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.
100·100 is 78% bigger than 75·75, but it doesn't look that much bigger.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Bigger Avatars
- Thread starter Compile 'em all
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
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.
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.
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>
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.
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.
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.
I want Arn or some other admin to see this thread now. Maybe they will consider this.
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!
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?
+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?
If the size is increased, so too will the file size. More annoying animated gifs. Just my opinion.
We would need a second display to fit in Mad Jew's avatar then.<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>
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).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?
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.
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
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
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.