|
coldclimb
Feb 21, 2003, 3:11 AM
Post #1 of 61
(3926 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 14, 2002
Posts: 6909
|
So how about this? Can we put pics like this in our sigs? And if so, what are the rules about size and such?
Thanks
|
|
|
|
|
wv5ten
Feb 21, 2003, 3:32 AM
Post #2 of 61
(3926 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 2, 2002
Posts: 671
|
heh seems like you got it under control ;)
|
|
|
|
|
trevor
Anonymous Poster
Feb 21, 2003, 4:23 AM
Post #3 of 61
(3926 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 11, 2006
Posts: 0
|
I am against photos in sigs and also avatars. Although they can be well done and truly add to the experience, they often just become a contest and don't contribute to the quality of content at all. My vote is no. Unless a lot of people disagree with me, I will disable this feature.
|
|
|
|
|
lox
Feb 21, 2003, 4:47 AM
Post #4 of 61
(3926 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 2, 2002
Posts: 2307
|
What's the matter with each person using a little picture to unique themself up a bit ?!?
Avatars RULE.
As do kickass personalized titles.
lol.
|
|
|
|
|
texasclimbers
Feb 21, 2003, 4:55 AM
Post #5 of 61
(3926 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 22, 2003
Posts: 31
|
In reply to: As do kickass personalized titles.
as long as they are personalized by you?
I think that the avatars should be allowed. But I can also understand the hassle of having to moderate them.
|
|
|
|
|
onelung
Feb 21, 2003, 4:55 AM
Post #6 of 61
(3926 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 8, 2002
Posts: 436
|
We all have a profile. stick every pic you want there, I want quick downloadedable pages of text in my forums. But its free so I support advertisers and will be happy with RC.com , just dont take my first born!
Ho'oMau,
Bill
|
|
|
|
|
todrick
Feb 21, 2003, 5:00 AM
Post #7 of 61
(3926 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 27, 2002
Posts: 85
|
ok first i voted yes.
it would be nice to have them IF you limit the size to something like the one above...
however, i do feel they are not really nesesary, anothe rboard i frequent has outlawed them simply for bandwidth/processing issues(not sure how rc.com compares but they are serving >40gb a month)
in all reality Avatars, whether in sigs or under your name, are simply a crutch, for people who can not express themselves with words...
so why'd i vote yes?
cause "NICEPORCH" has the funniest picture i think ive ever seen...
http://gallery.consumerreview.com/...7b5acfa6be64df9d.jpg
i nearly wet myself the first FEW times i saw it... so that alone is worth it.
basicly they would have to be small... about half the size of NICEPORCH's little kitty, otherwise they would be annoying...
|
|
|
|
|
lox
Feb 21, 2003, 5:00 AM
Post #8 of 61
(3926 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 2, 2002
Posts: 2307
|
Tclimbers... no. But I DO have a lot of practise.
And I like avatars. About the only mideration needed is the same moderation needed in forum posts. You can even autoprevent oversized avatars posted by avatards. lol.
It's fun !
|
|
|
|
|
trevor
Anonymous Poster
Feb 21, 2003, 5:09 AM
Post #9 of 61
(3926 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 11, 2006
Posts: 0
|
My question is that when we try to convince Black Diamond, Climbing Magazine, or North Face to foot the bill for our little fun here, are they going to be turned off by a "kiddy" looking website. If this turns into a "who-has-the-funniest-avatar" website, then it won't be much of a business.
What I am trying to say, is that I LOVE having B.com around. Yes, you heard it. I think there is a time a place to just screw around and have fun and also a time and place to get down to business. I want RC.com to be more business like and professional. I am afraid that the avatars and image sigs offer much more threat toward that professional look than they do good.
The other thing is that people HATE change. They hate it! We've gone this far with out avatars. I say we keep them off.
|
|
|
|
|
coldclimb
Feb 21, 2003, 5:45 AM
Post #10 of 61
(3926 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 14, 2002
Posts: 6909
|
Cool. Just had to be sure, cause I like making them look good, and I use them on a few other sites. I like it, first because I love making cool graphics, and second because it helps put a bit of individuality with each post.
|
|
|
|
|
lox
Feb 21, 2003, 5:49 AM
Post #11 of 61
(3926 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 2, 2002
Posts: 2307
|
lol.
It's not like those people aren't climbers too man.
Professionalism is an altruistic aspiration that will be hard to force on people. This sport, this industry and this business that you run have some of the most colorful personalities in teh world, much less the climbing community.
If people will respect the site enough to not curse, post in the appropriate forums, etc... then you should respect their ability to colorfy their posts.
People will get moderated if they post inappropriate or oversized images to any of the forum posts, the avatars are seriously not that much MORE work... especially with the autosize enabled.
I like avatars, think they are fun and not really much of a source of abuse as amusement. I think the best reason for having them is kinda why we all climb: Because it's possible.
Then again... you own the domain. Stifle at will and such. lol.
:)
|
|
|
|
|
caphalon
Feb 21, 2003, 6:03 AM
Post #12 of 61
(3926 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 3, 2003
Posts: 26
|
I hate the sigs and avatars because they distract from integrity of the message thread.
If you look on any of the gamespot.com forums, the sigs are often bigger than the messages. Its impossible to follow the thread and it basically becomes a big vanity contest.
If it were up to me, I would also disable html coding in messages (Specifically, you shouldn't be able to use the bold or h1 tags etc...) Emoticons should be the limit. The threads stay thin and easy to read.
|
|
|
|
|
lox
Feb 21, 2003, 6:18 AM
Post #13 of 61
(3926 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 2, 2002
Posts: 2307
|
LOFLE.
|
|
|
|
|
lox
Feb 21, 2003, 6:20 AM
Post #14 of 61
(3926 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 2, 2002
Posts: 2307
|
DAMMIt.
Heh[olive]... phpbb2 doesn't appreciate html. How a small picture can detract from "thread integrity[/olive]" is beyond me.
[brown]And you can put a hard limit [/brown]on the size of avatars. 80x80 is small...
|
|
|
|
|
climbsomething
Feb 21, 2003, 6:27 AM
Post #15 of 61
(3926 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 30, 2002
Posts: 8588
|
The sigs are cool if they're short (I like mine, although I wouldn't get bent out of shape if sigs were disabled altogether- they're no big deal) But I'm not too keen on avatars. I'd rather not have them, or images in sigs. They add inane clutter, visual "noise." Yeah, I do have a sense of humor, and certainly a sense of individuality, and I am not *that* uptight... I just think the forums are easier to read without all the extra ornaments. Smileys and basic HTML can dress up a post, but non-sequitor images and one-liners coming from every which way just seem like overkill. I'm with trevor and caphalon- while avatars etc. can be cool and add to a site's "flavor," I really see them just devolving into a slag heap of obnoxious juvenile "wit," which we have enough of anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
trevor
Anonymous Poster
Feb 21, 2003, 7:36 AM
Post #16 of 61
(3926 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 11, 2006
Posts: 0
|
Lox, you have good points and this is why I am even having the discussion because I think just maybe my opinion against avatars are ill founded. I'm curious to now know what others think. Of course IF (a big IF) we did this, the avatars would be limited greatly (ie 80x80) and moderated. We may even stop people from uploading until they reach a certain level of posts.
|
|
|
|
|
caphalon
Feb 21, 2003, 8:26 AM
Post #17 of 61
(3926 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 3, 2003
Posts: 26
|
In reply to: DAMMIt. Heh[olive]... phpbb2 doesn't appreciate html. How a small picture can detract from "thread integrity[/olive]" is beyond me.
[brown]And you can put a hard limit [/brown]on the size of avatars. 80x80 is small...
I think your post proves my point. Imagine if the whole thread was a mess of colors and sizes. Its no longer about the message content and becomes, LOOK AT ME, LOOK AT ME. Plus its hard to read. See it is hard to read
I'm not opposed to discreet images, but give an inch, take a mile (or something like that)
I'm not familiar with the tags in phpbb2, but it wouldn't surprise me to come back in six months and find that the message forums look like the visual equivalent of Times Square.
