user avatar = small image on the left side of the message, seen on some forums in the web

Don't know whether this has been discussed here before, but I thought to mention this still. I think there should be optional user avatars in here forums. (still, I hate those animated gif avatars - they irritate quite a lot)

Why I want to see avatars?

*Familiarity: it's easy to remember certain image and connect it to user, much easier than just name.
*Personality: "one image tells more than thousand words" - it's quite true. Your avatar can tell much from your personality (whether you are humorous/creative/etc.)

I just think possibility to "showing your face" in forums is a good thing - if you don't want it, then don't use it.

I'd say avatars for people who have more than X posts would be ok.

ISTR when this came up before it was ruled that avatars were troublesome for a clean-looking board because of the abuse possibilities if strange people came in and picked bizarre images.

Not that I've seen that be a big problem elsewhere, I just think that was the issue that was brought up as the reason why avatars weren't allowed... he didn't want to have to approve them all.

With that svero's limitation plus little bit moderation (there has been plans for new moderators - right?) I see no trouble here.

But seems that so far people dislike it. Let's wait for some new votes... :)

I think they should be left out, but then again isnt there usually an option to disable avatars if you'd prefer not to see them?

Originally posted by papillon
ISTR when this came up before it was ruled that avatars were troublesome for a clean-looking board because of the abuse possibilities if strange people came in and picked bizarre images.

Not that I've seen that be a big problem elsewhere, I just think that was the issue that was brought up as the reason why avatars weren't allowed... he didn't want to have to approve them all.

I concur with svero & Morphecy.
There wont be too many Avatrs once it will be limited to X posts, and it won't offend anyone if it will be moderated.

Maybe avatars could be turned off by default if it is added.

I think avatars should be enabled.

And if there is concern, just allow people to use vB's "Avatar Gallery" (list of avatars that the admin has chisen, and uploaded), and hten once they get to 500-1000 posts allow them to upload their own. :)

This would pretty stop any type of hassle with "bad" avatars :)

I think 500-1000 is a bit high! ;)
I don't see a problem with them.

I voted yes... I think it would help breed familiarity amongst people which can only be a good thing although I think having the gallery idea would be a good idea if someone volunteered to moderate the images coming in.

This forum has the option to turn off avatars for those that don't want to view them too (look in the user control panel) so I don't see the harm myself.

I decided not to enable avatars here after seeing the effect they have on other boards. Avatars tends to lend a more amateurish feel to forums, as most people use various cartoon pictures instead of a self-portrait. Avatars also consume extra bandwidth, thus making the forum more expensive to run.

Well.. not if (like most) they were externally hosted. However, they would slow down the page load times.

Whilst I like avatar functionality as it makes it quicker to identify people's comments, having them would no doubt lead to other feature requests such as posting images, screenshots, company logos in signatures and all sorts, and it's probably the right decision to keep this as being purely textual.

-Z-

@Zoggles: shouldn't the smilies be disabled then ;) ;) ;)
(just kidding)

Avatars serve no real purpose and I don't think they are appropriate here. They have several negative effects, including, as Steve said, making the board look more amateur. They also make the message bodies as large as the avatar, people tend to go overboard (even with size restrictions), and there is the additional bandwidth use too (not sure how significant though). I also don't like the idea of people being remembered by their avatars instead of their names and the quality of their posts. Also every board that has avatars enabled has discussion about avatars which becomes really tiresome. One of the many reasons this board is great is that it is straight to the point and you don't have to go through a lot of fluff to get useful info and great conversation.

I'm browsing the web (and this forum) without pictures. :-)

I've got one idea: what if avatars will be enabled but with one strict rule: the avatar of each user should be the logo of the company/team he/she belongs to. And those users who don't belong to any company/team will have a choice from a bunch of pictures with labels like "freelance artist", etc. Ok, I know that this concept is different from original avatars, but I think if it would be used, the forum will not look amateurish and it'll still easier to recognize each other.

Originally posted by Lizardsoft
Avatars serve no real purpose and I don't think they are appropriate here. They have several negative effects, including, as Steve said, making the board look more amateur.

They actually serve real purpose: remembering those people who have been helpful (you don't have to remember name - you can remember the image, it's easier)

Amateur looks? Check out www.cgtalk.com - kind of FAR away from amateur looks...
Originally posted by Lizardsoft
They also make the message bodies as large as the avatar, people tend to go overboard (even with size restrictions), and there is the additional bandwidth use too (not sure how significant though).
Bodies are longer? Perhaps in some situation - but with little tweaking (making avatars smaller, putting info on the right side of the image) they are not making the bodies larger. Bandwith stuff I have no comment.

Originally posted by Lizardsoft
I also don't like the idea of people being remembered by their avatars instead of their names and the quality of their posts.

Of course people remember you by what you say - and if avatars are enable then the stuff you said is linked to the avatar (which is easier to remember than name), so the use of avatar has nothing - I think - to do with this

Originally posted by Lizardsoft
Also every board that has avatars enabled has discussion about avatars which becomes really tiresome. One of the many reasons this board is great is that it is straight to the point and you don't have to go through a lot of fluff to get useful info and great conversation.

Hmm... don't get this :)

But that's only my opinion. Most people (50% versus 25%) seems to disable avatars and I guess it's the word of the masses which counts. Besides Lizardsoft & Dexterity (thanks to them, it's good to hear arguments for your opinions) no one else has argumented why they don't want to enable avatars.

I tend to prefer no avatars because I don't think they add much to a forum beside extra bandwidth usage. I understand how it can help in user identification, but it's really no bother looking at a user name and sig. I just think avatars of monkeys and cast members of Babylon 5 are sophomoric and don't encourage the growth of a professional community. If Steve limits us to company logos and actual pictures of ourselves, I have no problem with it, but it creates more work for the moderators.

This post is mostly a reply to morphecy:

The idea of linking person's post to person's name instead of person's avatar is to give everyone equal representation and encourage the sense of community. Remembering people by their name is a lot more personal. In real life, would you rather people know you by your first name or as "the guy with the pink spotted dog"? :D

The amateur look is created because you have avatars of all sorts of random things that may or may not pertain to the subject area of the forum. Having spotted dogs and people with pictures of themselves with crazy hair in discussions about credit card processing and business strategy doesn't really fit. To clarify the part of my previous post that you didn't understand: when people have avatars there is consequently discussion about them. People can be discussing a really interesting topic and out of nowhere someone will say "Hey sam, I really like your avatar" and that increases the noise factor of the forums and creates off-topic sub-conversations within thread. This creates a lot of noise and buries the really good information that this forum is known for.

I like VaderSB's idea as a compromise. This would keep avatars on-topic and eliminate the off-the-wall stuff. Personally I would rather avatars not be enabled at all but this is a reasonable request. People on this forum are a lot more responsible than on most forums so it could actually work.

PS. In the time it took me to write this post elund got a shorter one in above that summarizes things nicely.

@Lizardsoft: okay, I definetely get your point - and kind of actually agree, it's really up to forum people & moderators how avatars are used - maybe we can reach to the win-win situation here ;)

If we try to restrict members to only using certain types of avatars, such as company logos or personal portraits, it becomes a moderation burden. Usually every day there are a few new members joining. I don't think it's a good use of moderation to have to check every avatar and then send PMs to members whose avatars are inappropriate. Any policing of avatars becomes a distraction to members too -- members will PM the mods about inappropriate avatars they see. And then you have problems with copyrighted images, distracting animated gifs, making sure all images are family-friendly, etc.

And what's the gain for all this extra work? To me it's a rather dubious payoff.

Personally I don't think the avatars should be moderated heavily - same way the threads are modified (and how much moderation those needed so far...)

I don't see avatars as a problem - it sounds more like someone is making this to be a problem :) The forums I use(d) (cgtalk, blitzcoder, blitzbasic, webxpertz...) simply don't have this problem. People know how to behave.

And I think cgtalk's limitation (you have to post at least 20 posts and figure out yourself after that you can use avatars) is a very good limitation and takes 99% dumbasses away. The rest 1% will be dumbasses anyhow - was there an avatar or not.

If somebody wants to ruin the community he can simply do it by posting faul language etc - it's much bigger moderation issue than avatar moderation (I don't even know that user avatar's have been moderated or that being a problem)

I understand the fears (but won't buy them ;)), they sound pretty much like money-quarantee fears: "but everyone would rip me off"... would it be so? Doesn't this board members know how to behave? Is it so? I don't think so.

Conclusion: But, I see that most people don't want to avatars so let's be it that way. Minority just can't beat majority :)

Avatars make a board look messy and chaotic. Period.

This thread (no offense intended to the above posters) is something of a waste of time as Steve isn't going to change the way the forums work. The poll and the subsequent debate, while interesting, aren’t really productive and the end result is that avatars will not be a part of the dexterity forums. I'd like to submit my vote that this thread be locked and we just let it slide off the board to be replaced by the more productive threads that we are all so fond of ;)

thanks.

I would like avatars here because it's easier to see who posted what. I don't remember as easily with names beside posts.

I think it pays off because people will get closer together, I know it sounds weird but when people remember each other by pictures instead of names it gets easier to remember who we're communicating with.

I'm locking this thread as it is rather pointless. SteveP has sated in other threads his views on this topic and their simply won't be avatars in the dexterity forums, regardless of this poll.