PDA

View Full Version : Concerning Avatars


Jasmine
26-09-2005, 11:35 PM
Why are avatars restricted to 80 x 80? I think 100 x 100 would be convenient because then people could use their LiveJournal icons as avatars on the boards as well. I was just wondering if there was a specific reason 80 x 80 was the largest size avatars were allowed to be. I don't think 100 x 100 avatarts take up that much more bandwidth or take up that much more loading time...so why can't we have 100 x 100?

Ashley
26-09-2005, 11:48 PM
Why change something that's working, like the finely oiled machine that is KKW.....

deviljet88
26-09-2005, 11:52 PM
vBulletin hates you.

acliff
27-09-2005, 12:38 AM
Why are avatars restricted to 80 x 80? I think 100 x 100 would be convenient because then people could use their LiveJournal icons as avatars on the boards as well. I was just wondering if there was a specific reason 80 x 80 was the largest size avatars were allowed to be. I don't think 100 x 100 avatarts take up that much more bandwidth or take up that much more loading time...so why can't we have 100 x 100?

If you really want, send a PM to someone who actually cares.

If it was 100x100, then i'd have to update my avatar... which i'm too lazy to do

apoggy
27-09-2005, 12:41 AM
so lazy in fact he is using one of my creations and taking all the credit....bitch

Jacoby
27-09-2005, 02:55 AM
NO ONE taunt Jasmine. There's a line from Marching Bands of Manhattan in the signature.

Win.

Edit// Nevermind. I don't care.

Jasmine
30-09-2005, 03:11 AM
Allowing 100 x 100 avatars wouldn't mean that people wouldn't be able to use 80 x 80. Those using 80 x 80 would not be affected.. they'd only have the option of 100 x 100 if they wanted.. I say, if some people (like myself) would benefit from changing the rules, and no one will be negatively affected by the change, why not change it?

(And yes, Jacoby, that is DCFC in my sig. I love them.)

Liam
30-09-2005, 03:54 AM
The rules were created at the same time the forum was created, meaning the rules date back to the time when the majority of our users had dial-up internet. This may have changed since, but as long as some of our users are on 56k or slower internet, or have bandwidth limited accounts, it would be unfair to them to change.

I'll start a user poll in General Discussion to get an idea of internet speeds with a view to perhaps changing the size limit, but I won't be promising anything.

Rob The BLack Douglas
30-09-2005, 04:11 AM
100x100 avatars don't mess with load times on a dial up connection. I have dialup and the avatar's have not been a problem. Big pictures or banners in sigs can be a real problem. Also raising the size from 20k to 25k would be reasonable as well.

apoggy
30-09-2005, 12:35 PM
i'm against some having 80x80 and some 100x100, it would make everything look disjointed, unaligned and generally messy.

have a 100x100 avatar you want to use? Resize it damn it.

Hazzle
30-09-2005, 12:42 PM
i'm against some having 80x80 and some 100x100, it would make everything look disjointed, unaligned and generally messy.

have a 100x100 avatar you want to use? Resize it damn it.

No offence mate but I think she's said elsewhere that the one's she's using IS a resized 100x100 but it doesn't look as good as it does in 100x100 because it looks squished.

She's just saying she'd like to use it as it's full size, I don't think she was being demanding, just asking a question.

That said, I'm against a mix and match approach too. Either everyone has 100x100 or noone. Unless you want to make it so mods/admins have 100x100? I've seen avatars used to distinguish mods/admins from conventional members on other forums so it might work...

Digital_Ice
30-09-2005, 01:32 PM
changing one avatar by 5kb or 20 px wouldnt make a difference to 56k users but if every avatar/signature that has to load is bigger, that value does add up, and if its a particularly slow day on the internet they could be there for hours.

personaly i couldnt give a shit, as im on 2.2mb bb, and my avatar is designed to be 80x80

(so dont put auto resise [up] on if you up the limit, i dont want it at 100x100)

Jasmine
01-10-2005, 12:58 AM
The reason I want the size to be raised to 100x100 is because I make LiveJournal icons that are that size like these (http://www.livejournal.com/~blowers_daughtr/1922.html). Many of those LJ icons have details that are ruined if resized..

