EEVILMURRAY Posted June 4, 2007 Share Posted June 4, 2007 Ashmon has got the cogs in my brain turning on the size of avatars. Have they been increased again? I've noticed Ashley's pissing on the former amount [Even though the rules say 80x80, wasn't it increased to 125x125? if not, I shall decrease mine straight away being the rule abiding citizen that I am!] Also, has the combined size shizzle gone too? Because our nameless chap [bollocks, it's Ashmon again] Has his avatar just under 15kb, which in the grand scheme of things is ok. But then the signature comes in just over 86kb. Slightly a little more than the combined 50kb limit set by the staff. Because if that's the case I'm going to work on a massive 56k killing avatar and signature. I know the topic itself says: If you have any questions feel free to ask a member of staff thruogh a PM, please do not post on the boards. Thanks for your understanding. I thought fuck it. Thank You for your understanding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shorty Posted June 4, 2007 Share Posted June 4, 2007 The avatars are still 125x125, which they were changed to a few months back. Ashley's just having a bigger one, I think. And why not? He deserves it, he's the hardest working admin The combined signature and avatar size rule still applies. It just doesn't apply to us. You could've asked this in the "Questions" thread in Board News and Issues. Closing.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jordan Posted June 4, 2007 Share Posted June 4, 2007 Which is basically unfair, imo :p Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shorty Posted June 4, 2007 Share Posted June 4, 2007 I'm gonna reopen this because I want to discuss it now I don't see it as unfair, and that's not just because I'm an admin. I think so on other boards too, where I'm just a regular member. Most boards have more relaxed regulations for veteran members, and usually all sorts of privileges for staff. Honestly I think most people who've been at these boards and these boards only for a long time have a somewhat archaic view of how a messageboard can be run. It's normal now to bestow priveleges on staff. One board I went to only allowed signatures for the moderating team! And since only a few people get the larger avatars, it doesn't take up as much space as if we gave them to all. When I first suggested upping the avatar size, some people went nuts. ZOMG. They said. HUEG, LIEK XBOX. They said. And now they just look... 'normal'. If we were to reduce them back to 80x80, you'd all be squinting and surprised they were ever that teensy. Forums ain't what they used to be this is how vBulletin works in 2007, not how xsorbit was run in 2003, where admin let members traipse all over them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Supergrunch Posted June 4, 2007 Share Posted June 4, 2007 For what you claim to be a modern forum, I think the maximum sig/avatar sizes are terribly small. For instance, on animesuki, where the max avatar size is only 100x100, you still get 50kb to play with, and a further 48.8kb for the signature. The small sizes here mean I have to spend ages optimising my pictures on photoshop so that they are the right size but don't look compressed and horrible. I'm not terribly bothered if the mods/admins get more space, as long as bog standard members get something reasonable. (Also, what are the more relaxed regulations for veteran members? ) Nevertheless, I think the 125x125 size avatars are lovely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shorty Posted June 4, 2007 Share Posted June 4, 2007 You're probably right, we could handle more, maybe. As for members loading... there's very few dial up members around. I know on the NarutoFan forums you can have huge filesizes (although their sig regulations are also something huge like 500px high, and more allowed inside spoiler tags), every other member has 10 second long anime animation clips in there. It took me quite some time to convince the rest of the staff to up the avatar size restriction though, so I'm not sure if anyone will budge on members' signature sizes What do the majority of members think about the filesize restrictions, I wonder...? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Supergrunch Posted June 4, 2007 Share Posted June 4, 2007 It's not so much the signature size that I care about, it's more the avatar size. I think 18.3kb is just too small. Hell, even on go discussions where nobody cares about avatars they have a 19.5kb size limit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EEVILMURRAY Posted June 4, 2007 Author Share Posted June 4, 2007 Damn right. If anyone's going to rape those with a slow connection, it's going to be the one's we PM for help! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcj metroid Posted June 4, 2007 Share Posted June 4, 2007 yes seriously i always have trouble with avators.bThe one i have at the mo is just below the limit i think and it's tiny:(. At least i think it was it's been a while. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shorty Posted June 4, 2007 Share Posted June 4, 2007 Damn right. If anyone's going to rape those with a slow connection, it's going to be the one's we PM for help!Oh you're right, imagine having to open a PM that loaded nearly 80kb of image. Ignoring for the moment the fact that two people posting instantly have a size larger than that.Or that the header for the website is over 50kb itself. Or that it's possible to turn off images altogether in browser options if you're having connection problems - do you really think it's a big deal, a few more kilobytes? Back when I was on dialup, I never cared about signatures. Threads with 56k warnings, sure, but <100kb of signature? Even at 56k, that's only a few seconds. And the fact is, the majority of users is now on at least 512k. Some people here are on 20mb+! The internet has evolved to become graphic intensive. N-E has been around, under another name, since everyone was on dialup, so many of its older users seem to have a somewhat dated outlook on what's acceptable... PS. Nobody ever PMs an admin about connection problems. They just make threads to complain instead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AshMat Posted June 4, 2007 Share Posted June 4, 2007 Yeah, the 125*125 is fine, b8ut we need a bigger file size. Avatars need moar file size too, but dimensions are fine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dyson Posted June 4, 2007 Share Posted June 4, 2007 Image sizes are just fine. The file sizes, however, have gotta be changed. Can we have animated avatars? Or am I thinking of another forum that bans those.. Either way, it'd be nice to have animated avatars and larger file sizes if possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AshMat Posted June 4, 2007 Share Posted June 4, 2007 This forum allows them, but often the file size is too large. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ashley Posted June 4, 2007 Share Posted June 4, 2007 First of all, as Shorty said. Im always running around this place tidying up, why can't I have an avatar that will, knowing me, last a few weeks at most? I mean come on guys, you're bringing me down. And as far as file size is there really need? Maybe my eye isn't sharp enough (although my optician gave me the all clear) or maybe because I don't have an ubermonitor, but do these actually look any different: The first is 26kb the second is 6.1kb. And to get an image that was above the file size limit when reduced I still had to throw out four images of Kristen Bell as even once shrunk they still were less than 20kb on 100% optimised or whatever the word is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EEVILMURRAY Posted June 4, 2007 Author Share Posted June 4, 2007 do you really think it's a big deal, a few more kilobytes? Go on then, just a few more. A few more then... Twist my arm, a few more. If we're going to follow this we might as well get rid of the restrictions completely. PS. Nobody ever PMs an admin about connection problems. They just make threads to complain instead. VIVA LA REVOLUCION! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shorty Posted June 4, 2007 Share Posted June 4, 2007 Go on then, just a few more. A few more then... Twist my arm, a few more. If we're going to follow this we might as well get rid of the restrictions completely. What an incredibly moronic response. Just because I said that a few kb doesn't hurt, doesn't mean I think constantly increasing appropriate filesizes ad infinitum is acceptable or likely. No admin is ever going to have a sig or avatar so large that you cannot open a PM message from them, are they? Regardless of EEVILMURRAY's seemingly baseless and confusingly unecessary objections (just what are you arguing for, the sake of it?), we'll discuss raising site-wide avatar restrictions since a few people brought it up. But from what Ashley's said already, it might not happen. For now I'm closing this 'debate'. Further suggestions on how we can improve can be thought out properly and presented fully in the appropriate "Suggestions" thread in Board News and Issues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts