PDA

View Full Version : Please allow larger avatar sizes...



TeeMoney
06-17-2005, 06:04 PM
Is there any way to be allowed larger avatar sizes? 20Kb is too small. With the avatars that are allowed, along with the signature pictures and the updated messageboard design there should certainly be room to allow larger sized avatars. I don't mean larger as in pixel height and width, but larger in KB's.

Thank you for allowing this to be posted here for a short (possibly very short) time. Thank you for taking the time to read this, and thank you for agreeing and including your own posts in favor of larger avatar sizes.

MelbournePhin
06-17-2005, 06:05 PM
shouldnt this be in the complaints suggestions etc forum?

TeeMoney
06-17-2005, 06:22 PM
Shouldn't you read the post before replying? Just a simple suggestion from a simple man.

Phin-o-rama
06-17-2005, 06:48 PM
i agree with teemoney, but i guess they have some reason to support that limit although i cant think of one

Celtkin
06-17-2005, 06:54 PM
i agree with teemoney, but i guess they have some reason to support that limit although i cant think of one

It is done as a courtesy to dial up users, I believe. There are 15 posts per page x 20k in avatar = 300k. If you add in the sigs, it makes for a slow load for those who don't have broadband.

Phin-o-rama
06-17-2005, 06:56 PM
i guess that makes sense, although with the amount of sigs you see around here now it couldn't be much more.

but good point, its been so long since i had to use dial up i forgot it existed :D

lol

TeeMoney
06-17-2005, 07:01 PM
My only reply to the dial-up users and catering to their baud modems is that we do have the option to turn off avatars or signatures and images in our options. If a dial-up user finds that the pages load to slow then they can turn these options off and it will load just fine for them.

I hope someone in the site's administration will agree with this. Why have the option to turn off avatars and signatures/images- yet still set a very low limit on their sizes? I can understand wanting everything to look nice, and I'm not arguing for increasing the height and width of the avatars, just the size available to upload.

dolfan_101
06-17-2005, 07:01 PM
It is done as a courtesy to dial up users, I believe. There are 15 posts per page x 20k in avatar = 300k. If you add in the sigs, it makes for a slow load for those who don't have broadband.

Maybe they shouldn't be so cheap;)

TeeMoney
06-17-2005, 07:02 PM
Maybe they shouldn't be so cheap;)

:rolleyes:

A Wing Pilot
06-17-2005, 07:24 PM
tee are you upset that your avatar is only in black and white, we can upgrade it for you :D its a pretty common avatar and banner size through out the web, of the 5 boards i post at frequently this one allows the largest.

Muck
06-17-2005, 07:57 PM
Shouldn't you read the post before replying? Just a simple suggestion from a simple man.

I didn't have to. The thread title makes it obvious where this thread belongs.

And yet you still couldn't "simply" post it in the proper forum, which BTW gives you a better chance of your thread being seen.....as this forum is moves much slower than Main.

Anyway, there are no immediate plans to increase the file size limits of avatars. Our goal is to provide a site that moves as quickly as possible while remaining aesthetically pleasing. That's the balance we strive for. Believe it or not, some of our most prominent and beloved members are dialup users. And we'd like for them to be able to enjoy the site fully.

TeeMoney
06-17-2005, 11:28 PM
I didn't have to. The thread title makes it obvious where this thread belongs.

It is obvious that I wasn't speaking to you, you had not even posted prior to my post.


....as this forum is moves much slower than Main.

Thank you for moving the topic to the proper forum.


. Our goal is to provide a site that moves as quickly as possible while remaining aesthetically pleasing. That's the balance we strive for. Believe it or not, some of our most prominent and beloved members are dialup users. And we'd like for them to be able to enjoy the site fully.


There are options which allow for those with slower connections (or fast connections that don't wish to view avatars and signatures) to not load avatars, or signatures, or images. If there is a problem with someones connection, or they feel it takes too long for a page to load, they can remove the speed bump in the sites loading for them. Why have the option if there is no reason for people to take advantage of the option?

Here is a good option, imo- 90x120 pixels and 150K

Those with broadband connections will be able to view animated avatars, and will allow for the option for slower connections to let the page load, or shut off avatars. You have the option in place, use it.

inFINSible
06-18-2005, 07:19 AM
You have the option to post elsewhere too....should you be forced to use it???

Why should people be forced to turn off avatars and sigs because 1 person wants things their way and has no regard for anyone else?

The people that want to use those options should be allowed to use them, if they want to, not because they are forced to turn it off.

I'm sure it's a very fine line for the staff that runs this site but, the reality is that this is a Miami Dolphins FOOTBALL site, not a "look at my cool avatar" site.

WharfRat
06-18-2005, 09:02 AM
I'm not sure why this is still being discussed. Muck answered the question, and his answer reflects our policy. A policy that is not going to be changed because one or two members out of almost 10,000 think it should be so.

Muck
06-18-2005, 10:15 AM
It is obvious that I wasn't speaking to you, you had not even posted prior to my post.

Doesn't change the fact that you purposely posted in the wrong forum. That's what speaks to me. This thread is also addressed to me, an admin. Therefore I feel I can respond to anything in it.


There are options which allow for those with slower connections (or fast connections that don't wish to view avatars and signatures) to not load avatars, or signatures, or images. If there is a problem with someones connection, or they feel it takes too long for a page to load, they can remove the speed bump in the sites loading for them. Why have the option if there is no reason for people to take advantage of the option?

Some people with broadband connections prefer not to look at avatars and signatures at all. Heck, I have friends who wish the internet was all text (BORING). Different strokes. But we feel they should be the ones who make that choice, not us.

And though we're housed on on a fairly robust server, the less data we have to serve during peak times (draft, games, breaking news etc), the better.

Phin-o-rama
06-18-2005, 11:40 AM
so the avatar size is getting increased?

WharfRat
06-18-2005, 11:42 AM
so the avatar size is getting increased?

:huh:

ummm... no.

TeeMoney
06-18-2005, 03:09 PM
It should be increased. There is the option to turn off the avatars and images for those that wish to speed up their page loads, or don't care to view them. It would have been a great addition to the new style- a more aggresive logo along with a more aggressive and forward looking policy on avatar sizes.

Again, I'd like to show my appreciation for the administrator that moved this thread to the proper location. I think it is appropriate that these types of suggestions, and policy questions, be placed in it's own section, out of the view of the main traffic for this website.

painnotpleasure
06-18-2005, 05:08 PM
I'd like to make a suggestion that all avatars be replaced with Infins' Wayne Huizenga with the horns... http://www.finheaven.com/clear.gif ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE? :wink: :D

byroan
06-18-2005, 05:13 PM
:huh:

ummm... no.

100mb would be nice Wharf. I could put TV shows in my avatar. :lol:

TeeMoney
06-18-2005, 05:42 PM
No, 100mb would be foolish. I made a sensible suggestion in a previous post. I wouldn't be opposed to a 100mb limit, but I'm sure Warfrat and Mulk would roll their eyes.

TeeMoney
06-18-2005, 05:43 PM
I'd like to make a suggestion that all avatars be replaced with Infins' Wayne Huizenga with the horns... http://www.finheaven.com/clear.gif ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE? :wink: :D

You first

FIN-IN-RI
06-18-2005, 06:10 PM
No, 100mb would be foolish. I made a sensible suggestion in a previous post. I wouldn't be opposed to a 100mb limit, but I'm sure Warfrat and Mulk would roll their eyes.

dude if you don't like it, f'n go somewhere else.

People here b!tch, moan and cry more than my girl, I swear.

TeaYen, i suggest you take a step back realize how much of a baby you look by complaining about freakin avatar sizes of all things. Give the site admins a break.. Rules are rules!

darkmistress
06-18-2005, 06:55 PM
No, 100mb would be foolish.I made a sensible suggestion in a previous post.I wouldn't be opposed to a 100mb limit but I'm sure Warfrat and Mulk would roll their eyes.
And you got your answer


No, 100mb would be foolish. I made a sensible suggestion in a previous post. I wouldn't be opposed to a 100mb limit, but I'm sure Warfrat and Mulk would roll their eyes.
You would be if everyone took advantage of it...:shakeno:

Muck
06-18-2005, 09:52 PM
dude if you don't like it, f'n go somewhere else.

People here b!tch, moan and cry more than my girl, I swear.

TeaYen, i suggest you take a step back realize how much of a baby you look by complaining about freakin avatar sizes of all things. Give the site admins a break.. Rules are rules!

That was uncalled for.

We appreciate your enthusiasm for the site. But I don't think TeeMoney deserved that. He wasn't coming at us like that.

TeeMoney
06-18-2005, 11:16 PM
And you got your answer


You would be if everyone took advantage of it...:shakeno:


What is your point? Do you have a problem with 150kb limit on avatars? I don't mind a small debate on the topic, I don't think the moderators do either- if it's in the right place (thank you) and the right spirit. I fail to see the "right spirit" in your post darkmistress.

WharfRat
06-18-2005, 11:34 PM
What is your point? Do you have a problem with 150kb limit on avatars? I don't mind a small debate on the topic, I don't think the moderators do either- if it's in the right place (thank you) and the right spirit. I fail to see the "right spirit" in your post darkmistress.

Her point is.... we answered the question already. No, we don't mind discussing the rules, but the answer is no, there will be no increase.

TeeMoney
06-18-2005, 11:47 PM
Her point is....

I would assume she could answer for herself. Pointing out the obvious is not necessary on a messageboard, and some would consider it rude.

darkmistress
06-19-2005, 02:07 AM
What is your point? Do you have a problem with 150kb limit on avatars? I don't mind a small debate on the topic, I don't think the moderators do either- if it's in the right place (thank you) and the right spirit. I fail to see the "right spirit" in your post darkmistress.

I think my point was pretty obvious...I'm sorry you didn't understand it I'll go in to more detail this time to help you out, though everything I'm going to say here is just reiterating what has already been said as nothing more needs to be.

150k is too big for a site encroaching upon 10,000+ members expecially when many of those users are only able to afford or choose to use a 56k connection...Also when many of those soon to be 10,000+ users are on at the same time the site tends to slow down even more so the less loading time the better for all users.

So far the only point you seem to have brought up is that 56k users can turn the avatars and sigs off...So once again as mentioned before, how is that fair to those users? Why should they not be allowed to enjoy the site at the same level broadband/cable users can simply because their connection is slower...?

As it was mentioned before FH is very generous in the size limits it gives user...if you have a look at other message boards most of them will only allow sigs and avatars lower than what FH allows and that is assuming they allow them at all...

As much as I hate to admit it FH is not a site to promote users pretty imagery...

What picture is it that you want to use anyway? And what's wrong with the one you currently have?

WharfRat
06-19-2005, 08:54 AM
I would assume she could answer for herself. Pointing out the obvious is not necessary on a messageboard, and some would consider it rude.

I would assume that after the third time the question was answered, one would have accepted it and moved on. Continuously asking the same question, and argueing a dead point on a messageboard isn't necessary, and some may consider it not only quite rude, but antagonistic as well.

TeeMoney
06-19-2005, 09:03 AM
As much as I hate to admit it FH is not a site to promote users pretty imagery...


I agree.

FIN-IN-RI
06-19-2005, 09:54 AM
That was uncalled for.

We appreciate your enthusiasm for the site. But I don't think TeeMoney deserved that. He wasn't coming at us like that.


Oh ok.. I just got irritated when it seemed like he purposely spelled your names wrong in his post.. I thought it was a dig and antagonizing.. Sorry TeeMoney.

TeeMoney
06-19-2005, 02:31 PM
The spelling police is an obnoxious group :)