For example, the avatar I'd like to use is:
http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a99/xfa11engrace14x/Keira%20Knightley/jasmine_keira8.gif
Resize that to 80x80 and you get:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v469/Jasmine23/avatar_80x80.gif<-- ew. completely ruins it.

Some of you say that it would ruin the uniform look of everyone having the same size avatar... well, as of now, we're allowed to have avatars that are 80x80px or smaller. Mine is smaller so... right now the "uniform look" is being thrown off by people who use avatars smaller than 80x80. My avatar right now is like 30px bellow 80 & you guys aren't getting freaked out about that. So why would it matter if some people chose to have their avatars 20px larger?

Liam
01-10-2005, 01:36 AM
You are missing the point.

KKW has a set bandwidth cap. If we exceed this cap, we are offline for the remainder of the paid month. With the number of users of the forum, plus all the lurkers - all of whom download the avatars to their computer when they visit, the 5-10k difference begins to add up. The forums themselves use a fair chunk of our monthly bandwidth as is. I'm sure everyone would rather have 80x80 and a working site than 100x100 and a site offline for 7 days a month.

And besides, why change something that isnt broken?

Jasmine
01-10-2005, 04:42 AM
You are missing the point.

KKW has a set bandwidth cap. If we exceed this cap, we are offline for the remainder of the paid month. With the number of users of the forum, plus all the lurkers - all of whom download the avatars to their computer when they visit, the 5-10k difference begins to add up. The forums themselves use a fair chunk of our monthly bandwidth as is. I'm sure everyone would rather have 80x80 and a working site than 100x100 and a site offline for 7 days a month.
(alright well maybe i missed that point because nobody ever really brought it up...) So you really think that 20 pixels will make that much of a difference? I know that you have a lot of users and lurkers and whatnot, but why do the avatars have to use up kkw bandwidth? In other boards I'm at people can link to off-site avatars that are hosted elsewhere and use that bandwidth. Is this not possible at KKW? I mean I'd have no problem hosting my stuff on photobucket or whatever.


And besides, why change something that isnt broken?
Because it inconveniences some people.

Liam
01-10-2005, 05:17 AM
Any image hosted anywhere on any website is downloaded to a users computer when the site is viewed. This uses the site's bandwidth. Unfortunately, thats how the internet works. A lot of people host their avatars on-site here, using the upload feature. 20 pixels may not sound like much, but when you are running a site the size of KKW, any saving you can make contributes to saving on the bandwidth bill.

I will talk to Baz and Poggs about it, but I'm fairly sure the status quo will remain in place for a little while longer.

Edit: I'm informed that all avatars are uploaded to KKW server space, regardless of where they are hosted.

acliff
01-10-2005, 11:42 AM
On a seperate note, I reckon we should bring back post counts.
You might think I'm crazy, but I've got my reasons.

Hazzle
01-10-2005, 12:24 PM
On a seperate note, I reckon we should bring back post counts.
You might think I'm crazy, but I've got my reasons.

Really? I can't see what good it'd do, but maybe you can.

What would those reasons be then?

As for the avatars, why don't we leave it to Liam to discuss (when he gets round to it :p) with Poggs and Baz and leave it at that for now? It's 80x80 for now, if and when the possibility of changing that is confirmed, then we can discuss it.

The fact is, as Liam said, if the Bandwidth usage is going to be that much more that it risks KKW being down for a few days every month, it's not worth it.

Flightfreak
01-10-2005, 01:04 PM
Let the avatar size like it is. Every site has other rules if it comes to avatar sizes. Maybe in an other month we will be having someone who is used to use a 120x120 pix avatar on an other forum. 80x80 is good. resizing an avatar takes how long? 1min

Adding the post count back would make people post more crap I think. because they want to have a higher post count or something. now you can check the amount of posts in the profile.

Hazzle
01-10-2005, 03:20 PM
resizing an avatar takes how long? 1min

You're right about everything else but I really wish people would stop going on about how little time it takes to resize. The gripe wasn't about the effort it takes to resize but about the effect resizing has on the image.

The reason I want the size to be raised to 100x100 is because I make LiveJournal icons that are that size like these. Many of those LJ icons have details that are ruined if resized..

