You're browsing the GameFAQs Message Boards as a guest. Sign Up for free (or Log In if you already have an account) to be able to post messages, change how messages are displayed, and view media in posts.
  1. Boards
  2. Site Suggestions
  3. Allow User Profile Pictures to appear in posts.

User Info: Happy1912

Happy1912
1 month ago#11
*anti-sign*

I believe the reason would be that there may be more to it. Let’s look to see what’s really in the information we see.

1. Username
2. Any tagged user will have a tag
3. If the person is Topic Creator
4. Time Stamp
5. Post number

Given the fact that some or all these variables are in play I really see the logic of have the avatar under the username. Along with various things.

Putting the avatar my seem a bit extreme thus pushing the limits of the site. Especially with the data that’s already within the line of the username.

The other thing is how would if implemented would the avatar be stretching the post and in what direction. Some people use 50 posts per page while others use the lesser ones.

I personally just don’t see this happening I could be wrong but who knows.
XL FC 3755-2065-2060 Switch FC SW-1289-7377-4301/2DS 4098-9016-5170 Discord happy1912#7613 Smash Ultimate Mains Pikachu, Isabelle O3DS FC 0361-6489-6518
The thing about this is, I think it's been stated before that you can't use "just make it an optional setting" as an argument for suggesting features on this board. If you could, then there would be almost no counter-arguments against most suggestions here, because even the most niche, unnecessary features could be added for the 2 people who want them and everyone else can "turn it off if they don't like it". And obviously that's not how it works here.

So this feature has been negatively received by a large portion of the userbase virtually every time it's been discussed here. It's not going to be re-assessed on the basis of making it an optional setting, because the admins do not want to add things as optional settings. In fact, a few years ago they removed a whole bunch of settings because they believed that there were already too many to choose from.
Hey man, LlamaGuy did encrypt the passwords.
With what? ROT-13? -CJayC

User Info: vlado_e

vlado_e
1 month ago#13
Happy1912 posted...
Putting the avatar my seem a bit extreme thus pushing the limits of the site.

What limits? There is enough free space to have that. Or do you mean data? Because ads take up a way bigger portion of that than static avatars ever will.

Happy1912 posted...
The other thing is how would if implemented would the avatar be stretching the post and in what direction.

Uh, the same way it's handled virtually anywhere else - avatars are of set size and would not go outside those boundaries. In fact right now you can't use an avatar that's more than 100x100 px. And the usual practice is to even resize that to perhaps 50x50 or 60x60 or something.

Have you never visited any other forum at all?
We do what we must / because we can. / For the good of all of us. / Except the ones who are dead.

User Info: Happy1912

Happy1912
1 month ago#14
The box limits where your username is. That’s what I mean.

I’ve visited other forums before. I know some sites do it while others like this site don’t. I know The Bell Tree Forum has an avatar yes but why conform to something a few people want? It just doesn’t make sense.
XL FC 3755-2065-2060 Switch FC SW-1289-7377-4301/2DS 4098-9016-5170 Discord happy1912#7613 Smash Ultimate Mains Pikachu, Isabelle O3DS FC 0361-6489-6518

User Info: MrMegaPhoenix

MrMegaPhoenix
1 month ago#15
-hotdogturtle-- posted...
The thing about this is, I think it's been stated before that you can't use "just make it an optional setting" as an argument for suggesting features on this board. If you could, then there would be almost no counter-arguments against most suggestions here, because even the most niche, unnecessary features could be added for the 2 people who want them and everyone else can "turn it off if they don't like it". And obviously that's not how it works here.

im a bit confused though

im pretty sure other optional settings include:
the @ feature
tags
clickable links
emoji
showing pictures as a picture instead of a link
etc

I think if we can allow several features on gamefaqs to already be optional, then future features would usually be optional no matter if people like them or not.

Happy1912 posted...
why conform to something a few people want?

the vast majority of the people who use the gamefaqs boards have not voted if they want it or not, so its disingenuous to say we should say no to every feature one person doesn't like because they think its not a good idea.

the better way to go about things is "can we do it". if so, then "what potential issues are there?"

the former is yes, as proven by how we already can see avatars when clicking the triangle next to usernames. what potential issues? providing its the same size as the current avatar picture we can see through there, then it should have zero effect on stretching unless someone has a one word answer without a sig (not really a big deal). It also could be turned off, so not a big deal. It may impact certain "styles" and so it would have to be invalid for those styles (that's fine).

the real negative (and not a "I don't like it so it shouldn't be added" reason) is bandwidth. Currently you only see the avatar when clicking a triangle, which you may do rarely. Always active would mean its always showing for many years and that could increase bandwidth costs. that is the real reason the admins will consider when adding it or not, because "some people dont like options" (look at "achievements" on a Nintendo system board compared to reality lol).

but yeah, gamefaqs will die if we leave any decisions to grow the forum in the hands of the logic of "I don't like it so it shouldn't be added". If its possible, you just consider the actual reasons not to do it as we know many features are already optional
Now Playing:
Last Finished: Fist of the North Star: Lost Paradise

User Info: Happy1912

Happy1912
1 month ago#16
Thanks for the clarification. Much appreciated.
XL FC 3755-2065-2060 Switch FC SW-1289-7377-4301/2DS 4098-9016-5170 Discord happy1912#7613 Smash Ultimate Mains Pikachu, Isabelle O3DS FC 0361-6489-6518

User Info: vlado_e

vlado_e
1 month ago#17
Happy1912 posted...
but why conform to something a few people want?

Then let those people express their desire. Don't put forward arguments that don't make logical sense. That is an also illogical thing to do if people don't want the feature.

I personally don't really care. But I'd still like the reasoning put for or against to be, you know, reasonable. Saying that an avatar would break usability before it's even implemented and even right now it cannot do it in the way you describe is not reasonable thing to say.
We do what we must / because we can. / For the good of all of us. / Except the ones who are dead.
MrMegaPhoenix posted...
I think if we can allow several features on gamefaqs to already be optional, then future features would usually be optional no matter if people like them or not.

I'm just saying, the "advanced settings" page used to be like twice as big. Here was one of the topics where they talked about removing some of the features: https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/boards/6-gamefaqs-announcements/68705702 And in several of the discussion topics following these changes, the admins elaborated on how some of the settings were used by an extremely small minority of users, and how they felt that newer users were overwhelmed by the options on that page and either didn't change anything because they didn't want to deal with it, or they didn't understand what a lot of things did. (I'm not sure how they reached these conclusions, but these were the official statements given). I'm just trying to use the admins' logic here.

It's true that you can never poll every user on the site at once, but every time an active discussion comes up about this (over the span of years, where the userbase is likely to shift), there is always a larger group opposed to it than in favor of it. These are the people representing the most active core of the site, the ones who care enough to voice their opinions. It's not fair to say "well the people who didn't comment never opposed to it so they must be okay with it", you can't speak for them. We can only go by what the active users want.
Hey man, LlamaGuy did encrypt the passwords.
With what? ROT-13? -CJayC

User Info: MrMegaPhoenix

MrMegaPhoenix
1 month ago#19
none of the options removed though were like emoji, which "totally opposed to being included" was the same thing we heard for years and years and years.

I think, if we're being honest here, the couple of people voicing their opinions aren't really going to affect anything. Even if those few people hate avatars, them being implemented will have to do with "can we do it and whats the negatives and how difficult is it to implement". Not "do these ~5 people want it".
Now Playing:
Last Finished: Fist of the North Star: Lost Paradise
MrMegaPhoenix posted...
Even if those few people hate avatars

There used to be a board called "The Future of GameFAQs", which I only just realized was deleted... On it, the admins made an individual topic for each of several potential ideas that they were thinking about, and let the users comment on them. On the topic of avatars in posts, we're not talking about "a few people" hating them. We're talking about >60% of everybody responding saying that they do not want them. Not "I don't care either way", but "please do not do this". It was either the lowest or second lowest rated topic on the board, rivaled only by GameFAQs premium subscriptions.
Hey man, LlamaGuy did encrypt the passwords.
With what? ROT-13? -CJayC
  1. Boards
  2. Site Suggestions
  3. Allow User Profile Pictures to appear in posts.