Family Guy Fan Posted August 27, 2008 Share Posted August 27, 2008 seems to be on the very small side ever thought of raising it to oh i dont know 100 x 100 or something? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reacon Posted August 27, 2008 Share Posted August 27, 2008 It's really fine the way it is to me. I don't see a big problem, download Paint.NET and resize your image... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fred Derf Veteran Posted August 27, 2008 Veteran Share Posted August 27, 2008 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Family Guy Fan Posted August 27, 2008 Author Share Posted August 27, 2008 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matrix XII Posted August 27, 2008 Share Posted August 27, 2008 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: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Family Guy Fan Posted August 27, 2008 Author Share Posted August 27, 2008 u guys are just hatin' on the new guy :( Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Dick Montage Subscriber² Posted August 27, 2008 Subscriber² Share Posted August 27, 2008 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fred Derf Veteran Posted August 27, 2008 Veteran Share Posted August 27, 2008 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). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Family Guy Fan Posted August 27, 2008 Author Share Posted August 27, 2008 u guys are just hatin' on the new guy :( ok first wow im quoting myself. second i forgot the /sarcasm.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dance. Posted August 27, 2008 Share Posted August 27, 2008 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Family Guy Fan Posted August 27, 2008 Author Share Posted August 27, 2008 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Dick Montage Subscriber² Posted August 27, 2008 Subscriber² Share Posted August 27, 2008 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! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BajiRav Posted August 27, 2008 Share Posted August 27, 2008 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. ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Family Guy Fan Posted August 27, 2008 Author Share Posted August 27, 2008 its just kinda hard for me to see an 80*80 avatar as opposed to a 100*100 avatar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sethos Posted August 27, 2008 Share Posted August 27, 2008 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 :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Impact Posted August 27, 2008 Share Posted August 27, 2008 I think the current avatar size is perfect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
markwolfe Veteran Posted August 27, 2008 Veteran Share Posted August 27, 2008 (edited) 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. :phow 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rappy Veteran Posted August 27, 2008 Veteran Share Posted August 27, 2008 80 X 80 is pretty fair imo and it looks clean like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smashing Pumpkin Posted August 27, 2008 Share Posted August 27, 2008 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rappy Veteran Posted August 27, 2008 Veteran Share Posted August 27, 2008 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Srugie Veteran Posted August 27, 2008 Veteran Share Posted August 27, 2008 Personally I don't mind the size that it is right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Family Guy Fan Posted August 28, 2008 Author Share Posted August 28, 2008 I have them turned off. Go ahead and make 1000x1000 avatars. :pAnd, 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.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smashing Pumpkin Posted August 28, 2008 Share Posted August 28, 2008 How come this guy got banned already?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HawkMan Posted August 28, 2008 Share Posted August 28, 2008 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
»X« Posted August 28, 2008 Share Posted August 28, 2008 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts