Bigger Avatars

[Compile 'em all]

I mean come on already, it is 2008 and we are still stuck with those microscopic 75x75 20k avatars. 125x125* would be nice. kthxbai.


*there are tons of high-traffic forums running on vBulletin that allow that.

[MacDawg]

I mean come on already, it is 2008 and we are still stuck with those microscopic 75x75 20k avatars. 125x125* would be nice. kthxbai.


*there are tons of high-traffic forums running on vBulletin that allow that.

And they are annoying :o

Emphasis should be on the post, not the 'tar
I'd be OK if they weren't allowed at all

Woof, Woof - Dawg http://homepage.mac.com/k.j.vinson/pawprint.gif

[Eidorian]

This is going to be a mess.

Keep in mind the long standing tradition that staff have 100 x 100 pixel avatars so they can be more easily identified.

At least that's what I remember from the last time we wanted larger avatars.

[bigandy]

OOOOH! Can we have 800x600 flash animations in our signatures too?

</stupid ideas>

[Compile 'em all]

This is going to be a mess.

Keep in mind the long standing tradition that staff have 100 x 100 pixel avatars so they can be more easily identified.

At least that's what I remember from the last time we wanted larger avatars.

sheesh, do you actually believe that members of this board identify mods/editors/gods from their avatar size?. I didn't even know that that was the case till now.

There are many forums already allowing bigger avatars and there is no mess. kthx.

[nickspohn]

Eh, it would be nice. Besides the fact of bandwidth, most people do have higher res screens now. I need something to fill in on my 1920 x 1200. :D

[bigandy]

It ain't broke.

Why fix it?


kthx
And that's meant to help the cause of taking the request seriously? :p


bandwidth
Because MacRumors doesn't consume enough as it is, with as many active users as it has posting all kinds of silliness? :rolleyes:

[PlaceofDis]

i actually wouldn't mind seeing a slight bump to be honest. a lot of the tars do blend in now and it used to be easier to distinguish between them all. :o

not even by my, but it'd be nice, i'm a visual person when it comes to fining people's posts.

[Compile 'em all]

OOOOH! Can we have 800x600 flash animations in our signatures too?

</stupid ideas>

Did you read my post? Did you read your post? Did you read my post? Did you read your post? Did you read my post? Did you read your post? Did you read my post? Did you read your post? Did you read my post? Did you read your post?

I am asking for a marginal increase in the avatar size 25px or 50 px max, nothing earth shattering.

[sushi]

And they are annoying :o

Emphasis should be on the post, not the 'tar
I'd be OK if they weren't allowed at all
Completely agree.

OOOOH! Can we have 800x600 flash animations in our signatures too?

</stupid ideas>
Agree on the later part.

There are many forums already allowing bigger avatars and there is no mess. kthx.
Personally, I don't come here for the tars. I come here to read the posts.

The tars are just a handy reference.

Did you read my post? Did you read your post? Did you read my post? Did you read your post? Did you read my post? Did you read your post? Did you read my post? Did you read your post? Did you read my post? Did you read your post?
This kind of response is not going to have you taken seriously.

I am asking for a marginal increase in the avatar size 25px or 50 px max, nothing earth shattering.
Why is it so important to you to have a larger tar?

Just think of all the work it will create for everyone to update their tars. And for what? Frankly I don't see any benefit.

Again, I come here for the posts and not to look at tars. But that's just me.

[bigandy]

Did you read my post? Did you read your post? Did you read my post? Did you read your post? Did you read my post? Did you read your post? Did you read my post? Did you read your post? Did you read my post? Did you read your post?

I am asking for a marginal increase in the avatar size 25px or 50 px max, nothing earth shattering.

This kind of response is not going to have you taken seriously.

Completely in agreement with sushi there.

Why are you repeating yourself? Of course I read your post, of course I understand you are asking for an increase in avatar dimensions.

Did you understand I disagreed with it? Did you? Did you understand? :rolleyes:

While it may not be earth shattering, it's not important either. As has already been said, it's about the posts, not about the silly little frilly bits.

Dig a little deeper and it's obvious that's what I was hinting at in my first post. ;)

[Compile 'em all]

Why is it so important to you to have a larger tar?



From where is it exactly did you deduce that it is so important for me to have bigger avatars? it is just a simple suggestion that came to my mind while posting on some other forums then here. While I do agree it is nothing important I don't see why not.

[dmr727]

I say keep them where they are. I'm a luddite and don't always view this site with current hardware. ;)

[apfhex]

While I do agree it is nothing important I don't see why not.
Then I guess you could say some of us think "why?" instead of "why not". It's not like we're restricted to 32x32 avatars. Maybe once resolution independence becomes a reality...

[TwinCities Dan]

From where is it exactly did you deduce that it is so important for me to have bigger avatars? it is just a simple suggestion that came to my mind while posting on some other forums then here. While I do agree it is nothing important I don't see why not.

(Just kiddin' I'm still here :o)

I think the avatars aren't really tied to a pixel size, I have seen tall/skinny avatars on MR, but most people just stick with a square one.

I think it is more about the physical size of the avatar (as in KB) I discovered this after trying to upload a much more interesting animated gif I made for my own avatar (I believe the current limit is 24 KB or so). So I suppose if Arn felt so compelled, he could up the limit?

