I label myself that way because I am.Quote:
Originally Posted by Caravel
I hardly think my age should play part in this discussion, nor my viewpoints.
I label myself that way because I am.Quote:
Originally Posted by Caravel
I hardly think my age should play part in this discussion, nor my viewpoints.
Heh, yes I'm aware of that. I signed up the CoH. I think you misunderstand me. The forum has a facility where awards can be added to a members account. I am saying to make use of that facility for rewarding senior members (I referred to it earlier in this thread as the ".org award") instead of having a different rank.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ibn-Khaldun
To cut a long story short, I think the current member rank should have all the rights of senior member and the juniors and seniors abolished.
Fair points, I apologise if I've cause you any offence.Quote:
Originally Posted by pevergreen
Some points you made were true and forced me to look at myself, but no offence taken.Quote:
Originally Posted by Caravel
Much like a PM I found from you today, while sorting out my PM box.
I still chuckle when I read the title of it: "Inter-camel order communication"
I think we all need to look at ourselves.
I don't remember that one, not sure what it was about. Sage advice? :laugh4:
You were giving me a slap on the behind for misbehaving. :laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by Caravel
I think a fair compromise would be to remove junior membership, keep senior membership but don't bestow any perks from having it. Have it just be a signifier that you have contributed to the community.
Despite posting here for nearly 7 years, I have no attachment whatsoever to my avatar. In fact, I've always been a little annoyed that I couldn't use my standard avatar on this forum (which I am attached to and use everywhere but here). As I understand it, the reasons we force people to use these avatars are (1) uniformity of site layout and (2) tradition. (1) is no longer a good excuse, as the forum itself doesn't have any particularly glitzy or polished appearance. The 'popular' skins are popular simply due to tradition and not do to actual aesthetic value. The Org has always been a relatively ugly forum that was more about content than looks, so I don't think that keeping the current avatar rules are doing anything beneficial. For (2), tradition isn't worth squat if the site dies.
As for the retort that we have URL avatars available, that's a very poor option. URL avatars doesn't change the fact that I have to have a regular avatar as well. Who wants to look at two avatars in every post? That makes the site look even worse than it does normally.
The URL avatars are pretty much pointless because guests cannot see them - they still see the portraits - and most users don't have them turned on or use them anyway. You can turn off the gallery avatars altogether and switch to the URL avatars, but as most members here aren't using them, it's pointless as you'll mostly only see the default one.Quote:
Originally Posted by TinCow
My whole argument about avatars is centred around improving perception of the .org and thus helping to bring new people in, what is the point in the URL avatars if they will achieve neither?
Avatars don't make the site less attractive to join. Actually I like the avatars the way they are. Not so disturbing or irritating, flashy or childlike as on many other forums. It gives the .org a more mature look IMO.
Personally I'm not completely pro junior membership. But I do think it might have some use. But abolishing might not be a bad idea. And I think it will indeed have a good influence on getting newcommers to stay.
Re: Avatars,
There is a lot of confusion created by having three distinctly different types of avatars. Why have three? Are the benefits (not potential, but actual), of having three worth the cost of maintaining two additional sets of interface, process/function, and data requirements on the system side, and documentation/end-user support? Personally, I don't think so.
Having one type of avatar cuts down on the confusion considerably. What's important is granting patrons the flexibility to make or choose their own, and making that as easy and intuitive to do as possible to minimize support requirements. Having one set of interface processes and parameters to manage one function would make for less work for those supporting the system, and education/explanations easier for those supporting the patrons. Finally, it would be less confusing to patrons themselves.
My opinion is (taking into account all of your hard work, Tosa): instead of having three, use only one, preferably the "standard" avatar because it's the easiest to find and change via the interface. Assuming this is possible, set the "standard" avatar to behave as the "free" avatar does currently--so that patrons can select or create their own avatar and display it within set size/dimension limits, and stated guidelines. Set things up so that both the standard and urlavatar image libraries can be accessed if a patron prefers to select one from them.
We would simply stop using the other two avatar types. Any reference to them would best be removed from the Patron's view in the USER CP. Default account settings would remain as they are (with only the "standard" avatar displaying and being viewed--but now fully customizable).
If the standard avatar cannot support this functionality, then use the "free" avatar as is, and deactivate the other two after making their image libraries accessible via the "free" avatar interface. The downside to this method is that default display/view parameters on new accounts would have to be changed too.
Re: Sigs,
I feel the same way about sigs. Why two? Do actual benefits justify the costs associated with maintaining two discrete objects/functions which essentially serve the same purpose?
I agree with a previous poster, that large sigs can be very distracting. I recently tested the 'extra' sig, and when both were active, they took up a lot of space. If everyone did that ... it wouldn't be very practical.
Again, my opinion is, use one--the standard signature. Set the size/dimension limits to the max that we feel is appropriate for display in a post. The 'extra' sig/broadband option isn't needed and could be hidden and not used.
A lot of ideas come and go in these threads while we're on another subject--need to collect them somehow.
I second Togakure's suggestions.
The several avatar thingy is confusing. First, you have to find out which "avatar" you have to use to be able to implement your own. Then you have to find out how to set your profile so that you don't see all three avatars of all members. It's very confusing and kinda annoying (not anymore for me, since I figured out how I could get things back to "normal", but new members will find the forum very confusing and ugly).
I'd very much prefer one and only one avatar with, as Togakure suggested, the possiblity either to chose from the current TW avatars or to upload your own avatar.
Idem dito for the sigs. Only one sig, please.
I'm a strong believer in simplicity.
It's really very simple. There is no need for the URL avatars or the profile picture display as vbulletin (the software this forum runs on) supports avatar uploads by default.
There are three sections to the avatar config screen as seen in this example from the TWC (sorry I'm not on any other vbulletin forums at the moment hence why I have to use TWC as an example): "Your current avatar", "pre determined" and the third section, "custom avatar" which allows uploading or directly linking to an image hosted at an image hosting site (e.g. imageshack, photobucket etc).
https://img40.imageshack.us/img40/4659/new1wa.jpg
At the .org the third section, "custom avatar", is clearly missing - not because something needs to be installed, but because it's simply been turned off at the admin panel.
https://img11.imageshack.us/img11/4871/new3cul.jpg
There is no extra work involved in this, it's a built in feature that simply needs to be enabled in order to function.
My thoughts on the issue:
I think it should be clear to all of us that the lack of custom avatars or swears is not the reason why the .Org is the SickMan of EuropeForum of the Internet . I've seen forums die with custom avatars, and others thrive with a limited choice. The latter is, in fact, the Paradox Interactive forums. Why do the Paradox Forums thrive when ours do not? There are a number of reasons, and I'm going to state them in big type with elaborations in smaller print if you're too lazy to read explanations. This is going to be blunt and hard hitting, because, to be honest, the .Org as a community needs some blunt and hard hitting criticism
PROBLEM: SMALLER COMMUNITY GENERATES LESS CONTENT GENERATES SMALLER COMMUNITY - Were I to quit on the Paradox Forums, nobody would notice at all. The amount of content produced by me as a percentage of content produced on the forum is insignificantly small. However, when I quit the .Org for a few months this year, and I had a feeling that I was missed, and not just because I'm a really cool guy, but because I was a guy who filled up slots on mafia, hosted games, debated in the backroom and was noticed for it. If, say, ten relatively frequent Orgers quit this forum, it would be the kiss of death for the .Org. How do we resolve this, in the short term at least? Simple; poach people from Total War Centre. Find people who look exasperated with the nationalist rants, the juvenile atmosphere and the inability for serious discussion andkidnap them and stuff them in a sackinvite them over here and introduce them to the Backroom, mafia etc. But wait, I hear you say, that's a horrible thing to do to the TWC forum you jerk! Sure it is. But desperate times call for desperate measures. If you want, you can sit here hoping that people will pop in for a few posts once SII:TW is released and stick around for a reason you can't really articulate to them or to me. Or we can take action. SOLUTION: RECRUIT NEW FORUM MEMBERS FROM TWC
PROBLEM: LACK OF GAME RELATED ACTIVITY- This, in case we all forgot, is a Total War forum. And yet, nobody discusses the games. This is in huuuuuge contrast to the Paradox fora. They're not even mentioned on the sub-fora I frequent. If this was called the "TotalTangerine.Org" or "TotalZappa.Org" it would not make any impact on the activities the vast majority of people are involved in. Were it not for the Gameroom, Backroom, and the Wikipedia Article on Europa Barbarorum this place would have died a sad little death all alone a year or so after MII:TW was released. This is not because there is nothing to write about; MAA's AAR with Makedonia in EB was awesome! Although I simply do not have the time to write an AAR or something similar, there must be people on the forum who call themselves fans who do. Can those people please spare the time to talk more about the series? I would help now, and will during the summer holidays. SOLUTION: MAKE MORE GAME RELATED ACTIVITY
PROBLEM:THE LAYOUT OF THE FORUM IS CONFUSING, WEIRD AND ANTI-SOCIAL - The separation of the Tavern into various sub-fora means that all my time at the .Org is spent in the Tavern. Once I have checked out all the threads I want to in the Backroom, I press the Tavern link, and see the three different rooms, and anything else I might be interested in commenting on. It could surely be redesigned to be made more accessible, as I feel very restrained to the Tavern by the nature of the design. There are also too many sub-fora as it is; Why are there S:TW, M:TW etc. Multiplayer sub-sub-fora when there is already a sub-fora for TW multiplayer, the Throne Room? The main page feels really long and drawn out, and not comfortable to navigate. A Classic Games sub-forum should be created, with all the S:TW, M:TW and Battle for X (LOL) games relegated to this to save space on the main page. The modifications fora can surely be reorganised as well. SOLUTION - READ THIS PARAGRAPH, REDESIGN THE MAIN FORUM PAGE UNTIL IT IS COMFORTABLE TO BROWSE AGAIN
PROBLEM:LACK OF CONTACT BETWEEN CREATIVE ASSEMBLY AND THE .ORG - One of the best things, no, the best thing, about the Paradox Interactive forum is the amount of developer/player communication there is. Devs will drop in onto the offtopic fora, comment on AARs, and more importantly, TALK ABOUT THE GAMES. I honestly had no idea about what the devs' vision for SII:TW was until I found a random link on the .ORG Homepage for a Youtube video that doesn't really say that much apart from what looks like a cool new system for forts. This is wrong and silly, and harmful to both sides. I am not at all hyped up about SII:TW; maybe I would be interested in buying it if the devs said "Right, what we want our game to look like is X", "We're implementing Y feature now, to make the game more fun and more historically realistic", "We really want to improve the Z, as we thought this feature could really be expanded upon". This happens all the time at Paradox; can you believe that the devs, when making Victoria II released THIRTY THREE developer diaries (Basically, posts about an A4 Page long talking about some new mechanic complete with a screenie), and that the index for these has been viewed over 70,000 times? It's a win-win situation for CA and us; we get interested in the game and happy about it's release and CA makes money, and retains a loyal fan-base for minimal effort. Also, if we can grab some exclusive player/dev communication, we will surely get other people who are interested in the game visiting, and hopefully staying SOLUTION: ARRANGE FOR MORE DEV/PLAYER CONTACT ON THE ORG
PROBLEM: THE NEW TOTAL WAR GAMES HAVE ALL SUCKED - This is something which is beyond our control, I admit, but it is unfortunately true. Sure, I was younger when I started playing R:TW, but I remember being absolutely entranced by it, even before EB.* This was because it was absolutely ground-shattering for its time, blowing conventional RTS out of the water through actual diplomacy, epic battles, historical realism and depth (compared to AoE at least) and the equivalent of a "Hero" system you cared about without all the goofy powers in Warcraft III.
And yet, I played MII:TW for a very short time period, and although I have subsequently played E:TW a bit and found it more fun than I remembered, both were poor games. Why was this? Was it because of gunpowder? No, clearly not. Gunpowder made the tactical level more challenging by forcing you to consider position and alignment, making the tactical level much more interesting for me than simple Melee. The problem lies on the campaign map, with the sheer and utter boneheaded-ness of the diplomatic ai. I'm sympathetic to programmers, I know that creating a diplomatic AI is incredibly, amazingly difficult. But, the game needs a diplomatic AI that works for the game to be enjoyable. The occasional stupid or non-sensical move by the AI, I can tolerate. But having an AI which is mates with you for a hundred years and then stabs you in the back the instant you gain a border with them is not an AI at all! If this was resolved, I would buy SII:TW the day it came out. SOLUTION: PRAY FOR AN AMAZING SII:TW, OR, FAILING THAT, ABSOLUTELY GODLY MOD TOOLS.
These are the main problems IMHO. Sure, there's probably others, like what are we going to do once EBII finishes development, but that's for another thread another day.
*That said, we should not spend all our time whining and complaining about how bad the new ones are and how much better it would be if CA just released S:TW or M:TW again in a different box.
Of course not, but improving the image of the .org to prospective new members can only be a good thing. (no one suggested simply "allowing swearing" btw, that has already been discussed). Getting rid of junior members is one of the central issues IMHO. Perceptions do count and when faced with a choice between two forums, people often go to TWC.Quote:
Originally Posted by Subotan
I've seen a lot of noobs turning up at the pathetic STW/MTW section of the TWC in the last several months - they should be at the .org (which is the home of STW/MTW), but unfortunately they seem to be passing us by and heading for the "bigger site". It's sad, because they could be here discussing the game and getting help instead of getting crap one line advice about how the game is "too old" or how the graphics are "crap" by those that have probably never even played it.
Of all the members which myself and one or two others, advised to "head over the .org", and there have been a few, I don't know of any that actually turned up here and registered. To be clear these are not members that were told "TWC is ****, get yourself over to the .org", they were simply linked to an existing thread. I don't think "poaching" from TWC is ethical or right, nor do I think it will work anyway.
The .org definitely has quality over quantity, but in this case it's not helping us much. We need more exposure for our quality to be noticed and in order to keep bringing in new the people that have made the .org what it is over the years.
This issue arose when I was on the staff, there was some debate though I'm not sure what came of it as when I left it was still ongoing. Some feedback from those in the know would be much appreciated.Quote:
Originally Posted by Subotan
This is an issue, but the lower activity here is likely to send this place further down CA's list of priorities. I'm not sure what your mode of execution for said solution would be?Quote:
Originally Posted by Subotan
I think this is a matter of opinion, to the 'veteran' player that started with a particular game in the series, that game is likely to be where they set the bar for future titles. For example in my opinion STW was the best, followed very closely by MTW. RTW did not even come close and was a large bag of excrement. M2TW was a second bag of excrement and that's where I gave up on the TW series. This will differ to your opinion where you probably see RTW as the pinnacle and everything else that came afterwards as sub par?Quote:
Originally Posted by Subotan
Sure, but it seemed to me as though the consensus was by doing that alone that somehow the decline of the forum could be reversed, which I disagree with.Quote:
Originally Posted by Caravel
I don't like the general atmosphere at TWC for that reason. There is a sizeable minority of people that are very confrontational. A lot of the "serious debate" appears to mainly be smart people correcting stupid people.Quote:
I've seen a lot of noobs turning up at the pathetic STW/MTW section of the TWC in the last several months - they should be at the .org (which is the home of STW/MTW), but unfortunately they seem to be passing us by and heading for the "bigger site". It's sad, because they could be here discussing the game and getting help instead of getting crap one line advice about how the game is "too old" or how the graphics are "crap" by those that have probably never even played it.
Of all the members which myself and one or two others, advised to "head over the .org", and there have been a few, I don't know of any that actually turned up here and registered. To be clear these are not members that were told "TWC is ****, get yourself over to the .org", they were simply linked to an existing thread.
If it's good for international financial institutions, it's good enough for the .Org. Besides, it's not as if by inviting people over here and making ourselves more well known at TWC we're going to be preventing people from visiting TWC. A lot of people here visit both as you know, and if we get more people who mainly visit TWC to visit here as well can only be a good thing.Quote:
I don't think "poaching" from TWC is ethical or right, nor do I think it will work anyway.
The kind of quality we have isn't the kind which attracts new people though. Sure, debate and mafia games are great, but if I'm a player who has just got into TW the Org is disappointingly poor. We can increase the other kind of quality and our quantity without sacrificing the other.Quote:
The .org definitely has quality over quantity, but in this case it's not helping us much. We need more exposure for our quality to be noticed and in order to keep bringing in new the people that have made the .org what it is over the years.
I don't know much about the mechanics to be fair. The Org is pretty ugly I'm afraid though.Quote:
This issue arose when I was on the staff, there was some debate though I'm not sure what came of it as when I left it was still ongoing. Some feedback from those in the know would be much appreciated.
Idk, I was assuming the admins/mods were in contact with CA.Quote:
This is an issue, but the lower activity here is likely to send this place further down CA's list of priorities. I'm not sure what your mode of execution for said solution would be?
Pretty much, yeah. But that's just a TW ting; I got introduced to Civ 3 first, and I adore Civ 4, I prefer Vicky 2 to Vicky 1 etc.Quote:
I think this is a matter of opinion, to the 'veteran' player that started with a particular game in the series, that game is likely to be where they set the bar for future titles. For example in my opinion STW was the best, followed very closely by MTW. RTW did not even come close and was a large bag of excrement. M2TW was a second bag of excrement and that's where I gave up on the TW series. This will differ to your opinion where you probably see RTW as the pinnacle and everything else that came afterwards as sub par?
The forum supported one type of picture, that was some years ago. There were already different requests back then, to accommodate the two main ones, we sticked to the system avatars and created additional ones. At some point we had system avatars, Urlavatars, profilepictures, signature pictures.Quote:
Originally Posted by Togakure
Now we are some years further, the upgrade to the vbulletin Suite knocked out many hacks, including the option to have extra pictures.
Today we have a new discussion about avatars. If I read it correctly, some people still want the systemavatars, the reason is an easy reading experience, others want more choice.
I do recall the discussion about the URLavatars from some years ago. People wanted a wider theme, bigger avatars yet still a theme. To say you the truth: I wasn't all too happy with that decision because it meant I had to do a lot of extra administration, instead of setting it up just once.
But that was the mission: three avatar systems: old-style, new style theme and freedom.
I got the coding done after figuring out how bits had to be called. It was working nicely too: each user could decide to turn each of the three on or off. So, nothing like being forced to see three pictures against your will.
Something itched though and after some chat I decided to simplify it. The people being attached to URlavatars may get very angry at me, mea culpa.
Now we have two systems left, both built in, just tweaked a little in how they work. Every user can choose from the start whether they want old-style or new style pictures. I posted about this here: https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...?132544-Avatar
Not really, one of the three was dropped. There's only some data still in the database, when a user doesn't have a profile picture set, the code will grab that one (quite a few people used the old systems). The user won't be able to find anything about it in his settings though. It's confusing and only serves for internal legacy. The two systems left are standard and built in functionality of this software.Quote:
Are the benefits (not potential, but actual), of having three worth the cost of maintaining two additional sets of interface, process/function, and data requirements on the system side, and documentation/end-user support? Personally, I don't think so.
Surely, but there are clashing expectations. Some won't like the mix of shapes, sizes, themes and so on.Quote:
Having one type of avatar cuts down on the confusion considerably. What's important is granting patrons the flexibility to make or choose their own, and making that as easy and intuitive to do as possible to minimize support requirements. Having one set of interface processes and parameters to manage one function would make for less work for those supporting the system, and education/explanations easier for those supporting the patrons. Finally, it would be less confusing to patrons themselves.
Two.Quote:
My opinion is (taking into account all of your hard work, Tosa): instead of having three
The profile is as easy, it's a built in function of the board today.Quote:
, use only one, preferably the "standard" avatar because it's the easiest to find and change via the interface.
It will use maximum dimension limits, nothing stops it from having all kinds of shapes and dimensions. And I don't think any of us wants to moderate avatars every day. Of course we'll remove offensive ones, but that's it.Quote:
Assuming this is possible, set the "standard" avatar to behave as the "free" avatar does currently--so that patrons can select or create their own avatar and display it within set size/dimension limits, and stated guidelines.
There's an image library: https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/local....php?catid=206Quote:
Set things up so that both the standard and urlavatar image libraries can be accessed if a patron prefers to select one from them.
One is removed. I don't know whether the other can be removed. Telling the tidy guys to turn it off completely sounds harsh. In terms of operation, and support, I'm fine with the two systems we have now.Quote:
We would simply stop using the other two avatar types.
It's confusing indeed, thus dropped and thus also cleaned from the UserCP.Quote:
Any reference to them would best be removed from the Patron's view in the USER CP.
I was hesitating to mention URL avatars in my post, but some users might wonder why they have a custom picture, while not having selected any. So, just to be complete I mentioned it. I'll probably remove that message after some time.
I think that is the interesting question. I haven't tried it yet, but I guess it's fairly easy to have one or the other being default.Quote:
Default account settings would remain as they are (with only the "standard" avatar displaying and being viewed--but now fully customizable).
I know. The number of discussion about signatures equals the ones about avatars. A couple of years back it still was clear that some people suffered from loading large graphical images, yet others wanted big and bigger. Images beyond 100 kb weren't rare (just included).Quote:
Re: Sigs,
I feel the same way about sigs. Why two? Do actual benefits justify the costs associated with maintaining two discrete objects/functions which essentially serve the same purpose?
I don't recall we ever set restrictions on that. Apart from the question whether it would be of much use.Quote:
I agree with a previous poster, that large sigs can be very distracting. I recently tested the 'extra' sig, and when both were active, they took up a lot of space. If everyone did that ... it wouldn't be very practical.
We have a new discussion about it, the 10 kb limit is from 2002. Posters mentioned something I haven't thought of. We'll see how that discussion goes.Quote:
Again, my opinion is, use one--the standard signature. Set the size/dimension limits to the max that we feel is appropriate for display in a post. The 'extra' sig/broadband option isn't needed and could be hidden and not used.
I think we always did, not that we have a database file with ideas though. But there are these topics. Point is just that:Quote:
A lot of ideas come and go in these threads while we're on another subject--need to collect them somehow.
-a it should be possible to make
-b not clash with other needs
-c not create a security risk or bring discomfort (not really the issue here)
-d has to be durable
-e not create loads of work for months to come
:wall:
Tosa, wouldn't the default thingy be worth a try?
See:
One avatar (no "profile pic" or "url avatar"). The default system, where you can chose between a) a pre-defined avatar; b) upload your custom avatar (certain rules can be applied, about size and the usual "no pr0n, nothing offensive (racist avatar) etc.).Quote:
Originally Posted by Caravel
If I understand it well, the default system means no work at all. It's also simple, easy to use and allows more freedom for the membership.
If the issue is moderation, then I would like to point out the following:Quote:
Originally Posted by Andres
1) Display pictures will be much harder to moderate than the url avatars because:
a) Not all members will have them enabled, thus reports of abuse will be reduced, making it difficult to spot offensive avatars early.
b) All Mods will have to enable the show gallery picture in posts display, in doing so either viewing two avatars in every post or disabling the portraits.
2) Anything that applies to a URL avatar also applies to a signature or any image posted by a member. Members could potentially stick anything in their signature, I haven't seen anything pornographic racist or offensive yet.
3) There are easy ways to control it using a few simple rules and restrictions, i.e:
a) Limit file size (this in itself controls most annoying animations).
b) Limit dimensions.
4) Abuse it and you lose it. The avatar (and signature) can be disabled from the admin panel, on a per user basis.
I would far prefer this system to the existing one. I've used that system on pretty much every other vbulletin forum I've ever posted on or run, and it's super easy for both admins and users.Quote:
Originally Posted by Andres
You forgot the rivarly between MP players and SP/Modders and CA.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Subotan
Yes, that's how it works.Quote:
Originally Posted by Andres
The problem is that the board considers them the same then. Right now we make use of two easy to use, built in board tools and each user can decide for himself what to see. That user choice will not be possible when we use only that one avatar.Quote:
One avatar (no "profile pic" or "url avatar"). The default system, where you can chose between a) a pre-defined avatar; b) upload your custom avatar (certain rules can be applied, about size and the usual "no pr0n, nothing offensive (racist avatar) etc.).
If I understand it well, the default system means no work at all. It's also simple, easy to use and allows more freedom for the membership.
This default system means no work at all either, there was some work and that's done a week ago.
It's also simple, easy to use and allows even more freedom to the membership.
What rivalry?Quote:
Originally Posted by ELITECubKingWarman88
But it's confusing and very different from what people are used to on most other fora.Quote:
Originally Posted by TosaInu
With the profile pic and avatar visible, the threads look ugly. Also, if I chose to see profile pics only, I see a whole lot of default profile pics, which means that everybody looks the same. It's confusing. If I chose to see avatars only, those who use profile pic also all look the same.
I fail to see why not using what all other fora use is better :shrug:
Having two sorts of avatars is confusing.
Although I don't agree on some avatar points, this is true.Quote:
Originally Posted by Andres
There needs to be a single avatar type that everyone uses, and everyone sees.
Andres is correct. It feels like a messy compromise intended to please everyone, but leaves no-one happy :shrug:Quote:
Originally Posted by Andres
It's possible to turn one or both off, that's an individual choice.Quote:
Originally Posted by Andres
Agree, but that's easy to fix.Quote:
Also, if I chose to see profile pics only, I see a whole lot of default profile pics, which means that everybody looks the same. It's confusing.
Not true, excisting accounts are already different. People get a default by creating a new account.Quote:
If I chose to see avatars only, those who use profile pic also all look the same.
Not everything offered by forum software is good.Quote:
I fail to see why not using what all other fora use is better :shrug:
Users ask totally different things.Quote:
Having two sorts of avatars is confusing.
Edit: sorry mixed accounts, this is TosaInu
Having the admin using two sorts of accounts is confusing :mean:
And that's annoying. It's annoying to have to go to your settings and switch this or that on or off to view the forum how you want. You undervalue simplicity. One avatar. Size is preset. Chose between a) predefined b) upload custom. Easy, simple, forum looks good, regardless of your settings.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tosa
Default should be no avatar instead of everybody who doesn't chose an avatar having the same pic/avatar. Every new member looking the same is confusing.
We're not talking about the desiderata of the occasional oldtimer, we're talking about making this forum more accessible for new members by making it user-friendly. Simple and "just like any other forum you're used to" is being user friendly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tosa
Have different browsers open to test things and have to do that now with a useraccount: just avatars is not the only to do here.
It's set automatically when creating an account, so people don't have to do anything for it.
I don't underestimate simplicity, but there are other needs too.
The simplicity displayed there isn't available:It's impossible to keep those two seperate and that's exactly what we want (now).Quote:
Chose between a) predefined b) upload custom. Easy, simple, forum looks good, regardless of your settings.
It's not occasional imho, and I'm not going to brush excisting users expectations aside.
We'll see in a couple of weeks from now who of the active users is using what.
Sorry, it wasn't my intention to annoy you (it was mean as poking fun at you).Quote:
Originally Posted by TosaInu
Anyway, to visualise what I mean:
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
They all look the same.