See? (Incidentally it's not about use on another forum, but the fact that 100x100 is standard on LJ and lots of people use LJ, far more than visit KKW, in fact. If anything 100x100 has become a bit of a standard size because of that. Most avatars I find online are 100x100, I just resize them).

I mean I resized my avatar, I didn't particularly mind the time, however the fact that the quality was reduced a little pissed me off a bit. Not enough to make a big deal out of it, but I can understand the point that's being made, which has nothing to do with how long it takes to resize or how much effort (or lack thereof) but more to do with the quality of the final product.

However as Liam pointed out the quality improvement would come at a cost and if that cost (the extra bandwidth) would mean the site being down for any length of time it's not worth doing. If it can be done without a significant extra cost in terms of bandwidth, then I think it's a good move, as 100x100 has become pretty much a web standard, but if it can't, then so what? We'll be a bit different and leave it as is for the good of the site :)

Flightfreak
01-10-2005, 04:21 PM
To use Jasmines example:
http://www.docinsane.com/Pieter/resize1.jpg

http://www.docinsane.com/Pieter/resize2.jpg

Jasmine I don't know what program you used but when i resized your 100pix to 80pix it did not look that crappy.

Anyway, the size of the avatar does not change anything to the websites bandwidth, well it does, but Baz set a max. of kb for avatars (19.5 KB)
So its all relative. if they don't change the max size in kb for avatars but allow 100pix avatars then I don't see a problem.

Hazzle
01-10-2005, 04:53 PM
That's true, but I think the suggestion was for a 5kb addition to the size limit because otherwise people would have to still reduce the quality of a 100x100 avatar to make it fit. And a 5kb addition to EVERY member would add up...

Hmmm...

(I always use photoshop to resize btw)

Flightfreak
01-10-2005, 06:21 PM
using Jasmine her example again:
http://www.docinsane.com/Pieter/resize3.jpg 100x100pix Jpg Quality -> 95% size:12kb
http://www.docinsane.com/Pieter/resize4.jpg 80x80pix Jpg Quality -> 95% size:6kb

I don't think we need 5 kb more.

acliff
01-10-2005, 09:37 PM
Let the avatar size like it is. Every site has other rules if it comes to avatar sizes. Maybe in an other month we will be having someone who is used to use a 120x120 pix avatar on an other forum. 80x80 is good. resizing an avatar takes how long? 1min

Adding the post count back would make people post more crap I think. because they want to have a higher post count or something. now you can check the amount of posts in the profile.

Post more crap?
So what exactly do we do most of the time?

In this time of interest, with pride and prejudice coming out, and domino due soon, having a post count would most certainly cause people to post more. I'm sure the people with high post counts would try and vye for the greatest posts, but we know the people at the top post total crap anyway.

I'd rather have more people posting, that we could moderate and lock, than have no new people in a stagnant, but highly viewed forum.

Jasmine
01-10-2005, 10:34 PM
To use Jasmines example:
Jasmine I don't know what program you used but when i resized your 100pix to 80pix it did not look that crappy.
Oh I know what happened with mine. In photoshop when I open the file itself and reize it, it resizes is crappy. But if I copy and paste it into a new window it resizes more smoothly...dont know why that is.

Anyways. As with that particular example, reizing doesnt affect it that much--only having spent a lot of my time and effort in making these, sacraficing some of the quality makes me feel like my work is being put to waste.

Anyway, the size of the avatar does not change anything to the websites bandwidth, well it does, but Baz set a max. of kb for avatars (19.5 KB) So its all relative. if they don't change the max size in kb for avatars but allow 100pix avatars then I don't see a problem.

Here's my question for the admins and whoever else: is it possible to raise the allowed demensions without raising the max kb?...or is that completely impossible?

Hazzle
02-10-2005, 09:16 AM
using Jasmine her example again:
http://www.docinsane.com/Pieter/resize3.jpg 100x100pix Jpg Quality -> 95% size:12kb
http://www.docinsane.com/Pieter/resize4.jpg 80x80pix Jpg Quality -> 95% size:6kb

I don't think we need 5 kb more.

Err, that's a 6kb difference mate :p Unless you're suggesting we'd need a more than 5kb hike.

Post more crap?
So what exactly do we do most of the time?

In this time of interest, with pride and prejudice coming out, and domino due soon, having a post count would most certainly cause people to post more. I'm sure the people with high post counts would try and vye for the greatest posts, but we know the people at the top post total crap anyway.

I'd rather have more people posting, that we could moderate and lock, than have no new people in a stagnant, but highly viewed forum.

He has a good point to be fair. Most posts these days seem to be from the established folk and very few from the new ones, and with P & P out there's bound to be the same hike in new members as there was when every other KK movie has come out. Better to have them posting, even if it ends up needing locks, than to just not have the posts there. For every 5 you might have to lock you might end up getting one really good thread that makes it worthwhile.


Here's my question for the admins and whoever else: is it possible to raise the allowed demensions without raising the max kb?...or is that completely impossible?

I believe so (although I'm not knowledgeable enough to say for certain) but as with Flightfreak when he resized your images, if you keep the quality the same, and just resize, then logically it will increase the size of the file. You could, however, reduce the quality when you save the file and deal with it that way.

deviljet88
02-10-2005, 09:20 AM
It's possible... to have a large picture but have it compressed into a small kb file... it'd look bad though (blurry, fuzzy, pixellated, random stuff).

And go Cliff, w00t for top posters who post crap, myself included :D

apoggy
02-10-2005, 09:28 AM
Err, that's a 6kb difference mate :p Unless you're suggesting we'd need a more than 5kb hike.


He said a 5kb increase from the current maximum allowed which is 19.5kb, smart arse :p

Hazzle
02-10-2005, 09:34 AM
He said a 5kb increase from the current maximum allowed which is 19.5kb, smart arse :p

Damnit! So he did :icon_redf Fair point...

So that takes care of the bandwidth argument, the only thing left would be the argument that it'd ruin the look of the site...if that's the sole thing...why not do a poll to see how many people would actually take advantage of a 100x100 avatar? If it's a rough 50-50 split (or even more in favour of a 100x100 size), then do a trial phase and see how it looks. If, of course, most people would stay with 80x80, then all of this discussion is pointless anyway :p

deviljet88
02-10-2005, 09:39 AM
What would be more pointless is if Baz decides to post a message such as: 80x80 is here to stay, stfu wankers.

People power sucks.

Hazzle
02-10-2005, 09:43 AM
Yes, but he hasn't yet, so stfu :p

It's not really about people power so much as LJ > KKW in terms of membership and actually I'd say LJ is probably the biggest community on the web. As such, the standard 100x100 avatars they use have pretty much become a web standard, and we wouldn't want KKW to be considered behind the times now, would we? Plus if we can make the site more "accessible" to newbies then we wouldn't have to rely on cunts like you and me to post :p

Flightfreak
02-10-2005, 09:58 AM
Damnit! So he did Fair point...

So that takes care of the bandwidth argument, the only thing left would be the argument that it'd ruin the look of the site...if that's the sole thing...why not do a poll to see how many people would actually take advantage of a 100x100 avatar? If it's a rough 50-50 split (or even more in favour of a 100x100 size), then do a trial phase and see how it looks. If, of course, most people would stay with 80x80, then all of this discussion is pointless anyway


It would not really take care of the bandwidth, it will raise a bit because if everyone changes to 100x100pix you’ll see that the size of the avatar folder will raise with 30% or something.
The amount of bandwidth that those avatars generate is pretty small. You also have to know that most of those avatars are in your computers internet cache and not get re-downloaded once you have it on your computer. Try to open kkwavefront.org offline and you'll see.

Anyway, thought I don’t really care about how big our avatars are I think that the amount of bandwidth that gets generated by it is minimal.

Post more crap?
So what exactly do we do most of the time?

In this time of interest, with pride and prejudice coming out, and domino due soon, having a post count would most certainly cause people to post more. I'm sure the people with high post counts would try and vye for the greatest posts, but we know the people at the top post total crap anyway.

I'd rather have more people posting, that we could moderate and lock, than have no new people in a stagnant, but highly viewed forum.

People love drama,
you'll get more newbie’s post crap,
Baz will get more page views and earn more money.
And I an probably a few others won't be bothering anymore to read threads because its "too" full of crappy posts.
But if the moderators moderate enough and cause a lot of “drama” than it will be funny to read I suppose :p

acliff
02-10-2005, 12:19 PM
I love drama.
And I'm assuming the 200kb gallery files are probably more of a bandwidth hog...

