Hey,

Just wanted to ask if WHT will allow avatars to be shown on posts in the near future, I know you allow them in your profile but why not on posts?

Avatars are not enabled on this forum. Profile pictures are different from Avatars ;)

Fair one, Is that due to people would abuse the system

Any time we've talked about it, the majority of those talking would rather not have avatars enabled.

I think we can have something where one wishes to use the forum without avatars. May be we can fulfill both the wishes

You can put your pretty pictures in your profile :angel:

You can put your pretty pictures in your profile :angel:

Thats kinda cool but we can also enable the avatars too. May be users who don't wish to see can disable it.

I will vote for enabling avatars. They are cool, anyone who does not like them, may just disable it from control panel. Anyway, I hope WHT responds with activating them. :)

It would be cool but they increase page size. Maybe make a light surf option for people who wouldn't want to see them like many forums do. Or even better, only enable them for premium members.

It would be cool but they increase page size. Maybe make a light surf option for people who wouldn't want to see them like many forums do. Or even better, only enable them for premium members.

Premium Accounts:mad:

I don't see much purpose to avatars, especially now with the really advanced profiles members can have. With me having options set to accept 60 posts per page, avatars are all I need to break the 20 seconds page load barrier on WHT. :P

Avatars would be ok, and they can be turned on or off in the user's profile, but I think keep the pics to the profile page for now. I don't think avatars would suit WHT's feel.

Exactly Bob. The current theme does not support avatars well, because usernames are top aligned not left aligned like with forums with avatars.

avataars lol....

what next? a "Thanks" button.

owm

Actually, the "Thanks" button is something we've thought about incorporating to cut down on all them "Thanks" posts. :)

Anywho . . . I like the profile pictures too.

And make sure you put the "THANKS" button right next to the "REPORT" button too, so folks can mix the 2 buttons up. :D

And make sure you put the "THANKS" button right next to the "REPORT" button too, so folks can mix the 2 buttons up. :D

:rofl: :rofl: Good one Bob.:agree:

Actually the thanks button should be looked. I do not think its gonna hurt the feel of wht :( but its also a good way to show thanx to fellow member.

Maybe, a whole reputation system?.. dunno

We dont like avatars on the forum - we'll try to keep it as professional as is possibility.

-Pete

We dont like avatars on the forum - we'll try to keep it as professional as is possibility.

-Pete

I'm inclined to agree with Pete on this one. Sorry guys.

- Jason

just for the sake of it...

here's what an aussie bob avataar could possibly be like :)

owm

just for the sake of it...

here's what an aussie bob avataar could possibly be like :)

owm

Brokeback Aussie?

-Pete

That is funny! :rofl:

Now for softwarerevue :)

& Page Zone

Running for cover...

owm

No avatars, i like reading content and having fast pageloads.

BTW what's with the new Tacid Members/Moderators, they have Unlimited in their sigs and all the forums get changed to Unlimited XYZ.

SEO Bait & Switch?

I say +1 to no avatars, often times I find avatars actually detract from the overall forum experience.

No avatars, i like reading content and having fast pageloads.


Agreed. Besides who wants to look at pictures of 15 year old "CEO's"?

This isn't MySpace or Facebook. I'm here for the content and $#@! Moderation ;)

No avatars, i like reading content and having fast pageloads.
Agreed. Besides who wants to look at pictures of 15 year old "CEO's"?

You both do realize that you could always hide avatars, right? So your whole reasoning about 'fast pageloads' is a none issue. If they ever did get enabled, those who don't want to see them, could easily hide them. ;)

...If they ever did get enabled, those who don't want to see them, could easily hide them. ;)
If ever they got enabled, they'd be off by default. ;)

You both do realize that you could always hide avatars, right? So your whole reasoning about 'fast pageloads' is a none issue. If they ever did get enabled, those who don't want to see them, could easily hide them. ;)

If you are logged in then no, but if you are not logged in, are one of the 1,000s of guests who visit the board daily or one of the 1,000s of Search Engine Spider hits per day that get overhead added to the crawl due to images then yes it's an issue.

If ever they got enabled, they'd be off by default.

That's the best solution right there.

