| 5:51 pm on May 25, 2010 (gmt 0)|
I'm for NO avatars (whether optional or not) on the threads themselves. They entirely change the nature of a forum, moving discussions from an exchange of ideas to an exchange of more personality-based interaction. I'm with Webwork and MadScientist on this.
The question of optional pictures on profile pages is a more difficult one... anonymity on the web can cut two ways... but I'm inclined to say no to that as well. Let's keep WebmasterWorld in the realm of ideas.
| 6:07 pm on May 25, 2010 (gmt 0)|
I'd be willing to bet money that avatars in forums provide faster and more accurate recall vs. names.
| 6:25 pm on May 25, 2010 (gmt 0)|
I actually like everything about this site!
you can't post distracting pictures, no avatars, no links.
none of the sillyness that is all over the web.
| 6:45 pm on May 25, 2010 (gmt 0)|
I like this place without avatars next to each post, so I would say no. An image on the profile page may be OK.
| 6:58 pm on May 25, 2010 (gmt 0)|
An absolute NO to avatars! Keep this site running smoothly!
| 7:00 pm on May 25, 2010 (gmt 0)|
I don't like avatars.. for me.. no... clean and fast...
| 7:04 pm on May 25, 2010 (gmt 0)|
No from me as well!
| 7:25 pm on May 25, 2010 (gmt 0)|
avatars - from a personal view no and certainly i'd like to turn them off.
also as mentioned more than once above i feel that the introduction of avatars would change the nature of the forum too (it will change the way people react in one way or another)
photos on profile pages - i wouldn't do it but if others want to then i see no harm
| 7:44 pm on May 25, 2010 (gmt 0)|
Nope, nadda, Nyet, Nine etc. They'd make the place like a kiddie forum.
| 8:05 pm on May 25, 2010 (gmt 0)|
I'm surprised how many of you are dead against this. My personal view is I don't mind them, but I would like an option. I like Brett's idea of them only being visible if you have chosen to add one yourself. It pretty much suits everyone that way.
I suspect manual approval though!
| 8:18 pm on May 25, 2010 (gmt 0)|
Another No vote here - don't see any point in adding avatars.
| 8:32 pm on May 25, 2010 (gmt 0)|
Wouldn't matter to me either way. Not as long as there was a disable feature.
| 8:36 pm on May 25, 2010 (gmt 0)|
Speed of recognition, humanization, some of the advantages.
| 8:40 pm on May 25, 2010 (gmt 0)|
optional as most other forums/blogs have it, makes it easier to link profiles to a face/logo
| 9:41 pm on May 25, 2010 (gmt 0)|
No to avatars please - for reasons similar to webworks, plus bandwidth, loading time and clutter issues.
One great strength of WebmasterWorld is always communcating direct (as good as it gets in forums) with real people - not an alter ego.
No to avatars please
| 10:08 pm on May 25, 2010 (gmt 0)|
I have to echo the "circus" comment, this site is great at sticking to the facts, big personalities create tensions and trolling which is remarkably absent from here.
| 10:23 pm on May 25, 2010 (gmt 0)|
I like avatars and basic posting stats on messages and replies, it brings to light a real person behind the keyboard; somehow gives a sensible writing more credibility. I find most forums too impersonal and enjoy seeing a person's face, reputation etc. behind the words.
| 11:51 pm on May 25, 2010 (gmt 0)|
I get to know the people here by respecting and appreciating their knowledgable advice. I don't need to see a dumb avatar to identify with them.
| 11:56 pm on May 25, 2010 (gmt 0)|
I like avatars. Visual recognition of posters is far better than text. I use avatars this way in the other forums I visit, and miss them here.
(My concern is that the avatar I use is from the family guy. Which is probably (C). Yeah, I use it anyway. But on a forum where people's images are getting ripped off, I think I'd get called on the use of it.
The other thing I've seen are objectionable images. I saw someone use an avatar of f Johnny Cash giving the finger. Mod complained, the avatar changed to Johnny Cash apparently holding a bouquet of flowers :) ).
Things to think about.
| 11:57 pm on May 25, 2010 (gmt 0)|
Sorry guys and gals, the fastest way to trivialize a valid source is to put cotton-candy and pics and all those web too diarrhea oh my in place. Don't f' with it.
| 12:09 am on May 26, 2010 (gmt 0)|
The example of the two Johnnies, IMO, serves as a good argument against avatars. Avatars as visual symbols can carry a whole extra level of attitude and meaning that I feel can only complicate the forums. It's a level that doesn't serve to advance why we're here... which is the sharing of news and information about the web.
| 2:00 am on May 26, 2010 (gmt 0)|
|I like avatars. Visual recognition of posters is far better than text. I use avatars this way in the other forums I visit, and miss them here. |
I agree with wheel.
The old fuddy duddies cry no Avatars while it's probably one item that makes WebmasterWorld world look 'old school' to the upcoming 2.0 generation and a reason they go other places than WebmasterWorld.
I cold be an option to see avatars or not, it won't impact your world either way.
We probably do lose a lot of new talent to other places that expect a fully functional forum, which includes avatars.
Getting some new members to WebmasterWorld would work about as well as trying to get my daughter to watch B&W TV, let alone a silent movie, it just wouldn't happen.
You either move forward with the herd or you're left back with the dinosaurs to dwindle and die.
| 2:10 am on May 26, 2010 (gmt 0)|
| 2:19 am on May 26, 2010 (gmt 0)|
I vote no Avatars. They make the forum less professional.
| 2:22 am on May 26, 2010 (gmt 0)|
IMHO, it would dumb down the place. Not a lot. I'm not going to rant and get on my soapbox but it would dumb it down a touch. What is this place about...exchange of information, giving support, getting help. It's not about who's got the best avatar or whose avatar is "f'in hilarious". It's fluff. Frills of candy on a T-bone steak dress.
whoops, perhaps a little rantish. :-) (of course, if you could see my hilarous hitler downfall gif on the left, you'd know I'm famous for my rants!)
| 2:25 am on May 26, 2010 (gmt 0)|
I think incrediBILL just made the best possible case for NO AVATARS... The 'old fuddy duddies' comment is not something most people have a big enough set to say to my face... I don't have the full summer 8-pack yet, but I'm definitely sittin' here with 6 and 5% body fat.
Not having avatars forces people to read the text of the posts to evaluate the comments made by a poster rather than basing a decision in any part on the appearance of the person making the post... I think that's how it should stay.
| 6:36 am on May 26, 2010 (gmt 0)|
Please, no avatars .. especially animated .gifs.
| 9:26 am on May 26, 2010 (gmt 0)|
I'm not against avatars either. They can be a good visual reference for some. I do agree about having them off by default. I would argue for a third option of placing avatars only on the profile page. Sometimes it can help the sense of community if you can see what the other person looks like...if they decide to add an actual photo.
| 9:44 am on May 26, 2010 (gmt 0)|
|I would argue for a third option of placing avatars only on the profile page. |
Now that's a brilliant idea! In fact, I'd put that one at the top of the todo list. I see many pros to this. One, it will probably invoke more Profile views. Two, it solves this entire discussion from all angles. No one can complain about having Avatars in WebmasterWorld Profiles.
End of discussion! ;)
| 9:48 am on May 26, 2010 (gmt 0)|
Avatars, if implemented properly, just put a face to the name and help build community and even extend to helping people put the user name to the face at events like PubCon.
The avatars could just be in the profile, instead of every post just for the sake of speed, but at a minimum I think it needs to be an option.
TOS could require it to be a real face, not a cartoon, etc. which would keep the professionalism up a notch.
Like I said before, if it's opt-in or opt-out, it doesn't both your view of WebmasterWorld when you decide which option to check.
| 10:23 am on May 26, 2010 (gmt 0)|
I like the fast-loading, plain-looking, no-distractions nature of WebmasterWorld. I'm not averse to having them on profile pages, especially if they're real faces, but I don't want to see them on threads.
And I don't want to see the site bogged down in any copyright litigation or hotlink disputes. Maybe restrict them to people who've reached a certain post threshold?
| This 72 message thread spans 3 pages: < < 72 ( 1  3 ) > > |