[bigandy]

Personally, I tend to prefer this way:



Plus it's easier for me this way.

...which makes far more sense. :p

I would have done it that way, but today I have teh dumb. ;)


I suppose if Arn felt so compelled, he could up the limit?

He could. But then he'd have to pay more bandwidth bills too ;)

[OllyW]

I say keep them where they are. I'm a luddite and don't always view this site with current hardware. ;)

You can always chose not to display avatars.

[iJohnHenry]

Yes, but then how would we determine who the freaks were. :p

[TEG]

It would be nice if just the User Name and Avatar were centered in the huge left side box. It just looks weird, considering most sites center justify the left box, or the box is no larger than the Avatars.

TEG

[iMacmatician]

I think the avatars aren't really tied to a pixel size, I have seen tall/skinny avatars on MR, but most people just stick with a square one.

I think it is more about the physical size of the avatar (as in KB) I discovered this after trying to upload a much more interesting animated gif I made for my own avatar (I believe the current limit is 24 KB or so). So I suppose if Arn felt so compelled, he could up the limit?The maximum size of your custom image is 75 by 75 pixels or 19.5 KB (whichever is smaller).I'd like a 100·100 or so limit. My fractal avatar's hard to see at 75·75.

[jessica.]

And they are annoying :o

Emphasis should be on the post, not the 'tar
I'd be OK if they weren't allowed at all

Woof, Woof - Dawg http://homepage.mac.com/k.j.vinson/pawprint.gif

I'm going to have to agree with Dawg here. Oh and +1 for not knowing Mods had 100x100 px tars.

[JNB]

I'd like a 100·100 or so limit. My fractal avatar's hard to see at 75·75.

So that's what it is. It looked like an infrared image of a hemorrhoid. I think you should get a larger 'tar.

(Just kidding!!! It's a beeyootiful 'tar!)

[PlaceofDis]

i understand that the point isn't the 'tar. and i agree. but slightly larger avatars don't hurt really either, it makes people more identifiable and able to express themselves better. i'm not saying 125x125, but looking at the mod's tars which are at 100x100, it wouldn't be bad, and then bump theirs to 125x125 and we're set. at least in my opinion.

and the size limit wouldn't have to be increased greatly, to keep down on the obnoxious gifs and that. but the same ratio as we have now i'd say.

[scotty96LSC]

In the case of the avatar, bigger is not better. Besides you can do a lot with photoshop (if you have it) and 20k.

[sushi]

From where is it exactly did you deduce that it is so important for me to have bigger avatars? it is just a simple suggestion that came to my mind while posting on some other forums then here. While I do agree it is nothing important I don't see why not.
Just from your comments.

Sorry if I misunderstood you.

In the case of the avatar, bigger is not better. Besides you can do a lot with photoshop (if you have it) and 20k.
Agree.

I use the tars to recognize posters. The current size is okay for that.

[OutThere]

I think the most important thing to keep in mind in discussion of increasing avatar sizes is the threshold of having readable text in the tar. I like the fact that on MR there are very few avatars that feature the user's name in an ugly font, simply because there isn't enough space to put really readable text in there.

Make them too big and you'll get butt ugly crap like this: (I had photoshop open...)

http://www.drien.com/macrumors/random/badtar.png

[Compile 'em all]

Just from your comments.

Sorry if I misunderstood you.


no worries :)

i understand that the point isn't the 'tar. and i agree. but slightly larger avatars don't hurt really either, it makes people more identifiable and able to express themselves better. i'm not saying 125x125, but looking at the mod's tars which are at 100x100, it wouldn't be bad, and then bump theirs to 125x125 and we're set. at least in my opinion.

and the size limit wouldn't have to be increased greatly, to keep down on the obnoxious gifs and that. but the same ratio as we have now i'd say.

That is a sound suggestion. 100x100 30k for members and 125x125 for mods..etc.

[iBlue]

They don't bother me now but I wouldn't mind slightly bigger avatars - mostly I just wish the file size allowance was a bit higher. (40kb or something)

[techlover828]

I'd like 100x100 too

PS anyone have any tips on making my tar look better? As soon as I upload it to macrumors the quality god waaay down

[bigandy]

You were probably too busy optimizing your avatar to get it under 19k

I've never had a problem with my 30kb 'tar limit. Never had to optimise anything before uploading. ;)

[Doctor Q]

It would be nice if just the User Name and Avatar were centered in the huge left side box. It just looks weird, considering most sites center justify the left box, or the box is no larger than the Avatars.Don't you think the left justification has the advantage that it helps set the user information apart from the post?

[redwarrior]

Yes, but then how would we determine who the freaks were. :p
They have "Contributor" under their user name! jk:D What happens in teh closet stays there.


i'm a visual person when it comes to fining people's posts.
Me too, I identify members by their tars, and when they change them I get all messed up.:o

I'd like to see a slight size increase, especially since the speed issue has been resolved. We all blend in here; I think avatars help express who a member is to the rest of the community.