Actually the best solution is to just not have avatars to begin with, then it doesn't really matter if they are enabled by default :P

You both do realize that you could always hide avatars, right? So your whole reasoning about 'fast pageloads' is a none issue. If they ever did get enabled, those who don't want to see them, could easily hide them. ;)

Some moderators don't want to see them, but because we are moderators, we would have to see them if they were ever enabled :bawling:

I think a solution is need to keep everyone happy: allow 100% transparent image avatars of size less than 5kb :D

Or just trick out that new Enhanced Member Profile (http://www.webhostingtalk.com/profile). :lovewht:

We dont like avatars on the forum - we'll try to keep it as professional as is possibility.

-Pete

So signatures make it look more professional? What about colors in text? Smilies?

You don't want them to be removed because: you're selfish and want to promote your site(s). Colors would get more attention. Am I right here?

You don't want avatars because: they won't allow you to promote your products, you are selfish and this would increase page load. Am I right here?

I think we can have something where one wishes to use the forum without avatars. May be we can fulfill both the wishes
Biju, you mean something that can 'be converted' ! ;)

You don't want them to be removed because: you're selfish and want to promote your site(s). Colors would get more attention. Am I right here?

You don't want avatars because: they won't allow you to promote your products, you are selfish and this would increase page load. Am I right here?

hmm who stole your candy?. :)

you'd think it was nukes they were trying to deploy in your back garden. :stickout:

it's only a meaningless and no use for anything 100x100 picture we are talking about here....so yes if avataars did slow down the pageload for some users, then surely it's better not to have them and WHT will load faster, not just for the business operational side of WHT but for the members and visitors who are browsing too.

if people like nice looking pictures whilst browsing...have a look here. http://www.artlondon.com/

owm

Your smilies usage just caused this page to load slower. We should remove them, signatures should be removed as well. Your signature bold text added <b> and/or <strong> to the code which caused WHT to load even longer.

Your smilies usage just caused this page to load slower. We should remove them, signatures should be removed as well. Your signature bold text added <b> and/or <strong> to the code which caused WHT to load even longer.
I gues we need to consider the drawbacks to having adverts, and even more importantly; lets ban posting !

Obviously images like this one, need to be banned, or else !

Exactly :-)

Signatures do NOT take half as long as an avatar would to load, though neither would really take that long if done properly (and no, I'm not saying signatures are taking long, or anything is done 'improperly' now ;))

Avatars, while nice would be a literal nightmare here. There's really only ONE way that it would work:

Do NOT allow remote loading, or uploading of avatars.

This means less work for the mods, and allows individuals what they want, avatars. The mods choose certain acceptable sets of avatars (simpsons, television shows, games, etc) that are family friendly, and bam, we have avatars!

That's the ONLY way I can see them working, because once you allow avatars on a forum this big, what's going to happen is you're going to get that idiot with questionable morals that thinks it's ok to put some risque picture up as an 'avatar', and raises all hell because he (or she) can't have their way. This creates more work for the mods to deal with than they already have.

Remember, the mods don't get paid jack for anything here (well most don't ;)). Why put MORE work on them than already exists, they're already overworked and underpaid!

Remember, the mods don't get paid jack for anything here (well most don't ;)). Why put MORE work on them than already exists, they're already overworked and underpaid!

Amen! Preach it, brother! :cool:

Signatures do NOT take half as long as an avatar would to load, though neither would really take that long if done properly (and no, I'm not saying signatures are taking long, or anything is done 'improperly' now ;))

Avatars, while nice would be a literal nightmare here. There's really only ONE way that it would work:

Do NOT allow remote loading, or uploading of avatars.

This means less work for the mods, and allows individuals what they want, avatars. The mods choose certain acceptable sets of avatars (simpsons, television shows, games, etc) that are family friendly, and bam, we have avatars!

That's the ONLY way I can see them working, because once you allow avatars on a forum this big, what's going to happen is you're going to get that idiot with questionable morals that thinks it's ok to put some risque picture up as an 'avatar', and raises all hell because he (or she) can't have their way. This creates more work for the mods to deal with than they already have.

Remember, the mods don't get paid jack for anything here (well most don't ;)). Why put MORE work on them than already exists, they're already overworked and underpaid!

I'd rather have them off then :-)

Signatures are good for identifying people, that's all.
If there are like 100 avatars collection, it's useless :-)

I'd rather have them off then :-)

Signatures are good for identifying people, that's all.
If there are like 100 avatars collection, it's useless :-)

Signatures are nothing, if you let avatars go 'wild', where anyone can upload, or do anything, this is a HUGE problem, ESPECIALLY with half the kids that are here.

The only way to handle this effectively is to have the avatars selected from a pre-approved list.

You know, I think that if avatars were enabled, they would have to be real pictures of the poster. Imagine replying to someone's post and being able to see their photo right next to where you are typing your reply. I think that would add a level of interaction that is often missing in these faceless conversations.

You know, I think that if avatars were enabled, they would have to be real pictures of the poster. Imagine replying to someone's post and being able to see their photo right next to where you are typing your reply. I think that would add a level of interaction that is often missing in these faceless conversations.

Completely agreed. But I guarantee we would have people who upload pictures of celebs/etc, instead of themselves..

I would love to see avatars which could only be faceshots of the poster.

In order for mods not to waste their time. What about avatar for premium users only? They won't add anything *evil* there.

In order for mods not to waste their time. What about avatar for premium users only? They won't add anything *evil* there.

Yeah right, being a 'premium member' automatically means you're "not evil" while not being a premium member means you are. Nice insult there.

Doing this just for "premium members" just means that the "premium members" get to complain more when their avatar is rejected, and actually have a leg to stand on, by using statements such as:


I PAID for that avatar, you have no right to reject it

In order for mods not to waste their time. What about avatar for premium users only? They won't add anything *evil* there.

You haven't seen some of the Premium members :eek: :P :evilb:

Yeah right, being a 'premium member' automatically means you're "not evil" while not being a premium member means you are. Nice insult there.

Doing this just for "premium members" just means that the "premium members" get to complain more when their avatar is rejected, and actually have a leg to stand on, by using statements such as:

No, I just mean't that they won't risk their account by adding some bad avatars. No insults here ;-)

anon-e-mouse, because I don't remember any (no avatars) :-)

Allowing avatars for premium only will likely cause us more work. Not all premmies display their "badge" or the colour, so we will have constant questions about why <insert username here> has an avatar and I can't.

Oh come on Jan, it's not like you have much to do anyway. :dgrin:

*ducks

Oh come on Jan, it's not like you have much to do anyway. :dgrin:

*ducks
:smash:
Aussie Bob

In order for mods not to waste their time. What about avatar for premium users only? They won't add anything *evil* there.
Many People that have Premium Membership, Have Sold there Soul to Pay for it :dgrin:

Anybody that's going to wear a 'WHT' T-Shirt in public, Must be EVIL ! :nuts:

After All, we All know that, WHT stands for 'Wicked' 'Horny' 'Thing':fork:

You know, I think that if avatars were enabled, they would have to be real pictures of the poster. Imagine replying to someone's post and being able to see their photo right next to where you are typing your reply. I think that would add a level of interaction that is often missing in these faceless conversations.
This is a great idea, may I offer my services, to take 'Authorised Photos' of WHT members,
which [once this system is in place] may be used on the WHT forum.
The cost will be only $20 plus travel & accomommodation & Meals & Entertainment & Bar Expenses
[based on 150% of actual costs with respect to individual trips from Camelot UK] and a small administration charge of $200.
note. any WHT charges will not be covered by this offer. ;)

Anyone interested in this scheme should send an initial, non refundable deposit of $10
using the link in my sig. or other suitable Charity. :cool:

post #24 about sums up what you'd be likely to see if avataars were allowed.

do we really need crap like that cluttering up a board.?

at least I can rest easy knowing that although we're discussing them...they ain't gonna happen. :)

keep WHT and avataar free board.

owm

Many People that have Premium Membership, Have Sold there Soul to Pay for it :dgrin:

Anybody that's going to wear a 'WHT' T-Shirt in public, Must be EVIL ! :nuts:

After All, we All know that, WHT stands for 'Wicked' 'Horny' 'Thing':fork:

Nice... WHT do stands for many other wicked things....... :stickout: