FlyerTalk Forums

FlyerTalk Forums (https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/index.php)
-   Suggestions (https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/suggestions-387/)
-   -   Technology? (https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/suggestions/925271-technology.html)

philipat Feb 24, 2009 8:07 am

Technology?
 
Why does Flyer Talk not allow the use of avatars and other 20th century technology? Time for an upgrade? See SQ Talk, works much better!

fimo Feb 24, 2009 8:21 am

Erm... a little off-topic no?

I hate avatars.

philipat Feb 24, 2009 8:39 am

Please read Topic?
 

Erm... a little off-topic no?
Erm, no. Please read the topic. We are now in the 21st century and most relevant blogs and discussions do employ the latest technology. Just wondered why Flyertalk is so far behind?

For avatar please refer to SQtalk.com.

wharvey Feb 24, 2009 12:17 pm

You may wish to bring this up to the Talkboard in the "Talkboard Suggestions Forum"

Steph3n Feb 25, 2009 3:51 pm

I'd just prefer working server to all the fancy gizmos :)

stewardo Mar 4, 2009 11:28 pm

I don't understand what a "graphical representation of a person or character in a computer-generated environment" would add to this site? Surely our words represent us just as well.

Perhaps the OP could elaborate what an avatar would add to a discussion site about travel. This isnt a computer game where we walk round in a pretend environment shooting zombies or anything...

PTravel Mar 5, 2009 1:46 am

Another vote against avatars. The value of FT is in the content, not in Facebook-esque, social-networking, tweet-tweet "I'm posting on FT now," nonsense. There's enough silliness, already.

AADJ Mar 5, 2009 7:29 am

Avatars are a retarded cartoon representation of how cool you wish you were. This is NOT the place for juvenile trinkets like that. Now being able to put a little pic of yourself in your profile would be OK. Then other FTers could see you in airports and say "hey how are ya?" or "oh you're that jerk!"

Efrem May 17, 2009 6:44 pm

This was discussed ages ago. FT's underlying software (the same as SQ Talk uses) can do it, and has been able to for several releases now. The consensus was that given the size of FT, the number of members, the volume of posts and so on, the value of sending those graphics didn't justify the bandwidth. The trade-offs might be different for a more focused board with less traffic. (SQ Talk's under-1,800 members are about 1 percent of FT's membership. It's a whole different situation.)

Unless someone can demonstrate value beyond some people's desire to see little pictures of themselves, their pets, or their favorite aircraft, I doubt this will change. Bandwidth ain't free, storage ain't free, and we don't pay for FT.

mrobert Oct 24, 2009 2:20 am

Using an avatar and can be intimidating on this forums and reign my supreme powers :)

/sarcasm off.

I grew up with text mode internet. It was just perfect :)


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 3:56 pm.


This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.