Where are the new features? And smilies?

Also, some of the forums don't seem to recognize VB code in the messages. The code in the sigs work but not in the body of the messages.

Please post which forums you notice vB code or smilies not working so that I can get that corrected.

Post attachments have been disabled until I can review the security risks involved in using such. I would rather that people reference a link to the actual image with a URL to another server. I don't think I will enable this feature as it poses a risk.

What would the member calendar be used for?

Polls will most likely be enabled soon.

Avatars only clutter things and slow down speed.

The features are there but I don't think all of them have to be used.

I want to hear valid arguments for enabling these features... I don't see any reason to enable any of them besides the poll feature. If you can provide an argument that would benefit the community more than hurt it (like slowing down the speed of the forum), we'll enable them.

There were a few threads in the Internet Business forum where it wasn't working but I just checked again and it seems now to work.

I'll let you know if I find any other problems.

Smilies and vB code fixed.

Quote: Originally posted by Chad Simper
Please post which forums you notice vB code or smilies not working so that I can get that corrected.

Post attachments have been disabled until I can review the security risks involved in using such. I would rather that people reference a link to the actual image with a URL to another server. I don't think I will enable this feature as it poses a risk.

What would the member calendar be used for?

Polls will most likely be enabled soon.

Avatars only clutter things and slow down speed.

The features are there but I don't think all of them have to be used.

I want to hear valid arguments for enabling these features... I don't see any reason to enable any of them besides the poll feature. If you can provide an argument that would benefit the community more than hurt it (like slowing down the speed of the forum), we'll enable them.

1. There are no security risks with the attachment feature. If there were, I'm sure the vBulletin developers and/or members of the vBulletin Online Community would have something to say. Only images such as .gif, .jpg, .bmp, .tiff, etc can be uploaded - no scripts or executionable files are allowed.

2. The member calendar lists member birthdays and you can use it to put event reminders or notes and whatnot. It's a small, but nice feature worth having.

3. I disagree about avatars. They make the forums for livelier and let people express themselves in ways text can't. It makes things more fun and bright, not to mention interesting and less stern. Besides, there is a limit on both size in pixels and file sizes, so no users will be allowed to have huge graphics bogging things down.

Quote: 1. There are no security risks with the attachment feature. If there were, I'm sure the vBulletin developers and/or members of the vBulletin Online Community would have something to say. Only images such as .gif, .jpg, .bmp, .tiff, etc can be uploaded - no scripts or executionable files are allowed.

I'm just afraid this will be abused. The reasons these features aren't enabled is because I have not yet explored them. I don't see a need for attachments. A reference to a URL with the images works just as well.

Quote: 2. The member calendar lists member birthdays and you can use it to put event reminders or notes and whatnot. It's a small, but nice feature worth having.

This could probably be enabled. Will add it to my list.

Quote: 3. I disagree about avatars. They make the forums for livelier and let people express themselves in ways text can't. It makes things more fun and bright, not to mention interesting and less stern. Besides, there is a limit on both size in pixels and file sizes, so no users will be allowed to have huge graphics bogging things down.

But loading a page with 15 different graphics, plus the mysql queries, plus the html, plus all the other graphics the page requires, slows things down... loading 15 different graphics takes time.

Where are these graphics stored? On the TWF server or another?

Quote: Originally posted by Chad Simper

Where are these graphics stored? On the TWF server or another?

They are either stored on this server or on the users server, depends if they upload it or link to it.

I hereby vote for no avatars and no file attachments. They just clog things up and slow down the whole forum. Plus, you wind up with morons who think embedding a 6MB .wav of Barney the dinosaur as a background sound is a good idea or who feel the need to to include some ridiculous animated .gif as part of their signature.

Yes straigt talk with fast speed is best for a forum format.
When are here to learn and inform. Fast and simple is best.
Now you could link to or create a wackey Message board where anything goes. My thoughts..Ps this is one of the best forums I have found.

I agree with Marc about the avatars. Most often they bring a sense of friendliness. I'm not really for or against them so I won't have a problem if they are allowed or not.

However, SitePoint does allow them (not saying this is why TWF should/shouldn't) and they have some pretty lengthy threads with them and to me, I don't notice any difference in the speed of which the thread loads.

And also I've had vBulletin 2...installed on my site for about a month and by default the upload file to thread feature is on. I havent been bothered to take it off but I haven't seen anyone abuse it yet. At the most one user uploaded a picture of herself and thats all that I've seen. And the boards are pretty active.

Ravi

Quote: Originally posted by Maverick
I hereby vote for no avatars and no file attachments. They just clog things up and slow down the whole forum. Plus, you wind up with morons who think embedding a 6MB .wav of Barney the dinosaur as a background sound is a good idea or who feel the need to to include some ridiculous animated .gif as part of their signature.

Uh, first of all, there is a size limit on avatars, both in file size and actual dimensions. Thus, users couldn't get out of hand there, as you predicted they would. Besides, we have the ability to edit them if needed.

And as far as attachments, I really like them. You *cannot* attach any files other than picture files. That means no .wav files or any executionable files. It allows us to include a picture with our posts without slowing down load time. It's the perfect mix between having the feature and not slowing things down. And if you don't like it, don't use it!

Marc,

I don't think Maverick dislikes the idea because he doesn't want to use it ... And I'm sure he probably wouldn't use it. He doesn't like the idea because it will slow down the forums. It wouldn't affect me as I'm sitting on a 7mbps DSL connection, but a lot of our users have 56k speeds, or less.

My point is that there is NO sense in saving the file on the server when it can easily be referenced on the posters server. I don't like the idea of allowing users to upload files to the TWF server, regardless of their type or size. It could easily get out of hand and take a lot more file space than needed. Plus, it's an additional administration nightmare as I would need to periodically clean up and remove older files. Attachments are something I see absolutely no need for because the files can be shared from the posters server.

I am still considering Avatars though. But Maverick has the same feeling as I do in this area too. Regardless of the size limit, you have to multiply that by 15 (the maximum threads shown per page) which is potentially how many could show up on a page. 3-5k sounds about right to me for size which is potentially 75k of additional files a user has to download to see a thread, in addition to everything else that has to be done which slows the process.

I'm not totally against the idea though... But I want to make sure the forums don't become cluttered with things that I really don't feel are needed. At the same time, I feel Avatars are a great way to build a community by allowing people to express themselves.

There are just too many negatives about allowing file attachments of any sort. Even if you limit things to graphics, there are still issues:

1) Page loading time. I'm on cable that's fast enough that virtually no amount of graphics would phase it, but a large majority of surfers are on dial-up. All it takes is one 200K picture embedded into a post to drive a user away.

2) Advertisements. It's bad enough that half the people in here have signatures longer than their average posts. Allow graphics and many would start using banners or tower ads to plug their sites. I'm sick of bulletin boards where there's a 600X400 animated gif attached just to say "ditto".

3) Hot-linking. Many people find it perfectly appropriate to just hot-link a sound or graphic from another server without permission. Don't encourage that.

4) What's appropriate? Start allowing cartoons and you open up a lot more grey area about what sort of humor is acceptable and what isn't.

5) They're not needed. Forums like this are about information, not entertainments. Don't sacrifice the speed and usability with worthless toys. There are plenty of forums where users can go and play with toys. I hope this doesn't become one of them.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

As for avatars, I feel much the same way. You either allow users to create their own or you use a canned set of 10-20 and allow everyone to choose a favorite. The first method just drives up page weight as there could be an unlimited number of avatar pictures in each thread. As for the second method, page weight is better as such a limited number of images are cached easily. But a limited set also wears out it's welcome that much sooner. It's like a Flash entry page. It might look great the first time you see it, but it becomes less and less appealing with each subsequent forced viewing. Again, it comes down to your views on what this site is for. If you use it to exchange and gather information quickly and easily, the graphic toys just get in the way. If you use it as a surrogate chat room and a place to play around, maybe Chad can set up a separate forum where anything goes and leave the other ones as they are.

Quote: Originally posted by Maverick
There are just too many negatives about allowing file attachments of any sort. Even if you limit things to graphics, there are still issues:

1) Page loading time. I'm on cable that's fast enough that virtually no amount of graphics would phase it, but a large majority of surfers are on dial-up. All it takes is one 200K picture embedded into a post to drive a user away.
You obviously haven't seen the new attachment feature on vBulletin 2.0. It doesn't actually embed the image into the actual post, it creates a link to the image at the bottom of a post. This way, users who *want* to see the image, can click the link and view it. It won't slow down load time at all.

2) Advertisements. It's bad enough that half the people in here have signatures longer than their average posts. Allow graphics and many would start using banners or tower ads to plug their sites. I'm sick of bulletin boards where there's a 600X400 animated gif attached just to say "ditto".
I don't really see where you're coming from with people with signatures that long. It doesn't seem to be a problem for me. I think a four or five line maximum is perfectly acceptable. As I said before, I doubt anyone would actually attach a banner ad for their site in their posts because you cannot make the image clickable. So, it won't actually be like an ad. Just images.

3) Hot-linking. Many people find it perfectly appropriate to just hot-link a sound or graphic from another server without permission. Don't encourage that.
So? People can hot-link to other images through a regular link the same way they can through attachments. There's been no trouble before, I don't suspect there will be now.

5) They're [b]not needed. Forums like this are about information, not entertainments. Don't sacrifice the speed and usability with worthless toys. There are plenty of forums where users can go and play with toys. I hope this doesn't become one of them.[/b]
How do we know they're not needed? Perhaps if we were more open-minded and we tried these features, we would learn they would be of some use. I disagree about your opinion of the nature of TWF. Primarily, TWF is a meeting place for webmasters to give and receive help, tips, and advice. But, why should entertainment and humor be sacrificed? I think we should find a common meeting place and make the atmosphere here a little less stern.

What I don't understand is why did we upgrade if we aren't using hardly any of the new features? I mean come on, let's give some things a try. Many other forums, including some of our competitors, use features like avatars, buddy lists, and file attachments and have had absolutely no problems at all. As I've said before, if you don't like them, don't use them. No one is forcing you to. And listen, I'm on a dial-up modem, perhaps the slowest of our users are a connection rate of 28.8K. I can live with a few small images. It's worth it, trust me.

Hi,

Again I agree with Marc. Maverick it sounds like you're talking about a forum with little or no control. We have one capable admin, two capable team leaders, and a ton of great moderators. If something goes out of hand (as we have seen before) the users,mods,leaders and admin are here to catch it A.S.A.P.. If we base everything on 'what might happen' then nothing would ever get accomplished. There are negative sides to every decision you make, its whether you feel the good outweigh the bad.

TWF is here for help but TWF isn't a business and never has come across (to me) as being a business. Thus by implementing some of these new features (with some control) it will probably make TWF even more community like. As Marc said what was the point in upgrading if we aren't going to make use of these features or not even give them a try. Anyway I thought we were always allowed to add pics if we really wanted to like in this thread : http://www.webmaster-forums.com/showthread.php?threadid=12127

The good thing, like Marc said, is that it doesnt put the attachment in the actual file but only the link so it's totally optional.

I think it would bring about a little friendliness as TWF does attract quite a few new webmasters and they would probably enjoy it. I dont think it will take anything away from the forums at all.

Thanks,
Ravi

I vote that we enable avatars,Why?

1)Let's be far sighted, most forums now have it and if TWF want to keep up with them, we have no choice but to implement it to attract and accomodate a different class of new members to pump new needed blood to the community and keep TWF constantly active.

2)As it is now, TWF looks very boring to young webmasters(very bare)so lightening things up will definitely enhance TWF's image and attract them.

3)Let them enjoy the bells and whistles that TWF is offering plus first class help, then only will it break the ice and get them to open up and talk freely. As I see it now, most don't bother to post for fear of being ignored or feel that it's not worth it.

4)I personally hate avatars, but if we want to progress and improve, we have no choice but join the pack. As we move ahead and I am confident TWF members will along the way, come up with something specials and have an edge over other competiting forums to draw the crowd to TWF.

Quote:
It doesn't actually embed the image into the actual post, it creates a link to the image at the bottom of a post. This way, users who *want* to see the image, can click the link and view it. It won't slow down load time at all.

Then what exactly is the point? Just link it like http://www.somenonexistantdomain.com/path/to/whatever.jpg. It still gets linkified and clickable for whoever wants to see it.

Quote:
I don't really see where you're coming from with people with signatures that long. It doesn't seem to be a problem for me. I think a four or five line maximum is perfectly acceptable.

Yet enough people hate long spam-laden inane signature lines enough that disabling them entirely is an option built into vBulletin

Quote:
Primarily, TWF is a meeting place for webmasters to give and receive help, tips, and advice. But, why should entertainment and humor be sacrificed? I think we should find a common meeting place and make the atmosphere here a little less stern.

How do you equate lack of graphics slowing down loading times with sternness? Humor and entertainment have never been sacrificed around here, but what part of avatars do you find to be so entertaining? Personally, I'm a unique enough individual that I cannot be captured with some lame-ass animated .gif cartoon of a dog rolling it's eyes. There's not a single icon that represents who I am and I don't want one of them claiming to do so. The bottom line is that this forum is about information. If the ease and speed of finding that information is sacrificed on the altar of entertainment, then the whole place is worthless.

Quote:
What I don't understand is why did we upgrade if we aren't using hardly any of the new features?

As for upgrading, this board probably upgraded from UBB to vBulletin because it's a better, faster, more server-friendly and less expensive package. I seriously doubt that the ability to use avatars had anything to do with it. Chad can correct me if I'm wrong about that. Just because it's possible to use a feature doesn't mean that you should. When was the last time you used a BLINK or MARQUEE tag?

Quote:
And listen, I'm on a dial-up modem, perhaps the slowest of our users are a connection rate of 28.8K. I can live with a few small images. It's worth it, trust me.

So, you can live with some images. Does that mean everyone should be forced to do so? And it's not a "few small images". To use avatars, you need a decent selection (15-20). At even small size like 4k each, how much does that increase page loading time? 15 posts per page, 4k per post that's potentially 60K per page of useless graphics and on a slow connection that can increase page loading times by 30-40 seconds. That's way too big a price to pay for a toy. It's not worth it. Trust me.

Chad, there's a forthcoming "low-bandwidth" hack for vBulletin that will turn-off avatars as a user option. If you're going to institute them at all (and again, I think you shouldn't) at least wait until that hack becomes available. Set the default to "off" so that newcomers are not scared off by outrageous loading times caused by somebody being amused by being represented by some cyber Mononoply-token character. That way the people that want avatars can play around to their hearts content and the rest of us won't be forced to live with the unwanted flash, clutter, distraction and longer page-loads. Surely Marc and the other avatar-lovers can't object to that.

The reasons for the upgrade did not honestly have to do with the new features. vbulletin 2 is far more server friendly and performs better as a whole. I really liked the PM feature as well. I didn't upgrade though for the Avatars and file upload abilities.... they aren't needed in my own personal opinion.

As it stands, I still have the same opinion as Maverick on the file attachments. There is *no* point in allowing users to upload the files to the TWF server when they can be hotlinked just as easily on their own site. The one problem I can potentially see is someone without a server to upload the file to, but there are so few images included in the first place that it's not a big deal.

Quote: Personally, I'm a unique enough individual that I cannot be captured with some lame-ass animated .gif cartoon of a dog rolling it's eyes.

I have worked with Maverick on a business level and we have talked on a personal level many times in the past and I can confirm the accuracy of this statement

Avatars are currently being voted on in a poll which will close the last day of April. I encourage everyone to cast there vote because the majority will win.

Then what exactly is the point? Just link it like http://www.somenonexistantdomain.com/path/to/whatever.jpg. It still gets linkified and clickable for whoever wants to see it.
If we have the technology, why not use it? Plus, it adds an extra feature that tells how many people viewed the link. And most significantly, when you use the attachment feature, it stores the image on the TWF server so there cannot be any broken links. No one wants to read an older thread and have the link not work. With attachments, this is prevented.

How do you equate lack of graphics slowing down loading times with sternness? Humor and entertainment have never been sacrificed around here, but what part of avatars do you find to be so entertaining? Personally, I'm a unique enough individual that I cannot be captured with some lame-ass animated .gif cartoon of a dog rolling it's eyes. There's not a single icon that represents who I am and I don't want one of them claiming to do so. The bottom line is that this forum is about information. If the ease and speed of finding that information is sacrificed on the altar of entertainment, then the whole place is worthless.
In my opinion, having some graphics of our user's choices make things a lot more friendly and lighten the atmosphere a lot more. Plus, Chad can set a limit so new members can strive to post more helpful replies in order to reach a certain amount of posts so they can upload their own avatar. It's a privaledge, if you don't like it, don't use it. You may not feel the need for avatars, but many people do. They have caused no problems at all on SitePoint, for example. This is place is intended to be a place to relax, get help, give help, and learn. The way you sound, you want all black and white text and no fun. I think we should combine both and make TWF a better place.

That's way too big a price to pay for a toy. It's not worth it. Trust me.
Do you run your own community and know for a fact it's not worth it? Not only do I run my own community with avatars, which have done nothing but please users, I might add, but I participate in my fair share of forums where avatars are successfully used. If users complain avatars slow things down too much, then we can take action, but it's worth the risk. You can't live looking at the negative of everything when there are potentially great benefits.

Surely Marc and the other avatar-lovers can't object to that.
I seriously doubt I am the minority.

Quote: Originally posted by Marc James
In my opinion, having some graphics of our user's choices make things a lot more friendly and lighten the atmosphere a lot more. Plus, Chad can set a limit so new members can strive to post more helpful replies in order to reach a certain amount of posts so they can upload their own avatar. It's a privaledge, if you don't like it, don't use it. You may not feel the need for avatars, but many people do. They have caused no problems at all on SitePoint, for example. This is place is [b]intended to be a place to relax, get help, give help, and learn. The way you sound, you want all black and white text and no fun. I think we should combine both and make TWF a better place.
[/B]

Most definitely. I think there are some underlying issues that should be addressed. Giving the user the option to have an avatar will give them the feeling of being an 'individual' on TWF. It may not be able to represent who you are but it can differentiate you from the 3,000 other people on TWF. I think when Marc referred to the upgrade he wasn't talking about UBB -> vB, he was talking about vB 1.* to vB 2. And as far as I can see (in terms of efficient) there is no difference (on this forum as well as my own forums, and I'm on a T1 and also dial-up).

Just because the avatar option is available doesn't mean that you need to have an avatar. If you feel that you don't want one, then don't put one up. However, it is nice to have the option.

By allowing the users to have a little bit more control of their identity on TWF you might find this increases their interest and brings them back. The reason why there is such a high member turnover is because they aren't getting involved with TWF, they are simply coming here, asking a question and then leaving. The idea should be to make them feel welcome, and encourage them to participate in conversations as their input is always welcome. Maybe by enabling the avatars option it's a step in the right direction..but then again maybe not .

The way I see it, hardly any users will leave simply because we have avatars enabled. They are on a ton of boards all over the internet with them. Without them, I dont think people will be turned off and not post but by having them it might encourage them to participate more. Hey, nothing else has seemed to work, it's worth a shot.

Ravi

Quote:
If we have the technology, why not use it? Plus, it adds an extra feature that tells how many people viewed the link. And most significantly, when you use the attachment feature, it stores the image on the TWF server so there cannot be any broken links. No one wants to read an older thread and have the link not work. With attachments, this is prevented.

So by that rationale, any available technology should be implement anywhere on the web. That's asinine. The FBI has technology for Carnivore, Intel for user-profiling via unique chip IDs and God knows what Microsoft can do. Should all those things be done merely because they can? Technology is neither good nor bad, the only thing that's important is how it's used. Take a look at http://www.x-pressive.com/forum/ That should give you a nice little example of the type of forum that can be built with new technology. But how many people would be happy with it because so much usability was sacrificed to include so much empty glitz? Storing images here to prevent broken links? In what space-time contimuum does that make sense? If you're linking to your own images on your own server that shouldn't be an issue. All it does is place the bandwidth burden on this server rather than on your own where it belongs. Thankfully Chad has enough sense not to follow that path.

Quote:
In my opinion, having some graphics of our user's choices make things a lot more friendly and lighten the atmosphere a lot more. Plus, Chad can set a limit so new members can strive to post more helpful replies in order to reach a certain amount of posts so they can upload their own avatar. It's a privaledge, if you don't like it, don't use it. You may not feel the need for avatars, but many people do. They have caused no problems at all on SitePoint, for example. This is place is intended to be a place to relax, get help, give help, and learn. The way you sound, you want all black and white text and no fun. I think we should combine both and make TWF a better place.

Great. Allowing users to have unique icons rather than a "canned" set that everyone uses just raises the potential page weight. Since you sidestepped this issue the last time I asked it, I'll repeat it. Why should somebody on a dial-up be forced to spend an extra 20-40 seconds downloading those cartoon characters just because you happen to like them?

Quote:
Do you run your own community and know for a fact it's not worth it? Not only do I run my own community with avatars, which have done nothing but please users, I might add, but I participate in my fair share of forums where avatars are successfully used. If users complain avatars slow things down too much, then we can take action, but it's worth the risk. You can't live looking at the negative of everything when there are potentially great benefits.

Congratulations. You have a forum with avatars. So does that make them right for every site? I suppose now we all need to lock-step into line and salute the new world order where what's good for one is good for all. It brings up some interesting possibilities though. I can't wait to see that new design that works for this forum, Disney.com and UltraDirtyFreeHardcoreNakedInternetPornSmut.com Just get back to me when you decide what all sites should look like and I'll begin the enforcement campaign to bring them all into line.

Quote:
I have worked with Maverick on a business level and we have talked on a personal level many times in the past and I can confirm the accuracy of this statement

LOL Chad. Right after I posted that I just knew you'd have something to say on the matter. Remind me to stop sending you customers.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Look, bottom-line on this avatar business. Anything that so many people hate should not be forced on anyone. If Marc and the others want to play around with their little cartoons, fine, but there's no reason that I or anyone else should be forced to view them and forced to suffer through extended page downloads just to have a worthless toy. So Marc, here's another question you so carefully avoided the last time I asked it. Why shouldn't the avatars be optional for the viewers? You can have them and I can keep the turned off and everyone can be happy. Surely you can't object to that, can you?

Quite a forceful statement, Maverick. This does seem like an easy hack, however, does Chad have the time to go through the code and implement the hack?

Look, obviously we can't come to an agreement on this, Maverick. You have your opinion, I have mine, let's leave it at that. It's not worth arguing anymore.

Quote: This does seem like an easy hack, however, does Chad have the time to go through the code and implement the hack?

I wish!

Quote: Right after I posted that I just knew you'd have something to say on the matter.

You now me all too well Maverick!

I like the idea that Maverick threw out there to make it a user option to view or not view avatars... and if anyone has the time to create the hack, it would make this decision infinitly easier. As I said above though, I don't nearly have enough time to create a hack like this.

A lot of great points have been brought up for both sides of this subject. I personally weigh in with the people that don't really want Avatars but because this is a community, it will ultimately be a community decision. I hope we don't loose the visitors that are on the opposing side of the choice simply because of the choice... And I really hope a hack like the one mentioned can be created so that both sides can have their way.

Chad, there is a possibility that when 2.0 is fully released or in the current or upcoming betas, the option to disable avatar viewing will be included. I know SitePoint has this option, so it is possible.

I'd be willing to make the hack, but I don't have a copy of vB 2.

Has anyone searched vBulletin for this hack? Maybe someone already documented it.

The hack is coming from the vBulletin developers themselves. A few people on the vB support forums complained about page-load times with avatars and lots of others chimed in on how useful such a feature would be. The developers talked about it and came with a plan on how to implement it. It was just brought up, discussed and semi-approved in late March, so hopefully expect to see it in the next version or as a released hack soon.

Hey guys! have a look at:

http://www.htmlforums.com/showthread.php?threadid=3344

This forum uses vBulletin -- avatars, lots of graphics and it still loads very very fast. Unbelieveable !!

Quote:
This forum uses vBulletin -- avatars, lots of graphics and it still loads very very fast. Unbelieveable !!

Uh-Uh, maybe on a T-3 line. That page you link to as a paragon of speed is as follows:

HTML Page: 97K
Graphics: 37K
Total:134K

Time to download on a 28.8 modem: In the neighborhood of 45-60 seconds. And that for a page with 9 posts and only 3 avatars (as of 12:25 a.m. EDT) Try it with 15 posts and 15 different avatars and what do you wind up with? Thanks for so compellingly making a statement against the bloated graphics. Ummm, that's as of 12:55

Maverick,

By now everyone knows where you stand on this issue. Instead of discussing it anymore (and going back and forth with the same arguements on both sides) why don't we wait until the end of the month to see what the others think.

I don't think it's proper for you to assume what dial-up users do and don't want. For four months of the year I am on dial-up and I won't stop coming here because of avatars, nor will I stop going to the larger threads. I believe everyone has said what they needed to and we will see what the others, who don't wish to post, have to say.

Have a good day!
Ravi

If the Avatar hack does become a reality, we'll upgrade to the new software ASAP and both sides will have what they want.... Which is ultimately the best way for things to happen

If the hack doesn't come before the end of the month, we'll follow the polls until it does come.

Ravi

Quote:
I don't think it's proper for you to assume what dial-up users do and don't want.

Quite on the contrary. I'm the #1 proponent of allowing the end-user a choice of avatar vs no-avatar. It's the pro-avatar crowd who seems to feel they have the right to speak for everyone and want to force the avatars on everyone whether they want them or not. It's interesting that once I offered up the idea of making avatars a user-option, many people felt that offered the best solution. But neither you, Marc or NSS, the most vocal avatar supporters, supported that idea at all. I wonder what it is about compromise that you find so distressing. All I want is the choice to avoid having to play with the cute little toys. When it comes to things like that, I'm more interested in putting Slinkys© on an escalator or placing Mr and Mrs Potato-Head in compromising positions.

Maybe you should stop making your assumptions, like I said before. I will have you know that if the forum should chose to have avatars I won't be making use of that feature. As I said the first time, I could care less whether they are here or not. I'm not arguing for or against it, I do agree that the forums could use a little change. Again don't assume that just because someone doesn't say, or post their agreement doesn't mean that they don't agree. I was always under the impression that users will have the choice of having an avatar or not and now it sounds even better if they have the choice to view them at all. My whole contribution to this thread was to try to stress the point that the more options the users have the more they will want to use the forums, because it will feel like their forum.

Ravi

Maverick, I think you are over exaggerating on those load times. I'm on a 24.0K for God's sakes and it wasn't that bad. There's no way it would take 40+ seconds to load that, I know because I am one of the slow dial-up users. Take a look at this thread on my boards complete with avatars: http://sports-central.org/community/boards/showthread.php?s=&threadid=919

VERY minimal speed difference.

I'm on a 33.6 (that's usually a lot slower than that) and your forum came up really fast for me - a little slow for the first page since the icons and all weren't cached, but after surfing around a a bit it seems to be just as fast as this place. The avitars are the last thing to load too - after all the content.

I don't see why there would be a huge problem with it. Honestly guys, is it really that big of a deal?

Load times were not exaggerated, just do the math. You can easily check out a page weight all on your own. From there it's simple to deduce how long a page will take to load on an average connection of a given speed. While pages might load quickly for you if you have it or the images cached, the facts are totally unalterable. On a 28.8/33.6 connection it's highly unlikely that actual throughput will exceed 3K per second and usually will hover in the 2.5K/sec area. Now break out your trusty calculator and figure out how long it takes to load 134K at a given speed.

At 2.0K sec (typical AOL) : 67.0 seconds
At 2.5K sec (typical 28.: 53.6 seconds
At 3.3K sec (fast 28/33.6): 40.6 seconds
At 4.5K sec (normal 56k) : 29.7 seconds

No hype, no exaggeration and no claims of "Wow, it loaded fast for me". As Joe Friday would say, "Just the facts".

Yeah, the first time and then the images are cached from there on in. Your argument about how slow it makes forums isn't very strong. Most (probably all) users will wait the extra few seconds for it to load, I know I would.

This discussion has been exhausted and like I said before, it's starting to go in circles. Accept that you have your opinion and every has theirs. I mean you're starting to disagree with people who are on dial-up yet you say you are speaking for those on dial-up? When I return to dial-up in a month, I will return to the forums time permitting..with or without avatars.

Ravi

Slow Modem speed?

Don't worry use modem booster:

Quote:
Modem Booster is a Web accelerator and utility that speeds up Web browsing, file downloading, emailing, online gaming and chat. This robust utility addresses the main cause of slow Internet browsing- fragmentation of data during transmission. This utility tests modem performance and tweaks the TCP/IP settings accordingly via a systematic fine-tuning process. Modem Booster can boost average modem speed by 10-50% on the average and up to 300% on the extreme, making a 33k modem go faster than a 56k modem in downloading speed. There is no need for you to know difficult terms like MTU, RWIN and TTL or know your ISP's settings before you can optimize your modem settings. Just click a button and Modem Booster will run the diagnostics and tune-up automatically.

IT'S FREE!!! USE IT AND NOTICE THE DIFFERENCE IN SPEED FOR SLOW MODEMS
Url:
http://www.freedownloadscenter.com/Network_and_Internet/Web_Surfing_Accelerators/Modem_Booster.html

Main page:
http://www.netsonic.com/index.asp

STILL NOT CONVINCE?

Don't worry, search and find the most suitable modem booster and browser accelarators for your needs at:

http://google.yahoo.com/bin/query?p=modem+booster&hc=0&hs=0

Oh I forgot to mention, if you install Netsonic modem booster. Remove all other programs that comes with it by going to control panel and select Add/Remove and REMOVE all the unwanted programs incoporated e.g. Flywast, Gator, Offer companion, etc. and you will notice that it will be optimized very much faster(speed boost) every time by at least 75-85% using only Netsonic Modem Booster.

Do these things actually work? I had one once and it didn't seem to make much of a difference.

Those things are like magical fuel-efficiency enhancers or software RAM accelerators. They're sold to the ignorant on hype alone. Think about it. If something like that could make a difference, it would be included by the manufacturer. Then they'd clean up on the independent speed tests and reviews and own the marketplace. You think you can install a $5 magnet on your fuel line to raise your gas mileage 50%? Wow, every car company on earth must be stupid for not spending an extra $5 on a $30,000 vehicle. You think you can install a modem wizard and suddenly break through the hardware limitations to get T-3 speeds out of a 28.8 analog? If you do, I have some lovely oceanfront property to sell you. In Kansas.

Oh, and I have a way to turn a bottle-rocket into an ICBM with a 50 megaton thermonuclear warhead. All it takes is a paper clip, 2 condoms and a pint of pickle brine. Send me $19.99 for the blueprints.

Oh there are currently 8,479,445 installations/users.

Don't be afraid to test and use it, You have nothing to lose! It's free and if you don't like you can always delete and search for something better which I have included the link to support your slow modem.

In less than 5 minutes you can tune your computer
to be up to 50% faster on the internet!

The following 10 Tips will help you to make sure that all your network parameters are optimized.

Click Here

Some modern modems can be upgraded to enhance their capabilities, or correct their bugs, by using a "flasher" program to load new firmware (that's the software that runs inside a modem) into them. For instance, a number of the 28.8 modems sold in the last couple of years can be upgraded to 33.6 modems just by running a flasher to update their firmware.

For more info about upgrading and a collection of links to the firmware update sites maintained by various modem manufacturers.

Visit:

http://www.ots.utexas.edu/telesys/modem-updates.html

Quote: Those things are like magical fuel-efficiency enhancers or software RAM accelerators. They're sold to the ignorant on hype alone. Think about it. If something like that could make a difference, it would be included by the manufacturer. Then they'd clean up on the independent speed tests and reviews and own the marketplace. You think you can install a $5 magnet on your fuel line to raise your gas mileage 50%? Wow, every car company on earth must be stupid for not spending an extra $5 on a $30,000 vehicle. You think you can install a modem wizard and suddenly break through the hardware limitations to get T-3 speeds out of a 28.8 analog? If you do, I have some lovely oceanfront property to sell you. In Kansas.

Oh, and I have a way to turn a bottle-rocket into an ICBM with a 50 megaton thermonuclear warhead. All it takes is a paper clip, 2 condoms and a pint of pickle brine. Send me $19.99 for the blueprints.

I would agree if that person is ignorant, skeptical or pessimistic about it, please don't talk rubbish when you have no idea or knowledge regarding the function/software pertaining to Modem Booster/Accelerators and refering or assuming what the product is as you see it.

Sorry for being sarcastic as you leave me with no other choice but to retaliate against your uncalled for comments.

test