Avatar size limit

[Family Guy Fan]

seems to be on the very small side ever thought of raising it to oh i dont know 100 x 100 or something?

[Reacon]

It's really fine the way it is to me. I don't see a big problem, download Paint.NET and resize your image...

[Fred Derf Veteran]

Big avatars take up more screen space without adding a lot of content value. They also tend to make sites look less professional, IMO. I'm fairly happy with 80x80.

[Family Guy Fan]

im just saying that alot of other forums out there have their limits set at or around the 100 x 100 limit...but w/e close this i guess.

[Matrix XII]

Big avatars take up more screen space without adding a lot of content value. They also tend to make sites look less professional, IMO. I'm fairly happy with 80x80.

Yeah, the bigger the avs the less professional it looks.

Besides, they aren't very important.. I haven't changed my sig or av in like 4 years :rofl:

[Family Guy Fan]

u guys are just hatin' on the new guy :(

[+Nik Louch Subscriber²]

Not at all so don't play the victim!

If you compare Neowin to other forums, it comes off a lot more clean and tidy. This is just one reason why.

[Fred Derf Veteran]

u guys are just hatin' on the new guy :(

That's not it at all. We're just explaining why we're different. When you get used to the way we do things then other forums will seem... "less".

Of course, that's just my personal opinion. I'm sure a number of our members would prefer to have larger graphics (both sigs and avatars).

[Family Guy Fan]

u guys are just hatin' on the new guy :(

ok first wow im quoting myself.

second i forgot the /sarcasm....

[Dance.]

A decent bunch of forum users are on a slow connection, hence it hogs their bandwith causing the time taken to load the web page far more.

[Family Guy Fan]

A decent bunch of forum users are on a slow connection, hence it hogs their bandwith causing the time taken to load the web page far more.

how much longer could it take to load a 100 x 100 avatar than a 80 x 80 avatar its just 20 x 20 more pixels and i used to be on a dial up connection and it took maybe 10 seconds to load a 100 x 100.

[+Nik Louch Subscriber²]

Look, why SHOULD it be changed?

We are all saying why it shouldn't, but nobody is going to change it unless a VERY strong argument were put forward.

And I fail to see how you can make a strong argument over 20*20 pxls!

[BajiRav]

how much longer could it take to load a 100 x 100 avatar than a 80 x 80 avatar its just 20 x 20 more pixels and i used to be on a dial up connection and it took maybe 10 seconds to load a 100 x 100.

I read at 20 posts/page and that is 20 avatars right there. so it is not just 20x20 more pixels ;). And as it's been said before me, the site looks much cleaner as it is. ;)

[Family Guy Fan]

its just kinda hard for me to see an 80*80 avatar as opposed to a 100*100 avatar.

[Sethos]

Pretend the limit was 60 x 60 yesterday and they raised it to 80 x 80 over night, your world will be a much happier place to live in :)

[Impact]

I think the current avatar size is perfect.

[markwolfe Veteran]

its just kinda hard for me to see an 80*80 avatar as opposed to a 100*100 avatar.

I have them turned off. Go ahead and make 1000x1000 avatars. :p

how much longer could it take to load a 100 x 100 avatar than a 80 x 80 avatar its just 20 x 20 more pixels and i used to be on a dial up connection and it took maybe 10 seconds to load a 100 x 100.

And, in a month down the road from using 100x100, someone will apply the same logic to ask for 120x120 avatars.

One tech forum (for PLCs) I am registered to has 65x65 limit. Another one (OSNews) is 48x48. Ubuntu forums have an 80x80, which ties with Neowin for the largest avatars amongst the forums I visit.

In my opinion, Neowin is already generously large compared with other tech forums. (Y)

EDIT: A little math exploration on your "just 20x20 more pixels":

current 80x80 = 6,400 pixels

suggested 100x100 = 10,000 pixels

The difference is 3,600 pixels, which is the equivalent of a 60x60 image, not a 20x20 (which is only 400 pixels).

Edited August 27, 2008 by markjensen

[Rappy Veteran]

80 X 80 is pretty fair imo and it looks clean like that.

[Smashing Pumpkin]

80 X 80 is pretty fair imo and it looks clean like that.

Rappy obviously knows how to make good usage of the 'low' number of pixels'.

I agree that larger avatars make for a less professional look.

[Rappy Veteran]

Rappy obviously knows how to make good usage of the 'low' number of pixels'.

I agree that larger avatars make for a less professional look.

I have certainly changed the avatar a few times in the past :p

[Srugie Veteran]

Personally I don't mind the size that it is right now.

[Family Guy Fan]

I have them turned off. Go ahead and make 1000x1000 avatars. :p

And, in a month down the road from using 100x100, someone will apply the same logic to ask for 120x120 avatars.

One tech forum (for PLCs) I am registered to has 65x65 limit. Another one (OSNews) is 48x48. Ubuntu forums have an 80x80, which ties with Neowin for the largest avatars amongst the forums I visit.

In my opinion, Neowin is already generously large compared with other tech forums. (Y)

EDIT: A little math exploration on your "just 20x20 more pixels":

current 80x80 = 6,400 pixels

suggested 100x100 = 10,000 pixels

The difference is 3,600 pixels, which is the equivalent of a 60x60 image, not a 20x20 (which is only 400 pixels).

wow ur head must hurt after doing all that math....

[Smashing Pumpkin]

How come this guy got banned already?!

[HawkMan]

That's not it at all. We're just explaining why we're different. When you get used to the way we do things then other forums will seem... "less".

Of course, that's just my personal opinion. I'm sure a number of our members would prefer to have larger graphics (both sigs and avatars).

as far as looking professional an non-messy, I prefer the way of the graphics forum I frequent. They have a 135x135 limit on avatars, and no image sigs rule.

Image sigs is what makes a site look messy, not bigger avatars , unless we're talking above 150

[»X«]

In my opinion, 80x80 is fine. But I disagree that 100x100 would look unprofessional. Biggest problem by far is signature sizes, thank god they are how they are. Ive been on forums where there have been no limit. Someone posts ":)" followed by a 640x480 image. Its insanity.

Its fine how it is. But yea, why banned so soon?