Overall, people should spend more time editing their posts for clarity as opposed to visibility.
|
|
|
|
|
todrick
Feb 21, 2003, 9:25 AM
Post #18 of 61
(3926 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 27, 2002
Posts: 85
|
yeah i am scared more of the font color and size changes than avatars... its ok if people use common sense and have a reasonable concept of design... but that isnt the way it works... bold and underline are plenty of emphesis for text the font colors and sizes i think are gonna be greatly abused.
hell the idea of PTPP playing around with colors and sizes in addition to Boldface is a bit scary in and of itself :mrgreen:
|
|
|
|
|
josephine
Feb 21, 2003, 9:52 AM
Post #19 of 61
(3926 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 8, 2002
Posts: 5794
|
I don't like avatars.But i like something small[like a smilie in my sig]
I vote no for avatars,and yes for small images in sigs.
:D
|
|
|
|
|
atg200
Feb 21, 2003, 1:53 PM
Post #20 of 61
(3926 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 27, 2001
Posts: 4317
|
i hate images in sigs - i would much rather see avatars than that. i also don't much care for colored text in forum posts and sigs - i'm sorry josephine, but your sig makes my eyes hurt.
i print out a number of threads(mostly from the aid and regional forums) that have really good information. the huge sigs really make that painful.
|
|
|
|
|
rrrADAM
Feb 21, 2003, 2:00 PM
Post #21 of 61
(3926 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 19, 1999
Posts: 17553
|
I think only avitars should be allowed, but that they should be limited to a thumbnail of the person's profile picture from our Gallery. This way it is an approved climbing shot... Otherwise many will push the limits of what is acceptable.
The thumbnails already exist if a pic has been submitted and approved.
An avitar will also not clutter the text boxes, but would be nice and neat in the left column under the user's name, and all the same size since they are thumbnails. Imagine for a second what PTPP's signature would be like if it weren't limitted to 250 characters including BB Tags... It took 2 minutes for my slow dial up just to load his user profile. :roll:
|
|
|
|
|
cdb1386
Feb 21, 2003, 2:06 PM
Post #22 of 61
(3926 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 1, 2001
Posts: 391
|
My vote is for an avatar and no images in the signatures. It just becomes a big clusterf*ck. Leave the html and emoticons so messages can be somewhat personalized.
My monkey really needs a home.http://www.freeavatars.net/...es/goofy/fhgs111.gif
|
|
|
|
|
rrrADAM
Feb 21, 2003, 2:08 PM
Post #23 of 61
(3926 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 19, 1999
Posts: 17553
|
That monkey rules !!!
Can I spank yer monkey, fer ya ??? :roll:
|
|
|
|
|
data118
Feb 21, 2003, 2:18 PM
Post #24 of 61
(3926 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 4, 2002
Posts: 845
|
I like avatars! I think they add a personal touch. I don't mind it being moderated however for size and content. Pics in the signature gets annoying if everyone has them.
|
|
|
|
|
russman
Feb 21, 2003, 2:47 PM
Post #25 of 61
(3926 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 2, 2000
Posts: 2848
|
There are many pros and cons as already written. I vote No on Avatars (unless we decide to do the already approved climbing pic from our site as Adam said).
I don't think we need mindless pix from all over the net making thier way onto the site. I too think about the advertisiers (since that is what I do) and many times I am cruising the site with potential advertisers (The Head Cheese of major Companies) and I think it would take only one look at many differnt avatars fro them to be turned off. Sorry Lox, they may (at one time) have been a climber, but many of them are true business ppl adn I can tell on the phone and by thier questions, that a Lion shaved cat and a Thinking monkey right next to each other would raise some eyebrows.
As far as the siggy. I say we limit it to a set number of characters, and only allowing a small smily or character in them. Similar to mine or Adams. It gets pretty annoying to read someones post and then thier signiature is longer than the post. All we need to know is who you are and if you can't do that in a short number of characters, you don't need one.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
