View Full Version : Would everyone like to have Avatars hosted here?
Handruin
03-25-2002, 12:52 AM
I was thinking about this the other day and people seem to like the avatars in the forum. Currently they are only allowed by external link but I was considering having them hosted here. There are Pros and Cons, but my main reason is that the performance would be faster.
Currently in a 50-post thread, an avatar has to make a call to an external site for each image. If we host them here, it will be much faster and the bandwidth is minimal.
With this in mind, if StorageForum grows to immense capacity, I would reconsider having them hosted here, or having them at all. Where I don't see this happening any time soon, perhaps now is the time to enjoy a little boost in speed and take advantage of the bandwidth.
What does everyone think of this?
-Doug
CougTek
03-25-2002, 01:14 AM
I don't have an avatar currently, but if I ever choose one, I think it would be better if it would be hosted here to save bandwidth. At 6Kb each, I don't think space would be an issue if they would be hosted locally.
timwhit
03-25-2002, 01:27 AM
What's the point in having them at all?
Why waste the bandwidth and make the pages load slower?
-There are people on modems that visit this site, I'm not one of them but I still feel that this should be as low bandwidth a site as possible.
-Tim
Pradeep
03-25-2002, 02:51 AM
It's not going to save bandwidth by being saved on the forum site CougTek :)
I don't mind either way, I just hope it doesn't come to a stage where we remove avatars all together, because of BW restrictions.
I'm on dial up, seems ok to me. I enjoy coming to storageforum because we have a freedom here that is not permitted in SR.com, such as avatars, private messaging etc.
Just a suggestion:
GIF has been an evil proprietary format ever since Unisys decided to declare ownership of the underlying compression algorithm. You're expected to pay licensing fees to Unisys if you use them.
I think it'd be great if you could host the avatars - but please prohibit the use of GIFs. Encourage PNGs, MNGs, and JNGs instead (or just plain JPEGs). Better compression than GIF or JPEG is available, so over time it will save you some bandwidth. And best of all, the algorithms are completely open and won't be subject to some bully of a company someday claiming ownership.
I'm sure everyone is familiar with the lossless PNG format. More info about MNGs and JNGs can be found at http://www.libpng.org/pub/mng/
See also here:
http://burnallgifs.org/
I second that motion! Hosted avatars would be great, but make it a stipulation that PNGs or JPEGs (or MNGs ... whatever they are) are the way to go. :-)
myself
03-25-2002, 05:14 PM
Wow ... wonders will never cease: me agreeing with i. That has to be a first.
That said, count me in too on the "no GIFs" suggestion. I really think there are better options out there now, and most web browsers seem to support them by default these days. There's no need to hang on to the old, oversized, proprietary GIF format.
CougTek
03-25-2002, 06:14 PM
Someone must be having quite a lot of fun here.
After "The Muppets Take Manhattan", it's "The Sock Puppets take StorageForum".
CougTek
03-25-2002, 06:15 PM
http://www.yesterdayland.com/images/popopedia/shows/movies/mv1280.gif
Hey! It wasn't me!
Quiet you.
myself
03-25-2002, 06:21 PM
Hush you two!
And let's leave poor you out of this, mmmkay? He's already hesitant about joining the forum with both of you here.
Tannin
03-25-2002, 06:53 PM
Interesting links, Me, Myself and i. Thankyou. As for the on-site, off-site think, can't say I care eoither way. Indeed, we could loose the avatars completely and I wouldn't mind. They are kind of cute though.
Mercutio
03-25-2002, 07:07 PM
I'd have to vote "No". If they're hosted onsite it's a lot harder for me to filter them out without getting rid of everything else from SF.net.
But I have a pretty good image I'd use if someone else would like to host it. :)
CougTek
03-25-2002, 09:16 PM
Oh no Mercutio, tell me you don't plan to have an Avatar. Knowing you, I'm sure it will be pornographic. ;-)
P5-133XL
03-25-2002, 10:53 PM
I too voted no. While at this stage avatars are not signifigent, if we ever get successful they will be.
Tannin
03-25-2002, 11:14 PM
Email it to me and I'll put it up for you, Mercutio.
Tannin
03-25-2002, 11:18 PM
Subject to Astralian pornography laws, of course. :)
(But seriously, how pornographic can you get in an 80 x 80 pixel gif?)
(Err ... I mean PNG, of course.)
Mercutio
03-26-2002, 10:39 AM
Pbbbbbt to both of you.
Like I'd share the porn I've acquired with you people.
... and to be honest, probably 99% of the images I have are Playboy-type copyright violations, not the stuff like in the pornospam ("Shaved Bank Tellers" et al) we all get. I think any image I might have would more than fall inside the bounds of Australian pornography laws. <Sniff>
I have a great avatar. You're all going to be jealous. :)
Corvair
03-26-2002, 02:53 PM
. .
...I think any image I might have would more than fall inside the bounds of Australian pornography laws. <Sniff>
Well, what about that naked owl with a book covering its private parts??? http://www.redhill.net.au/sf/owl.gif
. .
It's OK, Gary. He's wearing feathers.
Pradeep
03-26-2002, 08:51 PM
I believe the magazine he's holding is titled "Shaved Owls, Uncut".
Corvair
03-27-2002, 03:58 AM
I believe the magazine he's holding is titled "Shaved Owls, Uncut".
Or "Monster Hooters."
vBulletin® v3.8.2, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.