Digital_Ice
02-10-2005, 07:41 PM
just a thought, but if you want to save the bandwidth cap, why not disable attachments, and make all people who want to post images link to offsite images, then the download is comming from their server not yours. There's many good, free image hosts for people to use if they dont have the luxury of their own server.

with regards to post counts... jesus christ no! we'll just have jet spamming up the place (more so) becuase of this strange assumptions "n00bs" have on the internet, that a high post count somehow boosts their status and importance, when all it actually does is draw attention to how much shite they post.

on a basic level, i agree with poggs, leave it alone, it works doesn't it. quit ya bitching!

deviljet88
03-10-2005, 06:34 AM
No shite = No forum.

Slight overstatement, but.

CollisionStar
04-11-2005, 04:54 AM
Perhaps this is a dead topic, I dunno...but I'm posting anyway....

Um, I kind of would like to have 100x100 because, well, it is easier to find and such, but I don't mind if not. Mostly, I was wondering if someone could resize some icons for me since I can't do that on my computer...?

Thanks. Maybe.

Digital_Ice
04-11-2005, 03:39 PM
woah, thread bump.

well in short, im pretty sure it aint happening, and quite frankly i couln't care. when people start worrying about avatar sizes over the actuall posts it makes you wonder why the hell they're on a forum anyway, if you want to see big pictures, go on a gallery... anyways, stick the images up and i'll resise em to whatever you want.

barrington
05-11-2005, 09:58 AM
80x80 stays. Thanks for playing.

Hazzle
06-11-2005, 02:11 PM
The Bazzle hath spoken. And what about post counts?

barrington
06-11-2005, 02:30 PM
There are no post counts.

Digital_Ice
06-11-2005, 08:33 PM
there is! its just not displayed.

Sarah
06-11-2005, 09:57 PM
Shame I missed all this fuss.

80 x 80 is great. Everyone stop bitching. :)

Digital_Ice
07-11-2005, 01:08 AM
nicely summed up sarah!

Hazzle
07-11-2005, 06:50 PM
Except noone bitched...

I personally wasn't fussed one way or the other, if it'd have gone to 100x100, great, I probably would've used it, but now that it hasn't, I'm not bothered. What got my goat most was the way everyone took this way too seriously when initially it was just a query by a member. Instead of taking feedback as "bitching" let's try and be a little less stuck up and just gently remind them that this place isn't a democracy.

IE What Baz says goes and he has decided.

CollisionStar
09-11-2005, 10:27 AM
I go with Hazzle on that....I don't care what size it is. Just....that mine looks pretteh because I am shallow and girly like that.

And if these could be resized....I would heart you muchly.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v736/CollisionStar/piercingstarebydolphingoddess.gif (http://)

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v736/CollisionStar/KeiraB09.png (http://)

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v736/CollisionStar/keirak11.png (http://)

Digital_Ice
09-11-2005, 10:43 AM
resized to what?

i took the liberty of assuming you ment 80x80

http://www.blackparadox.co.uk/hosted/imghost/Image1.jpg
http://www.blackparadox.co.uk/hosted/imghost/Image2.jpg
http://www.blackparadox.co.uk/hosted/imghost/Image3.jpg

CollisionStar
10-11-2005, 04:41 AM
Thank you so much darling.

Sarah
10-11-2005, 10:49 AM
It is bitching, though. Its just people moaning because they can't get what they want. ''Waaaa I want 100 x 100 because my picture screws up'' SO what? Find another one.

Jasmine
14-11-2005, 02:05 AM
It is bitching, though. Its just people moaning because they can't get what they want. ''Waaaa I want 100 x 100 because my picture screws up'' SO what? Find another one.
Actually, it's people asking a question. Forgive me if it's not allowed to ask questions about the bored, but that's what I thought "Wavefront Issues" was for.

Sarah
15-11-2005, 03:06 PM
If just find it funny that you have so much time to write about bloody avatars

CollisionStar
22-11-2005, 09:09 PM
Well you have the time to complain about people writing about avatars. Does that make it even?

Digital_Ice
22-11-2005, 10:31 PM
ffs, drop it already.

duckula
22-11-2005, 10:56 PM
mmmm lock