wow, this thread got awfully quiet real fast.

I found this thread through scanning images in the FlyerTalk Gallery and seeing nroscoe's examples which were referenced in post 275.

I'm in favor of disable-able, static avitars, with the default set to disable avitars, and perhaps a refresh of non-animated smilies.

Avitars could add additional personality to the FT community. The FT layout is somewhat sterile compared to many of the other boards - not necessarily a bad thing. I enjoy FT's simplicity, but it sure is bland. Flags and airline logos are a great idea too. Can I request a Pirate flag?

However, I would most likely not use a head-shot avitar.

As just an ordinary FT user, not on TB or a moderator, I'm really not concerned about the additional burden of policing. If it's decided that avitars and added smilies add perceived value to the FT experience, I'd expect the FT powers-that-be to figure out how to support it. Anyways, I'd expect minimal extra policing work for the Mods - they're reading the posts anyways, and FT'ers would still be able to "report bad post" and alert a Mod to improper posts/avitars, right? Even if the mod had avitars blocked, they could momentarily unblock them to view the reported questionable avitar.

I dont agree with the "visual clutter" argument and feel that with size limitations, avitars could be implemented well (as demonstrated in nroscoe's examples). Comparisons to Cruise Critic are misplaced. Cruise Critic's garishness is primarily caused by their (unlimited?) signature lines. CC's blinking text, multiple countdown clocks, etc remind me of the web circa '94. FT's signature line character limit prevents that gawd-afulness here.

The one question I haven't seen definitively answered is the bandwith costs that FT would incur with the addition of avitars. I really can't imagine it to be that big of a deal - many other BBs use 'em.

djerikd, I'm curious what the basis is for your "expectation" of minimal extra policing work for the mods should avatars be implemented. It takes time to respond to RBPs, and time to consult with other mods, and time to correspond with the member we're taking action with. Approving avs adds more to the load, and not in a productive way. Members can take it real personally when their posts are removed or edited; imagine how it will be with their personal images! Those discussions will *not* end well.

A simple spam post takes little time to deal with, but I think you severely underestimate how much time it takes to deal with the vast majority of RPBs we get. Just a thot.^

We currently have three areas on FlyerTalk where members can post photos: The Picture Gallery, Travel Photography Forum, and Trip Reports. The moderators for those areas have all reported that allowing FlyerTalkers the the use of images in theose areas has added no extra burden to their load.

I suspect that the actual experience of those who have dealt with images on FlyerTalk ought to carry at least as much weight as the suppositions of those who have not done so.

You're probabally right. My experience with moderation ended when I quit a job with AOL/Digital City back in 1997, and I'm not sure what all happens behind the scenes here at FT. I'm guessing that I significantly underestimate FTs moderation policies and procedures.

Perhaps I'm also naive in thinking that the problems would be a trickle instead of a flood. However, I'd imagine that the powers-that-be would weigh the benefits of avitars/smilies against the additional workload and/or staffing requirements when considering these options.

I, for sure, am not in a position to make an informed decision and I surely (...and don't call me Shirley ) won't complain if things remain status quo. I just think, from an end-user's perspective, that avitars and updated smilies (to a lesser degree) would be cool and add to the FT experience. Just don't ever allow unlimited signature lines and countdown clocks like Cruise Critic!

Avatars are not photographs and the net-wide expectations for and use of avatars are different from those of embedded photographs. I assert that you cannot tie one to the other.

Remember, this is a forum where the simple "reputation" feature led to angst and time-outs.

On a separate topic, perhaps this thread could be split into two, since it seems to contain both discussions of upgraded smilies and avatars.

That's why we need the beating a dead horse smiley

I was watching a special on the cloak of Juan Diego, and it started with the following statement "For those that have faith, no explanation is necessary, for those that don't, no explanation will be sufficient"

Which pretty much sums this debate, doesn't matter how much we argue about it, those that don't feel that smilies are necessary, no matter what we say is going to convince them

And no, I don't think smilies and religion are at the same level

birdstrike writes:

Yes, that is true, but that is only because the "reputation" feature was initially implemented as a blind poster feature. A very few long-standing members were able to do some pretty strange things, sending nasty messages and signing other FlyerTalker's names, thinking they would get away with that. As soon as the real poster's names were turned on that put an end to any skulduggery.

Avatars could only be loaded into one's personal profile, so there is little chance of that type of silliness.

But let's say that someone does go a little crazy, sign up with a fake handle and post a dirty picture. So what? They get banned and that is the end of it. That sort of thing has been know to happen all around the internet. Grown up people just deal with it and move on.

FWIW, birdstrik, I agree. This forum should be split into at least two or maybe even three different fora, once specific proposals are formulated and set forth which I suspect will be happening shortly.

I like to think of FlyerTalk as a high-quality board that offers some of the best information available to frequent travelers. I question what message those who are in favor of more smilies and avatars want FT to present.

Among the bulletin boards I've visited, I've noticed those that use an abundance of smilies and avatars seem to be very low on substance and turn me off rather quickly as they come off as being quite childish. I really hope FT does not go in this direction.

I like to think of FlyerTalk as a friendly place that offers some of the best information available to frequent traveler. I question what message those who are opposed to letting users opt in to one or two simple features that allow them to better communicate and express themselves want to present, especially in this case, where those opt-in features would default to "off" and not affect non-participants in any way.

Among the boards I am active on, both as poster and moderator, FT is the dullest, visually. It is indeed possible to have a board that is both serious and allows expression - take this example, which has available nearly 70 smileys, allows avatars, and manages to support a large number of users - many who are quite passionate about the subjects at hand.

The straw man of "those" boards with all the non-serious looking and unsubstantive posting doesn't apply to FT. "Those" boards are not FT and a comparison can't be drawn unless one of the crowd who seems to prefer that FT look like the WSJ can point us to an example of a large board with a close-knit community that contributed thousands of on-topic, valuable posts each week and then, once people got to put a picture below their name, turned into one big Technicolor OMNI with rows of barfing smileys and pornography.

While I think that they have really gone a little overboard with their countdown clocks, and multiple signature lines, which sort of drive me a little crazy, I don't think there is anything particularly low-substance or childish about the information contained on www.cruisecritic.com It is actually a much larger and more popular board than FT and it just happenes to contain very tasteful avatars. It would also suspect that the general population of CC is actually older than that of FT.

My real-life samplings of both groups have hooked me up with some flat-out amazing new friends who have truly enriched my life, as well as some folks who were pleasant enough, but who didn't really change my life for better or worse.

Avatars are just another enrichment of a website which some folks will love and leave on, and some folks will hate, and turn off.

If the default mode is set to "off", it won't change the look or feel of FT at all so why not let all posters be happy?

Are you sure you posted the right link? I went through the trouble to join and enable smilies and avatars and do not see any. I must say it does look quite nice without them.

"those" boards clearly exist. It isn't a strawman argument as any current internet board-lurker knows. Take a look at the Candlepower forum (for one off the top of my head).

Even Punki's favorite reference CruiseCritic has out-of-control signatures. I suspect the, ahem, advanced age of the posters there prevent the smilies from going wild.

The discussion isn't whether smilies or avatars can work in an appropriate environment (see photography-on-the.net for one where it does), but whether it would work for FlyerTalk.

If posters would like resolution one way or another to the question of expanded smilies (the actual subject of this thread) I would be happy to put a motion before the talkboard and welcome input on the wording of such a motion.

I am thinking something along the lines of: The Talkboard recommends that Flyertalk expand the smilies choices to include additional tasteful smilies drawn from the smilies at http://www.hostboard.com/ubb/smilies/smilies.html , leaving the specific smilies to be recomended to a 2/3 majority vote of the talkboard on each of the smilies at that link.

That's a concept I'd support.

Thoughts?

Voting on each and every smiley you link to should keep the talkboard tied up for many, many months.

I would suggest a straight up or down vote on these.

Sorry, koko but all of those smilies took forever to load, even using my cable.

I agree with birdstrike. The only additions I would make are ^ @:-) :-: Although using the updated versions for the three of those four smilies that we can select for message icons, would work for me just as well.

Does anyone have an updated star?

Also adding the caution sign from the message icons would be good.