[~Shard~]

I'm indifferent on the issue really. I come here and post for the content, discussion and interaction, not for the pretty pictures. ;) On the other hand, it is easier to identify members by their avatars and it does add that element of individuality, which isn't a bad thing. Plus, with a larger size I could definitely come up with some more bastardly avatars! :D ;)

At the end of the day though, I don't really care. I just don't want MacRumors to turn into many other Forums out there where large avatars, animated signatures etc. end up ruining things. ;) :cool:

[GSMiller]

I'd like 100x100 too

PS anyone have any tips on making my tar look better? As soon as I upload it to macrumors the quality god waaay down

As do I, 125x125+ is a bit too large.

[kabunaru]

As do I, 125x125+ is a bit too large.

How about a compromise? 90x90 or 100x100?
I would want larger avatars too I admit.

[Peace]

OOOOH! Can we have 800x600 flash animations in our signatures too?

</stupid ideas>

Get with it.

It's Sliverlight now.:p

Animated avatars take up as much bandwidth as larger stationary ones don't they ?

[Apple Ink]

No! Absolutely Not! NEVER!

[GSMiller]

How about a compromise? 90x90 or 100x100?
I would want larger avatars too I admit.

Yeah anywhere between there is perfect.

[aristobrat]

I thought the avatars, sized as they currently are, pose an issue on high volume days. Don't they have to move them to some other server when there's going to be a key-note, etc?

[TEG]

Don't you think the left justification has the advantage that it helps set the user information apart from the post?

Maybe, but from a visual standpoint, the left justification of the left side box just looks weird, especially with those users with long user names and long locations. The simple, centered, user names on the reply pages look much better. Add the avatar, rank, and location (maybe just a flag) and everything would be nice.

TEG

[CalBoy]

I really don't mind the 75X75, but the one thing that does become problematic is trying to find new avatars. The 100X100 category is usually much easier to cater to when avatar-hunting (I don't make my own-no skills in that department :p :o), so that's the one advantage that I can think of.

Other than that, however, I think the 75X75 presents us with an appropriate size (we should be reading your posts, not looking at your massive avatar) and makes the forum less cluttered-looking.

Then again, my point of view is biased, since I've decided I'm happy with Hobbes. :p

[PlaceofDis]

I thought the avatars, sized as they currently are, pose an issue on high volume days. Don't they have to move them to some other server when there's going to be a key-note, etc?

they and attachments already have their own server afaik, and on high volume days their disabled in any event. so thats a non issue.

i wouldn't say 100x100 is massive, its not that much bigger when you think of it. and the file size is still one of the main restricting factors too, which i'm not a fan of increasing by a lot.

[kabunaru]

i wouldn't say 100x100 is massive, its not that much bigger when you think of it. and the file size is still one of the main restricting factors too, which i'm not a fan of increasing by a lot.

I think we should take a vote on this. Bigger Avatars or not?
I vote yes. What size? 90x90.

[CalBoy]

I think we should take a vote on this.

Thankfully MR isn't a democracy. ;) Any decisions/changes made have been thought of long and hard by the admins and moderators, and that formula seems to work very well. :)

What size? 90x90.

Are there a lot of 90X90 avatars out there? I naturally assumed that 100X100 was the point at which many more avatars became available. If the size were to be increased, 100X100 would likely be the most logical choice since it would open up more avatar possibilities, and be more standard n'est-ce pas?

[kabunaru]

Oh, you guys. You guys are so afraid of change. Loosen up. :rolleyes:
Sure, let's make it 100x100. If a lot of people vote yes, then maybe the admins/mods will consider this avatar size change.

[CalBoy]

Oh, you guys. You guys are so afraid of change. Loosen up. :rolleyes:

Change for the sake of change is foolish.

Sure, let's make it 100x100. If a lot of people vote yes, then maybe the admins/mods will consider this avatar size change.

Indeed the mods and admins do listen to well constructed arguments and cases. If you feel that the avatar sizes should be changed, then make your case for it in this thread. Be compelling, clear, and respectful of the forums' limitations, and I'm sure the mods/admins will take it under advisement.

[kabunaru]

Change for the sake of change is foolish.


As for the avatars, I would just want them to be bigger because the 75x75 size is too small for me and 100x100 would be better.

[EricNau]

I, for one, like the avatars the size they are currently; it keeps the site looking very clean and un-cluttered.

[kabunaru]

I, for one, like the avatars the size they are currently; it keeps the site looking very clean and un-cluttered.

Will 100x100 avatars make it that much more cluttered? I don't think so.

[szark]

I wouldn't mind seeing larger avatars. 100x100 for normal users and 125x125 for mods seems like a good idea to me.

As an "old school" member, I feel the need to point out that avatars were restricted to 50x50 when I first joined. They were increased to the current 75x75 back in Feb. 2004 when the current forum design was introduced.

[iMacmatician]

I concur with 100·100 for regular users and 125·125 for mods.

100·100 is 78% bigger than 75·75, but it doesn't look that much bigger.

[atszyman]

I concur with 100·100 for regular users and 125·125 for mods.

100·100 is 78% bigger than 75·75, but it doesn't look that much bigger.

That's also a 78% increase in download time and space for every updated avatar. The extra 25 pixels per side doesn't sound like much but that's a not so insignificant hike in bandwidth and storage, just because it doesn't look that much bigger doesn't mean they don't take up 78% more storage space.

[Eidorian]

That's also a 78% increase in download time and space for every updated avatar. The extra 25 pixels per side doesn't sound like much but that's a not so insignificant hike in bandwidth and storage, just because it doesn't look that much bigger doesn't mean they don't take up 78% more storage space.Well that depends on if they increase the file size as well. I can manage decent 100 x 100 avatars at 19.5 KB. ;)

[atszyman]

Well that depends on if they increase the file size as well. I can manage decent 100 x 100 avatars at 19.5 KB. ;)

As I'm sure most of us could, as we currently manage to do just fine with 75x75 Avatars. But that'll be the first complaint if they up the Avatar size without increasing the size limit.

I'm not necessarily for/against larger Avatars, but while it seems small moving from 75x75 to 100x100 is actually a pretty big jump in the number of pixels.

[iJohnHenry]

I'm not necessarily for/against larger Avatars, but while it seems small moving from 75x75 to 100x100 is actually a pretty big jump in the number of pixels.

It is, given the number of members here.

<Joke>
We could pro-rate the avatar size, dependant on post count, by using the member's title as the determining factor.

Of course Demi-Gods/Contributors would automatically get the largest avatars. ;)
</Joke>

[kabunaru]

How about this?

6502a => 75x75
65816 => 100x100
65832 => 100x100
68000 => 105x105
68010 => 110x110
68020 =>120x120
68030 => 125x125
68040 => 125x125
601 => 125x125
603 => 125x125
604 => 125x125
G3 => 125x125
G4 => 125x125
G5 => 130x130

[PlaceofDis]

How about this?

6502a => 75x75
65816 => 100x100
65832 => 100x100
68000 => 105x105
68010 => 110x110
68020 =>120x120
68030 => 125x125
68040 => 125x125
601 => 125x125
603 => 125x125
604 => 125x125
G3 => 125x125
G4 => 125x125
G5 => 130x130

too complicated and unneeded. we don't need different levels

[techlover828]

How about this?

6502a => 75x75
65816 => 100x100
65832 => 100x100
68000 => 105x105
68010 => 110x110
68020 =>120x120
68030 => 125x125
68040 => 125x125
601 => 125x125
603 => 125x125
604 => 125x125
G3 => 125x125
G4 => 125x125
G5 => 130x130

I think it would look weird if you had all different size tars

[kabunaru]

too complicated and unneeded. we don't need different levels

How about 75x75 for 6502a and 100x100 for the rest? Is this a good compromise?

[PlaceofDis]

How about 75x75 for 6502a and 100x100 for the rest? Is this a good compromise?

i see no reason to differentiate between anyone other than regular users and mods.

[Xander562]

i see no reason to differentiate between anyone other than regular users and mods.

I agree, whether the size changes or not all regular forum members should be one size with mods/gods the only exception.

[kabunaru]

I agree, whether the size changes or not all regular forum members should be one size with mods/gods the only exception.

100x100 for regular users
125x125 for admins/mods

How could you not agree to this idea if you want bigger avatars?

[Xander562]

100x100 for regular users
125x125 for admins/mods

How could you not agree to this idea if you want bigger avatars?

I agree with that. I do not agree with 6502a members having one size and other members having other sizes.

I honestly don't care if they increase the sizes or not. I just don't want them to get ridiculous like some other forums.

[kabunaru]

I agree with that. I do not agree with 6502a members having one size and other members having other sizes.

I honestly don't care if they increase the sizes or not. I just don't want them to get ridiculous like some other forums.

Ok fine. 100x100 for all members eligible for an avatar. The mods/admins get their size boost as well (125x125). ;)
Finally a compromise I hope. :D

I want Arn or some other admin to see this thread now. Maybe they will consider this.

[rdowns]

They're just avatars. I can't believe how many people care so much. It's the content, stupid.

One of the reasons I like MR so much is its uncluttered look.

[OutThere]

One of the reasons I like MR so much is its uncluttered look.

I get sick of other forums very quickly simply because they allow huge avatars and images in signatures.

We should absolutely, definitely not have avatars that increase with user rank. Talk about ugly!

[PlaceofDis]

They're just avatars. I can't believe how many people care so much. It's the content, stupid.

One of the reasons I like MR so much is its uncluttered look.

how would a slightly bigger avatar create a cluttered look? its not adding more fields or images in signatures. its just a size increase rather than a new item being added. thats the only thing i don't understand.

and i'll agree that MR is nice because its clean. but a slightly larger avatar isn't going to mess that up. if its all about the clean looks why have avatars at all? :rolleyes:

[rdowns]

I get sick of other forums very quickly simply because they allow huge avatars and images in signatures.

We should absolutely, definitely not have avatars that increase with user rank. Talk about ugly!

+1 +1 +1 +1

how would a slightly bigger avatar create a cluttered look? its not adding more fields or images in signatures. its just a size increase rather than a new item being added. thats the only thing i don't understand.

and i'll agree that MR is nice because its clean. but a slightly larger avatar isn't going to mess that up. if its all about the clean looks why have avatars at all? :rolleyes:

If the size is increased, so too will the file size. More annoying animated gifs. Just my opinion.

[iMacmatician]

<Joke>
We could pro-rate the avatar size, dependant on post count, by using the member's title as the determining factor.

Of course Demi-Gods/Contributors would automatically get the largest avatars. ;)
</Joke>We would need a second display to fit in Mad Jew's avatar then. :D

how would a slightly bigger avatar create a cluttered look? its not adding more fields or images in signatures. its just a size increase rather than a new item being added. thats the only thing i don't understand.
...
if its all about the clean looks why have avatars at all? :rolleyes:I don't know. It's the same logic that makes people go up in arms when someone suggests a ≈.1" extra thickness in the MacBook Pro, add in one extra "useless" feature into Mac OS X (like a maximize function), or an extra BTO option in a Mac (GPU).

[techlover828]

I agree to keep it clean but I'm all for 100x100 tars

[kabunaru]

Somebody, please just add a poll to this thread. If enough people vote yes for the avatar size increase, then the mods/admins should consider this idea. There should have been an poll in this thread from the start.

[Doctor Q]

How about this?

6502a => 75x75
65816 => 100x100
65832 => 100x100
68000 => 105x105
68010 => 110x110
68020 =>120x120
68030 => 125x125
68040 => 125x125
601 => 125x125
603 => 125x125
604 => 125x125
G3 => 125x125
G4 => 125x125
G5 => 130x130

too complicated and unneeded. we don't need different levels

I think it would look weird if you had all different size tars

I once suggested that we allow 1 pixel per post, so all members, even Newbies, could have an avatar, but after 4 posts it would be at most 2x2 pixels. By 1000 posts you'd have about 30x30. By 2500 posts, 50x50. By 6000 posts you'd be past 75x75. The couple dozen members with 10,000 or more posts could have 100x100 avatars. And top poster mad jew would be up to 179x179!

It would be so mathematically beautiful in theory... and so ugly on the screen! Needless to say, my suggestion didn't go very far.

[MacDawg]

What exactly is the 'value added' by 100 X 100 over 75 X 75?

Most of this discussion is over 'yes I want bigger 'tars' or 'no I don't think so'
Or... it is a discussion over the actual enlarged size, 100, 125, etc.

But I still don't see the value added or the advantage of an increase
It is bigger, yes, but is that better? If so, why?

Enlighten me

Woof, Woof - Dawg http://homepage.mac.com/k.j.vinson/pawprint.gif

[skunk]

I misread the thread title. Bugger avatars indeed. I think they're quite big enough.

[kabunaru]

But I still don't see the value added or the advantage of an increase
It is bigger, yes, but is that better? If so, why?


To tell you the truth:
1. I would recognise other members more easily with the avatar size increase. That is one thing.

2. I think MacRumours would look better from this for some reason.

3. The avatars now seem too small (especially on a big resolution screen). Any size increase would help.

[iJohnHenry]

i see no reason to differentiate between anyone other than regular users and mods.

Oh, then why the vacuous title differences??

In for a penny, in for a pound. ;)

[MacDawg]

To tell you the truth:
1. I would recognise other members more easily with the avatar size increase. That is one thing.

2. I think MacRumours would look better from this for some reason.

3. The avatars now seem too small (especially on a big resolution screen). Any size increase would help.

Meh...

1. I personally see them just fine at this size, (though I realize others my not have my keen eyesight aided by my ever present reading glasses), but since avatars can be changed by the user at random, that argument is less persuasive to me

2. Subjective at best

3. Also vague

While I respect your opinion, I just don't see a compelling reason for it myself

Woof, Woof - Dawg http://homepage.mac.com/k.j.vinson/pawprint.gif

[Compile 'em all]

how would a slightly bigger avatar create a cluttered look? its not adding more fields or images in signatures. its just a size increase rather than a new item being added. thats the only thing i don't understand.

and i'll agree that MR is nice because its clean. but a slightly larger avatar isn't going to mess that up. if its all about the clean looks why have avatars at all? :rolleyes:

+1

It really amazes me that some people are opposing the increase just for the sake of opposition. Let me repeat that many forums (actually some pretty decent ones) have larger avatars, no stupid sigs (actually no sigs at all), visually pleasing, and there is zero clutter. When you get an avatar it is 100px and if you are mod/god/etc you get 125px, that's about it really.

[kabunaru]

+1

It really amazes me that some people are opposing the increase just for the sake of opposition. Let me repeat that many forums (actually some pretty decent ones) have larger avatars, no stupid sigs (actually no sigs at all), visually pleasing, and there is zero clutter. When you get an avatar it is 100px and if you are mod/god/etc you get 125px, that's about it really.

And there was a 50x50 avatar size limit once on MacRumours and then it transitioned to 75x75. Why can there not be one more transition (to 100x100 for regular users)? The 3rd time is the lucky charm (from 50x50--->75x75--->100x100).

[MacDawg]

It really amazes me that some people are opposing the increase just for the sake of opposition.

It isn't just for the sake of opposition, I just see no compelling reason for an increase

You want an increase... why?
What is the reasoning?

The 3rd time is the lucky charm (from 50x50--->75x75--->100x100).

Until the next wave of newbies come and say "c'mon it is 2008, why are we limited to 100 X 100?? It should be 125 x 125"
It is all arbitrary

Woof, Woof - Dawg http://homepage.mac.com/k.j.vinson/pawprint.gif

[PlaceofDis]

If the size is increased, so too will the file size. More annoying animated gifs. Just my opinion.

no need to increase size by much or at all. static images would be fine at that size. and if your gif is too large at that size, down scale it. i'm all for keeping animated and annoying things down. a slightly larger image size isn't annoying imo.

Oh, then why the vacuous title differences??

In for a penny, in for a pound. ;)

i have no clue. it was implemented at the creation of the boards to show the various processors. do i think its needed? nope. but its there. it does help show length of membership, but thats taken care of now too. or activity on the boards, better than having post counts for everyone displayed right there.

[kabunaru]

Until the next wave of newbies come and say "c'mon it is 2008, why are we limited to 100 X 100?? It should be 125 x 125"
It is all arbitrary


Hey, I am not a newbie.

By the way, where are the admins/mods? I would like to see their opinion on this.

[Compile 'em all]

It isn't just for the sake of opposition, I just see no compelling reason for an increase

You want an increase... why?
What is the reasoning?


I was not replying to your post, I do get your point and also I can see why some people wouldn't want/care for an increase. But others opposing the increase cause it would generate "image sigs" and "clutter" just boggles my mind.

[MacDawg]

Hey, I am not a newbie.



Didn't claim you were... just saying if this were to be established a new generation will arise that will want another bump

Woof, Woof - Dawg http://homepage.mac.com/k.j.vinson/pawprint.gif

[kabunaru]

Didn't claim you were... just saying if this were to be established a new generation will arise that will want another bump


To tell you the truth, I do not think any new users will request a bump for a long time. 100x100 is going to satisfy them and hopefully every regular post enough.

[iJohnHenry]

No one has mentioned visual acuity, so I will.

Older members might appreciate a little more detail in the avatars, so they might figure out WFT they are. :p

[MacDawg]

Older members might appreciate a little more detail in the avatars, so they might figure out WFT they are. :p

I can see your cute little bunny rabbit just fine thank you

Woof, Woof - Dawg http://homepage.mac.com/k.j.vinson/pawprint.gif

[iMacmatician]

Until the next wave of newbies come and say "c'mon it is 2008, why are we limited to 100 X 100?? It should be 125 x 125"No one has mentioned visual acuity, so I will.

Older members might appreciate a little more detail in the avatars, so they might figure out WFT they are. :pAvatar size increase next Tuesday?

MacRumorsRumors has suggested that MacRumors will be increasing the maximum size of avatars from 100x100 to 125x125 next Tuesday. However, the maximum file size is expected to stay at 24 KB, so users using the larger sizes may need to compress their files or use static images instead of animated .gifs.

This rumor is contrary to other rumors pointing to a 120x120 maximum size and a 27.5 KB file size limit.

The last time avatar sizes were increased was in August 2008, from 75·75 and 19.5 KB to 100·100 and 24 KB.

Update: The same article has updated to claim a smiley size increase from the current 16x16 size to 20x20. The reason has been claimed to be that older members have a harder time distinguishing the detail in smileys than newer members.

[redwarrior]

No one has mentioned visual acuity, so I will.

Older members might appreciate a little more detail in the avatars, so they might figure out WFT they are. :p
All you have to do is ask.:D

Edit: Maybe we can change them so that they will move around the screen when prompted by the mouse?

[rdowns]

Besides, larger avatars might make my ass look bigger. :D

[kabunaru]

Besides, larger avatars might make my ass look bigger. :D

And I am sure it will make me look different too. My face would be more detailed.

[MacDawg]

As I've said, I think they are fine the size they are...

I just wish they supported sound







OK, not really :o


Woof, Woof - Dawg http://homepage.mac.com/k.j.vinson/pawprint.gif

[Gray-Wolf]

There is a tad bit of extra space under the name for an increase. My eye sight ain't too good either. :D

Dawg that ain't a rabbit, its a squirrel. :p

[kabunaru]

To tell you the truth:
1. I would recognise other members more easily with the avatar size increase. That is one thing.

2. I think MacRumours would look better from this for some reason.

3. The avatars now seem too small (especially on a big resolution screen). Any size increase would help.

To add:

4. Greater detail in the avatar.

5. Would make the page less boring for some reason. Don't quote me on this.

6. "Feels" more "realistic" (like an actual person is talking). Again don't quote me on this.

7. Would be happier if this is done. :p

[Sun Baked]

It would be really neat to have 20 really annoying tars per page.

Just a little bigger and I can upgrade to this...

[kabunaru]

It would be really neat to have 20 really annoying tars per page.

Just a little bigger and I can upgrade to this...

Then disable or limit animated avatars.

[rdowns]

To add:

4. Greater detail in the avatar.

5. Would make the page less boring for some reason. Don't quote me on this.

6. "Feels" more "realistic" (like an actual person is talking). Again don't quote me on this.

7. Would be happier if this is done. :p

Forum members who can't listen.

[Sun Baked]

Then disable or limit animated avatars.

Shouldn't need to.

Personally, if you really need an a large tar or animated signature to make you really feel good about yourself ...

You likely only need it to distract people from your lack of content in the rest of your post.

[Gray-Wolf]

If bigger, then limit to now moving avatars. It does get to be a distraction.

