75 replies to this topic

[lycan]

i think 100x100 is way too big i think 80x80 is enough i dislike huge sigs & avatars but thats just what i like. but 100x100 is plenty even a bit generous.

[Byakuya Kuchiki]

I quite agree. I'm on a slow enough connection as is, even with DSL. I don't want to have to load more and larger images thanks.

Also, did you ever consider bandwidth? The avatars that are uploaded consume it like no tomorrow. And that's at 100x100. It would be near 1.5 times the amount of bandwidth because, and I'll make a list here:

• You see avatars on every page of every topic.
• In Members Profiles
• In the Admin Panel

It may not seem a lot, but it adds up to being expensive. For both Revora and the server's speed. I think we should keep it as is. Think about it, over 10,000 users, and while granted not all of them are on, most of them browse. 10,000 users browsing countless topics, each topic containing several users avatars on each page, each user having multiple posts per page and topic, hundreds of thousands of topics, yeah. It gets up there. It may not seem like a lot on a 1 page topic view, but it definately adds up.

[Phil]

I think the suggestion was not to alter the max file size though.

[Byakuya Kuchiki]

Wouldn't matter. Larger images take more bandwidth, plain and simple.

[Phil]

No, only the filesize is important, if you leave that fixed you just need to decrease the resolution.

[Byakuya Kuchiki]

Well, increase in this case if they want it.

I suppose that is true. But would they not still take longer to load? Even if they're external, the avatars and larger sigs take a long time to show up.

[Alias]

I suppose that is true. But would they not still take longer to load? Even if they're external, the avatars and larger sigs take a long time to show up.

No they won't. The maximum filesize will remain the same, so the time to load will remain the same. The only difference will be the maximum dimensions.

It's transferring exactly the same amount of data.

Edited by Alias, 16 January 2008 - 12:02 AM.

[Soul]

I don't care, because all this arguing has made me want to say the hell out of this.

[Mastermind]

Wouldn't matter. Larger images take more bandwidth, plain and simple.

If you change that to Larger images usually take more bandwidth, then it's right.

No, only the filesize is important, if you leave that fixed you just need to decrease the resolution.

Yes, resolution and file size aren't directly correlated (you can make a massive image file with a small resolution or a tiny image file with a huge resolution) but they generally do correspond. Not everyone is using the maximum file size, and with larger images they would likely use more.

[Alias]

Wouldn't matter. Larger images take more bandwidth, plain and simple.

If you change that to Larger images usually take more bandwidth, then it's right.

No, only the filesize is important, if you leave that fixed you just need to decrease the resolution.

Yes, resolution and file size aren't directly correlated (you can make a massive image file with a small resolution or a tiny image file with a huge resolution) but they generally do correspond. Not everyone is using the maximum file size, and with larger images they would likely use more.

Nobody is stopping you to slightly reduce the maximum file size while increasing the maximum dimensions.

The thing that takes the most bandwidth up here is people using massive .gif files as their signatures.

[Alias]

It's a small visual descriptor of the poster in question.
Making it bigger won't improve the quality of your posts.
Get over it.
Fucking morons

And making it bigger won't hurt anybody either. Your point?

[Destroyer]

Pro to increasing size:
-More detail possible in avatars

Cons:
-Increased server bandwidth use
-Increased user bandwidth use (matters for some people in both speed and size)
-More of a distraction

Did I get it right?

If so, there is no reason to make any change. I repeat again, your avatar should not be the focus of your post. If it is, you are not nearly interesting enough to deserve either.

[Alias]

Cons:
-Increased server bandwidth use
-Increased user bandwidth use (matters for some people in both speed and size)
-More of a distraction

The first two are complete BULLSHIT as it has been said and WILL be said again that it's JUST ONLY the maximum dimensions that are being increased, NOT the maximum file size. The third point is all up to opinion, also as I said earlier, if you dislike someone with a larger avatar, get Adblock.

