Logic Behind Lack of Avatars for Noobs?

[One Still Sheep]

I'm just curious why members with fewer than 500 posts (I believe that is correct) are not allowed to have avatars: what is the reasoning behind this, bandwidth?

[r.j.s]

An avatar is kind of like a reward for being a committed community member - rather than just handing them out to anybody.

[One Still Sheep]

Originally Posted by r.j.s

An avatar is kind of like a reward for being a committed community member - rather than just handing them out to anybody.

I suspected that this was also a possibility.

Of course, the problem is that, on crowded threads in particular, viewers often read by avatar: eyes skimming down the thread selecting to read only the post which are accompanied by some visual cue (the rest merging into faceless indistinguishable opinions). There is nothing wrong with this approach per se, but it is an essentially unavoidable consequence.

[FrankieTDouglas]

Originally Posted by One Still Sheep

I suspected that this was also a possibility.

Of course, the problem is that, on crowded threads in particular, viewers often read by avatar: eyes skimming down the thread selecting to read only the post which are accompanied by some visual cue (the rest merging into faceless indistinguishable opinions). There is nothing wrong with this approach per se, but it is an essentially unavoidable consequence.

Hence, the "reward" for those who stick around with posting.

[One Still Sheep]

Originally Posted by FrankieTDouglas

Hence, the "reward" for those who stick around with posting.

Sorry, I may have misrepresented my point: I mean that reading the forum is, I think, more difficult (or at least it becomes less insightful).

[FrankieTDouglas]

Originally Posted by One Still Sheep

Sorry, I may have misrepresented my point: I mean that reading the forum is, I think, more difficult (or at least it becomes less insightful).

I dunno, there are plenty of people in the political forum who post without an avatar, and yet their views are well-known. I posted for about two years before I put up an avatar, never hurt me.

[mrsir2009]

Originally Posted by One Still Sheep

I suspected that this was also a possibility.

Of course, the problem is that, on crowded threads in particular, viewers often read by avatar: eyes skimming down the thread selecting to read only the post which are accompanied by some visual cue (the rest merging into faceless indistinguishable opinions). There is nothing wrong with this approach per se, but it is an essentially unavoidable consequence.

I have noticed that many people who have a post count of over 500 don't bother uploading an avatar anyway - So it probably wouldn't make a whole heap of difference.

[ChristianJapan]

I like the idea of having the little burden of 500 posts before getting an avatar. That visually confirms that those members are active for some time.
But I'm also sure that those posts without Avatar get attention. It's more content driven. I even more look on the ranking (like newbie or G3) to adjust the way of responding.

Keep yourself active and soon you have reached 500 (I got hyperactive after 450 ... was really chasing )

[justinmancini]

Originally Posted by One Still Sheep

I suspected that this was also a possibility.

Of course, the problem is that, on crowded threads in particular, viewers often read by avatar: eyes skimming down the thread selecting to read only the post which are accompanied by some visual cue (the rest merging into faceless indistinguishable opinions). There is nothing wrong with this approach per se, but it is an essentially unavoidable consequence.

If the line breaks, and borders around posts aren't enough of a visual cue for you, then something's wrong.

[deannnnn]

I like being rewarded for being a committed member! And of course we always welcome new people to our community here, but they have to do a little work before coming a "full" member if you will.

[theSeb]

I am not a big fan of avatars. I am thankful that at least MR does not allow pictures in signatures. Some forums look ridiculous because all of the animated avatars and big signature pictures. Awful awful stuff. My views are probably skewed because I am over 33 and having a pretty picture on the side of my posts is not a priority in my life.

[OllyW]

Originally Posted by theSeb

I am not a big fan of avatars. I am thankful that at least MR does not allow pictures in signatures. Some forums look ridiculous because all of the animated avatars and big signature pictures. Awful awful stuff. My views are probably skewed because I am over 33 and having a pretty picture on the side of my posts is not a priority in my life.

You can turn avatars and signatures off if you don't like them.

It's in User CP/Settings & Options/Edit Options.

[theSeb]

Originally Posted by OllyW

You can turn avatars and signatures off if you don't like them.

It's in User CP/Settings & Options/Edit Options.

I like signatures when they're done tastefully, ala Macrumors

[northernbaldy]

I dont get it?? how do you set your avatar?

[twietee]

Originally Posted by northernbaldy

I dont get it?? how do you set your avatar?

Click on Private Message on top right, then you have the option 'Edit Avatar' in Your Control Panel. Option 1 or 2 will upload it. Then some patience and voilà!
That said, it happens that mine changes sometimes from coloured to b/w or, nowadays, randomly to the pic I used before, too . Wonder if that has to do with the device I'm using. I have no clue, but don't care since they're all really cool.

[northernbaldy]

it works

[Comeagain?]

It does. It also takes a while to change it. It has been taking up to 24 hours to fully change everywhere.

[ChrisMan287]

My funny avatar awaits..

[ChristianJapan]

Originally Posted by ChrisMan287

My funny avatar awaits..

Only 467 posts to go .. Hurry up ...

[mrsir2009]

Originally Posted by theSeb

I am not a big fan of avatars. I am thankful that at least MR does not allow pictures in signatures. Some forums look ridiculous because all of the animated avatars and big signature pictures. Awful awful stuff. My views are probably skewed because I am over 33 and having a pretty picture on the side of my posts is not a priority in my life.

Indeed - A lot of forums with a less mature user-base are like that. It looks insane: Five words in the post... Then literally half a page of animated avatar and massive sig images.

[theSeb]

Originally Posted by mrsir2009

Indeed - A lot of forums with a less mature user-base are like that. It looks insane: Five words in the post... Then literally half a page of animated avatar and massive sig images.

It also makes browsing the forum difficult when one is at a client's site.

[ucfgrad93]

Originally Posted by theSeb

I am not a big fan of avatars. I am thankful that at least MR does not allow pictures in signatures. Some forums look ridiculous because all of the animated avatars and big signature pictures. Awful awful stuff.

Agreed. I like how MacRumors does it.

[yanki01]

Originally Posted by ucfgrad93

Agreed. I like how MacRumors does it.

same here. car forums are the worst.

[bjm2660]

Patience is a virtue…in short supply sometimes

[Garsun]

I would like to have an Avatar, but with 18 posts in three years, it's going to take awhile