Avatars
 

Can we put a vote to the community as to whether we can display Avatars in our profiles that are displayed on the board please ?

Please, no.

I second this. I found them distracting and annoying.

Ok I'm confused. What avatars do we have in our profiles that are displayed on the board? Serious question.

Cheers.

One can add an avatar (i.e. a small picture or photo*) to their profile via the desktop site but it only shows via the mobile app (or at least it does on the iPhone app for me)

*mine is my late cat Slapshot

When I look at your profile, I see a slightly bigger hockey picture on the upper left and the cat photo on the right.

Agreed. And the display has to slow things down. I know IB has used this as an excuse for not implementing useful features, time to use it for a valid reason :p

Well it's all arse about face then isn't it? It is going to be slower on a mobile device than it is on a lap/desktop methinks.

If you have a profile picture uploaded it could show beside your posts.

An example:

http://easycaptures.com/fs/uploaded/671/0021662130.jpgView Screen Capture


While the pretty Italian champion malamute (Oliver born in 2002) I use as my avatar is charming, I would hate to see it beside each of my 29000+ quality posts. :eek:

That's what shows on my profile page on the desktop site but if you look at my posts on the mobile version (or at least via iPhone app), you'll see Slapshot the cat showing as my avatar

Personally, I love to be able to place a face with a handle (guessing most would put a face pic). I think it also allows for some individuality to show.

I would support this.

I've been on bulletin boards that have it but I'm against it here. Flyertalk is somewhat of a minimalist design and I like it that way. It's looked pretty similar for the last decade and I think that's a lot of its charm. I think avatars would feel out of place here.

Avatars also show on a members' friends lists and such.

I don't have any issue with avatars that are faces, like mine on another site (LINK), but some folks on this other site use cartoon characters or other objects that look in poor taste. If we could limit it to actual photos I'd support it 100%, but I don't want to see avatars of animals or cartoon characters. Just see no value there.

Who says we're all humans??

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...ternet_dog.jpg

I would also vote for the possiblity to have an avatar. It should be allowed to everyone and if someone doesn't like to have one - so need to upload one. ;-)

This is probably a tech-type question - how much do avatars slow down a page loading? If they're of a certain size or smaller, does it have much impact?

I do like FT being fairly minimalist, but avatars can give a sense of who people are or their interests.

If they were to be approved, then there's also the requirements (size, type of image, does it have to be the person, etc.) that would need to be considered.

:)

I don't have strong feelings either way, but I'm leaning slightly against this. I've been on some other BBs that have Avatars under the handles & I find them distracting, especially the ones that use goofy images. Also we've already got people listing programs, etc, under their handles now & other stuff that can go on & on. Since they exist in profiles & friends, that to me seems to be enough.

However, one avatar that can probably go now is the Flyertalk Awards for those who voted, since the winners have already been announced ;)

Cheers.

You can choose not to display others avatars in your profile.

If you post a photo, though, I'd like to see you. I've met hundreds, if not thousands, of FTers over the years. I can't recall all the screen names, particularly when they're something like R24EX7K, but do have a good recollection for faces.

Will the software have an option to display only face photos?

Doesn't the signature line accomplish the same thing, minus a cartoon character or animal?

It certainly can; at the same time, a pic/graphic can tell a story as well.

:)

I'm one that uses a cartoon of sorts for my avatar, because it sums up something that is uniquely me. :)

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/membe...rbinekitty.jpg

I like photos on the profile pages, but wouldn't want to see them alongside posts. Even at a few KB each, that's a lot of images to load, especially for people who set a high number of posts per page... a cellular connection makes things even worse... and god forbid you try to visit FT on Gogo.

Exactly.

If I want a picture of someone, I'll ask.

Probably more of an issue for mobile, which is why it's strange that they're turned on here.

I wouldn't expect them to have much of a significant impact on an individual's perf (I'm sure it could be measured, but would the end user notice the load time difference?). But the hit on the server side, from all of the pages being served up to all of the members, is the area of concern.
A typical implementation does not have this. It's on or off.

Besides, how many different options would there need to be? You only want to see faces. Other people may only want to see pets. Others may only want to see full frontal nudity. The list could get long.