[Destroyer]

Cons:
-Increased server bandwidth use
-Increased user bandwidth use (matters for some people in both speed and size)
-More of a distraction

The first two are complete BULLSHIT as it has been said and WILL be said again that it's JUST ONLY the maximum dimensions that are being increased, NOT the maximum file size. The third point is all up to opinion, also as I said earlier, if you dislike someone with a larger avatar, get Adblock.

If I used a higher-resolution version of my current avatar, the filesize would still be within limits, but would be bigger.

And how would adblock solve anything? Do tell what ranges I should block. My avatar uses imageshack, others use other places.

[Alias]

If I used a higher-resolution version of my current avatar, the filesize would still be within limits, but would be bigger.

The difference will be minimal, and if bandwidth REALLY turns out to be a problem, they can just decrease the maximum filesize.

And how would adblock solve anything? Do tell what ranges I should block. My avatar uses imageshack, others use other places.

You'd only block the one's you'd think were obnoxious, right? Because judging by the votes here, after the change many will still use 100x100, so there'd be a small minority where you would just need to manually Adblock the people using 150x150 avatars if it really bothers you that much.

Edited by Alias, 17 January 2008 - 03:38 AM.

[Banshee]

Alias, the issue isn't bandwidth. It is the space taken in the screen. Big signatures and big avatars take a lot of space in the screen. Also, bigger avatars adds no advantages at all, really. So, it's not worth the hassle and if you look at the results, you will notice that most people don't want it either.

[Alias]

Alias, the issue isn't bandwidth. It is the space taken in the screen. Big signatures and big avatars take a lot of space in the screen. Also, bigger avatars adds no advantages at all, really. So, it's not worth the hassle and if you look at the results, you will notice that most people don't want it either.

The whole jest of the suggestion is that it's not going to stretch ANYTHING. 150x150 is completely within the dimensions of the left hand profile bar (or whatever you want to call it). It's not going to stretch anything. If your only objection to it is that it will "take up space" - then I'm really surprised you haven't done things with some of the signatures I see here.

[Banshee]

There are 9602 members right now... and meh... controlling everyone's signature is insanity, it is out of question in such big forum... The staff of this network has more important things to do. Also, I think signatures shouldn't be higher than 200 pixels, but some people think differently.

[Casen]

I've been to forums that had 200x200 avatars, 200x400 avatars, and 160x360/400 avatars with no detrimental effect to the quality of the forum (granted the former and middle were vBulletin, and the latter was a one-of-a-kind forum...grr...AboveTopSecret.com *fumes* Fucking conspiracy theorists....), but yeah just giving my head's up. I mean CodeCat changed the maximum avatar size on E-Studios to 150x150 no detrimental effect there, and CodeCat is an admin here, why would he object here? ES is an IPB board also. Just want a good explanation to why it is okay there and not here.

I don't know the specific details, however, I will admit.

Is anyone else noticing a complete lack of intelligent response to my arguments from all these pro 150x150 morons?

Is what I say really so on point that you have to completely ignore it, rather than face up to reality?

Anyone who brings up common knowledge about Adolf Hitler, quite possibly the most over-talked about and overrated person in history, as if it was new, shocking information as justification for him being a "reel kewl guy", does not have opinions worth anything.

Edited by Kacen, 17 January 2008 - 03:22 PM.

[Solinx]

I've been to forums that had 200x200 avatars and 160x400 avatars with no detrimental effect to the quality of the forum (granted the former and middle was vBulletin and the latter was a one-of-a-kind forum...grr...AboveTopSecret.com *fumes* Fucking conspiracy theorists....),

Which of the two is the middle one?
Edit: Already fixed.

Anyway, good for them.

Because judging by the votes here, after the change many will still use 100x100

This vote is not about which size of avatar they would personally use, but rather which size they would prefer as the maximum size of avatars on this forum, for everyone.

Solinx