Lhet on 25/8/2003 at 00:49
I am just curious...Why aren't there any avatars... It would be easy to regulate them to 120 x 120 pixels or 10000 kb, whichever is smaller...
I am sorry if this has already been discussed
MsLedd on 25/8/2003 at 01:12
*MsLedd curls up into a fetal position, rocking back and forth and crying*
ohsweetjesusmakeitstop!!!
mopgoblin on 25/8/2003 at 03:07
Quote:
Originally posted by Lhet 120 x 120 pixels or 10000 kb120 x 120 pixels/10000kb* do not equal <i>small</i>. 32 x 32 pixels/1024 bytes would equal <i>small</i>. Observe:
<table><tr><td height=120 width=120 bgcolor=#7f7f7f></td></tr></table>
Assuming I didn't screw up the HTML, that's the area you're talking about. Now reduce your screen resolution to 800x600 or 640x480, and see how large that is.
Now, let's assume that the average size for an avatar is 8KB. Currently, the size of this thread's page is about 30KB. However, if everyone who has posted here so far (excluding me) had an avatar, that's another 24KB. Now, suppose you click on a thread with 20 posts, all by different people. That's an additional 160KB if none of the images are cached.
Then there's the issue of inappropriate avatars. With thirteen thousand existing accounts and approximately twelve new accounts every day, checking for these would be unreasonably time-consuming for the administrators, and there is no other system which can guarantee impartial and fully effective prevention/removal of inappropriate avatars.
Finally, there will be a lot of cases where an avatar cannot be displayed because the host is down, someone tried to use an image on their hard disk, etc.
<img src="http://www.paradise.net.nz/jhaskell/images/thisImageDoesNotExist.jpg">
Imagine seeing that even 5% of the time, and it could get quite annoying.
*I assume you mean <i>10</i> kilobytes, or 10240 <i>bytes</i>. Ten thousand kilobytes is absurdly large for any image.
Hemebond on 25/8/2003 at 11:53
These forums need to be optimised not encumbered further.
Child of Karras on 25/8/2003 at 12:34
I have one thing to say though.
I know why TTLG prohibits the use of avatars what I don't understand is the use for the date of registration and the "new member" and "member" signs. Maybe it'll make more sense if there was more kinds like senior members or let it be customizable... Words can't be a problem can they? (Well except for the "unacceptable ones...")
Well but I ain't complaining. Just a thought. I'm glad that TTLG doesn't look like this:
(
http://www.gamingforce.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=13388)
Two thumbs up. Keep it clean! :cheeky:
mopgoblin on 25/8/2003 at 13:20
I reckon keeping the registration date visible and the New Member/Member status change are a good ideas, as this makes impersonation (by registering a similar nick) easier to detect. It's easy to use the same profile information as someone else, but the <i>New Member</i> thing is an obvious giveaway.
However, adding additional levels such as "Senior Member" etc. is probably a very bad idea (even if they were time-based rather than postcount-based), as it'd lead to more spam. It's bad enough that there have been threads with over one hundred replies by one person within 24 hours, or someone trying to get the most posts ever within a year. When the dreaded DX2/T3 apocalypse arrives and console-idiots plague the forums, etc., there should be as little incentive to spam as possible.
I could see a customisable title being slightly less of a problem (shouldn't be more of a problem with inappropriate content than with location fields), but there'd probably be more than a few occurances of people calling themselves "Administrator", "Moderator", etc. - and it'd be difficult to block all variants of these without also blocking the valid (although perhaps still slightly misleading) title "Admin of <something else>".
Child of Karras on 25/8/2003 at 13:22
The senior member title could be based on the length of thier registration.
mopgoblin on 25/8/2003 at 13:43
True, but I can see two problems with that. The first (relatively minor) problem is that it could conflict with the New Member/Member switch at 30/31 posts. Not too difficult to fix.
The second problem, however, is that the people who will want to reach this "higher level" will (of course) be people who have just registered at the forums. Therefore it is unlikely that they will know it's based on the time they've been registered, and as most forums use postcount rather than time since registration to make these distinctions, the incentive to spam is not removed.
Finally (I know I said two problems, but this applies whether it's based on time since registration or not), such a system is generally a bad thing as it can generate arrogance/envy, and subsequent resentment between people at different "levels". With the New Member/Member thing it's not really a problem, as the gap is small. However, when there is a large gap (and even two months or 100 posts is a pretty large gap from the lower side), it'd be much more of a problem. If you look through those threads GBM linked to, you'll probably find one where there was some discussion on what sort of delay/requirement is acceptable for allowing a user to have an avatar. Many of the points you'll find there are also relevant in this case.
Shadow on 28/8/2003 at 03:40
Th- The light... it... IT BURNS!!!!