[kabunaru]

You likely only need it to distract people from your lack of content in the rest of your post.

No, I do not. Why do you assume this?
Admins, just give us the bigger avatars please.

[bigandy]

No, I do not. Why do you assume this?
It's quite a valid assumption when someone's so set on getting a bigger 'tar.

Admins, just give us the bigger avatars please.
Trying to end discussion are we? :rolleyes:



So far, in my view, we've had no excellent reasons why this change should be made.

"Because it looks nice", or "Because it's the 21st century" doesn't count.

[kabunaru]

It's quite a valid assumption when someone's so set on getting a bigger 'tar.


Trying to end discussion are we? :rolleyes:



So far, in my view, we've had no excellent reasons why this change should be made.

"Because it looks nice", or "Because it's the 21st century" doesn't count.

1. Check my post history if you want to.
2. You don't want to change for the sake of not changing?

[MacDawg]

Admins, just give us the bigger avatars please.

The silence of the Mods and Gods is deafening isn't it
Somehow, I think it probably speaks volumes

Woof, Woof - Dawg http://homepage.mac.com/k.j.vinson/pawprint.gif

[redwarrior]

The silence of the Mods and Gods is deafening isn't it
Somehow, I think it probably speaks volumes

Woof, Woof - Dawg http://homepage.mac.com/k.j.vinson/pawprint.gif
The Gods and playing, the Mods are sleeping.

[kabunaru]

"100x100 for posters eligible for an avatar
125x125 for mods/admins"

How can somebody not agree to this? If it is not going to clutter MacRumours any further, then why do people still disagree to this?

[redwarrior]

"100x100 for posters eligible for an avatar
125x125 for mods/admins"

How can somebody not agree to this? If it is not going to clutter MacRumours any further, then why do people still disagree to this?
It's not a matter of agreeing. The powers-that-be aren't paying attention. So when we leave the playground, it's as though it never happened.;)

[bigandy]

"100x100 for posters eligible for an avatar
125x125 for mods/admins"

How can somebody not agree to this? If it is not going to clutter MacRumours any further, then why do people still disagree to this?

I'd be happy to not agree to it.

As I said before - it ain't broke, so why is it being fixed?

[kabunaru]

It's not a matter of agreeing. The powers-that-be aren't paying attention. So when we leave the playground, it's as though it never happened.;)

MacRumours can be a strange world some times. ;)

And why is there still no poll in this thread? :confused:

Some people are so hard and will never change.

[jessica.]

MacRumours can be a strange world some times. ;)

And why is there still no poll in this thread? :confused:

Some people are so hard and will never change.

Because polls are useless around here. imho that is.

[kabunaru]

I'd be happy to not agree to it.

As I said before - it ain't broke, so why is it being fixed?

What if it is not going to be broken?

I can be here all day if I wanted to defending this avatar size request.

[Sun Baked]

With the smaller tars, people really have to put some though into hammering a decent looking animated tar into a rather small space.

The larger tars just mean less work for the shamelessly lazy while distracting from the thoughtful content of people's posts.

[kabunaru]

Why are polls useless?

[kabunaru]

I'd be happy to not agree to it.

As I said before - it ain't broke, so why is it being fixed?

Why be like this (like almost every other person) for the sake of being like this? What if you regret not getting bigger avatars later on and if nothing was broken with the change?

[bigandy]

Why be like this (like almost every other person) for the sake of being like this? What if you regret not getting bigger avatars later on and if nothing was broken with the change?

I'm not being like this for the sake of agreeing with everyone else. If you read the beginning of the thread you'll notice that I first made my views known in post #4. ;)

I've been an active member of this site for a long time, and have never had a problem with avatar size. I've never had an issue with compressing or optimising images for it either.

Believe me, I'm not going to regret that I missed out on voting for an increase in avatar size.

One of the great draws for me to this website is the fact it's possibly the most uncluttered forum on the interwebs. And I love that. It's one of the things that's helped keep me around, and more importantly, away from other forums.

[EricNau]

It's not a matter of agreeing. The powers-that-be aren't paying attention. So when we leave the playground, it's as though it never happened.;)
Oh, I'm sure they're paying attention.

[redwarrior]

Oh, I'm sure they're paying attention.
Wow, are you psychic? ;)

[Eraserhead]

1. I personally see them just fine at this size, (though I realize others my not have my keen eyesight aided by my ever present reading glasses), but since avatars can be changed by the user at random, that argument is less persuasive to me

You do have to be able to see the text though, I can't see how the avatars could be non-recognizable but the text still readable...

As I've said, I think they are fine the size they are...

I just wish they supported sound

+1 (OK not really)

[JNB]

Surprisingly enough, hanging out with other forums in the locker room, I don't suffer from Avatar Envy. Maybe it's because the average MR 'tar is more unique, creative, and descriptive than on those "other" forums. As they say, it's not the meat, it's the motion.

Or, if we want new & multiple sizes, how about this? Size 'tars based on average post length. All those "+1" posts would get you is a 16 x 16 'tar--in 4-bit color only.

