That is only a little fraction of the point. Let's forget about the client side.

Avatars would cause more load on the SQL/database which means more load on the server side.

Everyone here keeps talking about page load times and how fast your connection speed is. That is only a little fraction of the point. Let's forget about the client side.

Avatars would cause more load on the SQL/database which means more load on the server side.
:agree: Amen!!!:agree: