|
matt
Feb 21, 2003, 11:57 PM
Post #51 of 61
(2869 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 4, 2001
Posts: 1703
|
In reply to: Uhh... hi! New to the site, wondering if you guy will have any content EVER or is this place just a bunch of 80x80 photos next to people's names ?!?!"
Are you talking about b.com or rc.com?
In reply to: first, I realize that he wrote the entire codebase. That is why I said "let me google to find the name of the guy who wrote phpbb2" instead of "he wrote phpbb2." lol. Read much ?
Yeah, I do. And maybe if you did, you'd realize that PHPbb2 is merely a part of something way bigger: PHP. PHPbb is merely the bullitin board part of some incredible open-source code.
|
|
|
|
|
weaselman
Feb 22, 2003, 2:04 AM
Post #52 of 61
(2869 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 17, 2003
Posts: 294
|
hey guys!! please answer my question. How do you insert smilies from other sites into your signature? thanks again
|
|
|
|
|
todrick
Feb 22, 2003, 2:31 AM
Post #53 of 61
(2869 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 27, 2002
Posts: 85
|
mysmilies.com
|
|
|
|
|
jules
Feb 22, 2003, 3:28 AM
Post #54 of 61
(2869 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 1, 2001
Posts: 3099
|
Trevor, I didn't bother to read through all four pages of this thread so my ideas may be redundant, but I think they're worth consideration.
Well, first of all, I voted no. They're allowed on some sites I go to (I even have some sig images on other sites) but I'd rather have them disabled. They slow down page load time and clutter stuff up.
Re: avatars..
I've seen sites where you can choose whether you view avatars or not. Maybe the thing to do would be to have an option for whether you see them or no, and set the default to "no". This way only the people who want to see them will, and those who are just stopping by won't get a bad (inaccurate) impression of the site based on the avatars.
In regards to both sig images and avatars, as much as I oppose excessive moderation, you'd really need to have some sort of approval system (for example, add another category into photo approvals: High, Medium, Low, Avatar and allow each user to have only one avatar, hosted on-site) so that some people who think they're funny don't put gigantic porno shots or something into their sigs or avatars.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
lox
Feb 22, 2003, 4:42 AM
Post #56 of 61
(2869 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 2, 2002
Posts: 2307
|
In reply to: In reply to: Uhh... hi! New to the site, wondering if you guy will have any content EVER or is this place just a bunch of 80x80 photos next to people's names ?!?!" Are you talking about b.com or rc.com? In reply to: first, I realize that he wrote the entire codebase. That is why I said "let me google to find the name of the guy who wrote phpbb2" instead of "he wrote phpbb2." lol. Read much ? Yeah, I do. And maybe if you did, you'd realize that PHPbb2 is merely a part of something way bigger: PHP. PHPbb is merely the bullitin board part of some incredible open-source code.
You obviously don't "get it."
First of all, I know what php is. Thanks for the help. I have several good friends who enjoy coding in php very much. One is a vespa afficionado/mechanic and the other is the genius behind www.0friction.com . I've been using/adminning php driven bb for a while.
Secondly, it's called "sarcasm." And while I understand your need to try to employ ad hominem attack (every other arguement you present is weak) I think that people are SMART ENOUGH to differentiate between usable content in one column and a small photo in the other column.
It's cool though. You sound very tough, while simply repeating the views of a mistrusting and unnecessairly altruistic administration.
Personlly, I'd give the users of rc.com more credit.
This feature is trivial, not much work for the mods and people really like it.
And I just spoke to Bill Gates... he said he was "totally in favor of digital avatars" but that anything open source could "suk it."
:p
|
|
|
|
|
twrock
Feb 22, 2003, 5:22 AM
Post #57 of 61
(2869 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 8, 2002
Posts: 223
|
(Just another person voicing an opinion; take it or leave it.)
Small avatars (like 72x72) under the username on the left would probably not lengthen 90% of the posts here and are very unobtrusive when you are trying to read through a thread quickly. (Just look at how much blank space is available under the username.) Ala Adam's suggestion, if you require them to be onsite and be either the profile pic or a specific pre-approved avatar, you maintain some semblance of control over the content.
Completely with Juliana that it would be nice to be able to choose to turn them off.
Signature pics definitely do add to overall page length. I also think they start to look like a serious "clusterf---" after you see too many in a row. (If you don't allow them, people can still insert a pic before their sig via typing in a link each time they post, but the hassle of having to do it each time discourages it from happening.)
So how about going "half-way" and allowing avatars but disabling BBcode, HTML and pics in signatures? Just my $0.02.
|
|
|
|
|
weaselman
Feb 22, 2003, 6:24 PM
Post #59 of 61
(2869 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 17, 2003
Posts: 294
|
thank you drdeath
|
|
|
|
|
weaselman
Feb 22, 2003, 6:34 PM
Post #60 of 61
(2869 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 17, 2003
Posts: 294
|
sweet it worked.
|
|
|
|
|
coldclimb
Feb 24, 2003, 4:07 AM
Post #61 of 61
(2869 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 14, 2002
Posts: 6909
|
sooo.... I see that people are still using them... are small sig images ok then? Or has the decision been made yet?
|
|
|
|
|
|
