Avatar size limit

By Family Guy Fan
in Site & Forum Issues

 Share

Recommended Posts

Grand Master

Matrix XII

Posted
Posted
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:

Grand Master

Fred Derf Veteran

Posted
  • Veteran
Posted
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).

Explorer

Family Guy Fan

Posted
  • Author
Posted
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.

Grand Master

BajiRav

Posted
Posted
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. ;)

Grand Master

markwolfe Veteran

Posted
  • Veteran
Posted (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. :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 by markjensen
Explorer

Family Guy Fan

Posted
  • Author
Posted
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....

Grand Master

HawkMan

Posted
Posted
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

Grand Master

»X«

Posted
Posted

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?

This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.