Then click on the profile, take a look on the avatar there and move on. I don't see the point of having the picture besides every frigging post. Since the face thing (if any and all of the users even want to post a picture of their face) is next to impossible to enforce, just look at facebook. The term avatar itself suggests that you shouldn't use a plain picture...?

Well, then if avatars have to be cartoon characters or animals, I'd suggest the Talk Board vote against them. I don't want to look at cartoon characters or animals next to a posters screen name. I don't do facebook so can't look there to see what's being done. I do post on Twitter and photos of posters are very common there.

I completely agree, especially as I find avatars sort of distracting. Don't they also take up a bit more data when opening FT pages?

+3 !

If you want a picture of someone, ask him or her.

this would at least double the vertical size of one-line posts?

maybe it could be added to drop down menu when one clicks on post author?

Ok, for sake of argument, let's say avatars are allowed...

Are there guidelines for them the way there are for signatures?

What if an avatar is deemed offensive (i.e. I have one that says "Smisek is a ...." [intentionally putting in the "...."])?

Will there be "avatar moderators" the way there are forum and signature moderators? If yes, will they arbitrarily hatchet an avatar the way some moderators hatchet a post (and if yes, that means a moderator has access to a user's profile)? Will they contact the member and "advise them" to remove the avatar? Will they do nothing as is the case (imho) with signatures which do not conform to FT guidelines?

Again, all for sake of argument

I'd hope any guidelines would be given more consideration than signatures, considering the on-going complaints and concerns with signatures.

As would I for the exact reason you stated ^ and that's why I prefaced my post with "for the sake of argument ;)

:D To some extent, I see the issues with signatures and I think about avatars with the, "Oh, please no. The signature issues are still out there."

For clarification (meaning this is not really discussion, it is a point of information):

Yes, such an avatar would be redacted because it violates the offensiveness and attack clauses of the TOS / FlyerTalk Rules.

There are no "signature moderators" - there are moderators who serve in their assigned fora, and four senior moderators - most have forum assignments and they also moderate all unmoderated fora as well as serve in consultative roles..

They do not "hatchet" posts, they moderate in accordance with the TOS / Rules everyone agreed to abide by when granted the privileges of membership. That means if a post goes off topic or otherwise violates the TOS, it gets deleted or redacted, or the member is asked to redact the post in question. Moderators (who may consult with the Signatures Committee about questionable signatures) may ask members to change their signatures, or to edit their posts,

At the moment commercial signatures are not prohibited in signatures. Just because someone disagrees with a signature does not automatically mean the signature will change. We have some members who are very avid about using the "Alert a moderator" function; although these "AMPs" are often very helpful, it does not mean every request will be acted upon.

Thank you for the links regarding signatures, rules and etc but I already have those and that is why I asked my questions as (and yes, I'm old and bald ;) so I might have missed it) I don't see anything regarding "avatars" and that's why I used the signature comparison (where as you know, that is a hot button/issue for some members) and that is why I asked how an avatar which is deemed offensive gets removed and that is why compared it to a moderator deleting as post (and yes, some moderators do "hatchet" as each moderator has a different style of how they moderate but that is a discussion for another day :). So with that, I'm asking how will the issues of "offensive avatars" be handled and in what manner and from your response, it's simply going to be left up to the moderator(s) to decide and as you know, discussing moderator actions is not allowed in public and it takes a PM to all of the forum moderators to get an answer back so again I ask, How will/would an offensive avatar be handled.

i.e. what if someone doesn't like cats and mine is a cat, what if it's simply a picture of a very ugly face, what if it's a Red Sox logo as find me a Yankees' fan who doesn't find that offensive. Yes, these are avatars which would fall into the realm of adhering to the TOS vs an avatar of a woman's chest or and avatar of Jeff Smisek's face with say devil horns or "Smisek Sucks" written underneath it but I'm still looking for specific answers and I may be running around in circles but I'd like to know

Avatars by each post would be annoying. A Grumpy cat here, a picture of a plane there and my ugly mug on the next post below.

I view the full site on my phone and it uses up a lot of my bandwidth. Luckily i'm still on unlimited data but many have caps and probably don't want to pay extra for useless data.

I'd be all for increasing the photo size on the User Profile screen though. Its hard to see.

A good point. Thanks for sharing.

Cheers.

Wouldn't that be a good compromise?

Another good point.