[TwinCities Dan]

Lots of hate for the animated gifs in this thread... :o

Alright, show of hands, is my avatar one of the ones that distracts and annoys people? :confused:

no seriously, is it... :o :confused:


:)

[EricNau]

Wow, are you psychic? ;)
No, I just have faith in our moderators. :)

Lots of hate for the animated gifs in this thread... :o

Alright, show of hands, is my avatar one of the ones that distracts and annoys people? :confused:

no seriously, is it... :o :confused:


:)
No.

[OutThere]

Hey, I am not a newbie.

Well you are relatively new here. No offense intended, but you've only been a member for 8 months...

[CalBoy]

By the way, where are the admins/mods? I would like to see their opinion on this.

I believe that Doctor Q already gave you his thoughts on the subject, even though it was covered in light-hearted math humor. ;)

What if you regret not getting bigger avatars later on and if nothing was broken with the change?

If it is later found that bigger avatars were/are somehow necessitated (which I simply for the life of me can't fathom), then the size can always be changed then.

To be frank, you should read the responses of long standing members more closely. We've already explained some of the benefits of the 75X75 avatar (especially the fact that avatars get more creative and unique when people have to work harder to find/make them), and there hasn't really been a compelling reason for the 100X100 by avatars (or any other iteration for that matter) beyond the fact that you'd like it that way.

[Apple Ink]

I dont think that anyone actually "requires/needs" larger avatars! The current size is absolutely fine! Sounds are also not required since the avatars will become too heavy.... and the fuss it'll be when all the sounds start playing together! Not to mention that sounds can be really weird.... more weirder than images!

I've no idea on size.... seems to be fine! But still, I dont have any anti points for that! And maybe some people actually need it!

[Mord]

Lots of hate for the animated gifs in this thread... :o

Alright, show of hands, is my avatar one of the ones that distracts and annoys people? :confused:

no seriously, is it... :o :confused:


:)

Believe me, as horrific avatars go yours is tame. I had one that made small children throw up, I got a few PM's demanding it be taken down.

[Apple Ink]

Nah.... yours is fine Dan! Look at this one:

P.S.: If its terrible.... please tell me and I'll remove this from the thread! Mods please do so if someone is troubled and I'm off!

[Compile 'em all]

Nah.... yours is fine Dan! Look at this one:

P.S.: If its terrible.... please tell me and I'll remove this from the thread! Mods please do so if someone is troubled and I'm off!

I don't see anything wrong with it, let alone troubling. It is a stickman for crying out loud.

[MacDawg]

Sounds are also not required since the avatars will become too heavy.... and the fuss it'll be when all the sounds start playing together! Not to mention that sounds can be really weird.... more weirder than images!


Just to clarify, my sound suggestion earlier was just a joke!

Honestly, I don't see a doomsday scenario if the restrictions were relaxed to 100x100... it won't ruin the site or make it annoying/unusable/distracting. I just don't see a compelling reason to change it. It really makes no difference to me.

But then again, I have only had one avatar the whole time I have been here, I made it myself and it will probably be the only one I will ever have.

Woof, Woof - Dawg http://homepage.mac.com/k.j.vinson/pawprint.gif

[Apple Ink]

I don't see anything wrong with it, let alone troubling. It is a stickman for crying out loud.

Probably thats why we're better of leaving everything as it is!

Im fine with it but not many people are! And since this forum is all about opinions.... I guess we have to respect other's as well whether in majority or in minority!

Just to clarify, my sound suggestion earlier was just a joke!

Honestly, I don't see a doomsday scenario if the restrictions were relaxed to 100x100... it won't ruin the site or make it annoying/unusable/distracting. I just don't see a compelling reason to change it. It really makes no difference to me.




Your reasons and mine are the same MacDawg!

[Sun Baked]

Personally, i'd rather have an extra 5k to play with ... rather than more pixels.

[iMacmatician]

Personally, i'd rather have an extra 5k to play with ... rather than more pixels.I'd rather have a larger avatar size than a higher file size limit.

[Sun Baked]

I'd rather have a larger avatar size than a higher file size limit.

Can always do what any male would do and buy an SUV or a sports car to compensate for your size issues.

[OutThere]

Personally, i'd rather have an extra 5k to play with ... rather than more pixels.

Agreed...in the past I've really regretted having to put ugly gif compression on my avatars.

[Gray-Wolf]

Apple Ink, that one is just plain weird.. :rolleyes:

[TwinCities Dan]

Lots of hate for the animated gifs in this thread... :o

Alright, show of hands, is my avatar one of the ones that distracts and annoys people? :confused:

no seriously, is it... :o :confused:


:)

No.

Believe me, as horrific avatars go yours is tame.

Nah.... yours is fine Dan!

Thanks guys! But I gotta be honest, if it wasn't for the size restriction, it would me much, much worse! :D

I had like 24 (um shots?) in my animated gif, went to upload it, was denied because of the size, and whittled it down to 7, I believe... :eek: :p :)

[Sun Baked]

Agreed...in the past I've really regretted having to put ugly gif compression on my avatars.

About 75k and we can have mini movies with a lot of frames of animation.

Or a lot better color on fewer frames. The fish tar still had a lot of frames at 28k, but not a lot of color.

Edit: Changed to a non violent tar, and even used the moderator edited version this time. ;)

[iJohnHenry]

Edit: Changed to a non violent tar

And a good thing, too.

I find your ava very disturbing.