Unsung Composers

Here's the promised poll on whether we should have avatars.

As long as I can put a photo into the space, I have no qualms with whatever anybody else wants to put in theirs.

Well, I guess everyone knows by now that I would be for it.   :P

Kevin

You might as well vote, then, Kevin  :)

Quote from: Mark Thomas on Saturday 13 June 2009, 20:07
You might as well vote, then, Kevin  :)

You know Mark for some reason I didn't see the poll last time. I guess I was blind but now I see!  :D

Sorry, I'm against - and I did see the poll. But only just!

I have voted against an avatar (my favourite unsung composer is Rubinstein, but it doesn't make sense to add a picture of this grumpy looking master to my posts). I know that in business (adverts or whatever) it can be a marketing tool, simply because a picture says 1,000 times more than words. But the first argument why I'm against it is that I don't think an avatar adds something valuable to our Forum. Secondly, more important, who are all those guests visiting our Forum? What is their purpose? Probably for the main part getting interesting information for their own use, but there can be other reasons as well.
Having said this, of course I respect other opinions!

Quote from: Peter1953 on Sunday 14 June 2009, 06:48
I have voted against an avatar (my favourite unsung composer is Rubinstein, but it doesn't make sense to add a picture of this grumpy looking master to my posts).  Secondly, more important, who are all those guests visiting our Forum? What is their purpose?

For the most part guests on message boards are bots. Probably Google bots. Some are indeed legit surfers passing through but I gaurantee the majority are bots trolling the web. So, avatars would not affect them one way or another.

Kevin

i have voted "yes" to avatars. But my only concern would be virus etc hidden in the avatar itself-is this possible?

If they are as safe as anything on the net can be, I think its an attractive idea. I like, Jim, would prefer to download a face shot of myself; would make the postings that extra bit more human. But people should feel free to include a photo(if possible), include a composer's or other not inappropriate avatar, or choose to opt out. Then everyone has a say.

Steve B

Quote from: Steve B on Monday 15 June 2009, 12:22
i have voted "yes" to avatars. But my only concern would be virus etc hidden in the avatar itself-is this possible?

If they are as safe as anything on the net can be, I think its an attractive idea. I like, Jim, would prefer to download a face shot of myself; would make the postings that extra bit more human. But people should feel free to include a photo(if possible), include a composer's or other not inappropriate avatar, or choose to opt out. Then everyone has a say.

Steve B

In all the years that I have run message boards I have never seen or heard of a virus in picture files. You're usually talking about jpeg or gif files and usually 150X150 in height and width and 30kb in size. You're far more likely by a member posting a link to a site outside the board and getting a virus. Although I have never had that happen either.

Kevin

It would have been nice if you had sent out an email to the membership to get more votes. I suspect a lot may come by but never look in this section of the board.

Kevin

Well I suppose that I could have done, but how far does one go? It's not as if it's a huge board and "Avatars" as a topic has been visible on the home page as a topic since I put up the poll. Maybe people just don't care one way or the other?

Well, how about, as opposed to avatars, just having a place to post a photo in the individual profiles, as was previously suggested?

The straight answer, Jim, is that I'll see if the software allows it. If it does, then I'll turn the facility on.

Sorry for the delay. I can't find an inbuilt way to included a personal photo on the Profile without it appearing as an avatar in all posts. So, I'll see if any one has made a modification to do so, but don't hold your breath.

Basically, Mark, despite the vote (and the low voter turnout), if you just activated the feature in the profile, those who wanted avatars (or photos) could have them, and those who didn't, wouldn't.  So, the only question is: if some people post their photos or icons, will it drive the rest away?

Sorry to be a pain about this Jim (and Kevin) but there's a world of difference between an avatar viewable in all posts and a photo just displayed on someone's profile. As I say, if I can find a way of including the option for a photo just in the profile, then I will, if I can't I won't.

What I'm saying is, that if you make the avatar/photo option available to everybody, then those who wish to take advantage of it, will, and those who don't, won't.  Usually, there is a blank silhouette in the posts of those who don't want to use it (like in FaceBook).  Either way, if you can't find a way to limit it to just the profile, if you simply activate the feature, those members who want an avatar or photo can have it and those who don't want it will still have the option not to.  Frankly, I think we closed the vote a little too soon, but even if the nays have it, don't you think that this is the majority imposing their will on the minority over what is essentially a rather trivial issue?

As you say, it's a trivial issue and I'm not going to spend much more time on it.

I agree with Mark. There is clearly no real desire for this change - probably because it adds nothing of substance to the forum. Let's move on.