.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Kennywood,

Yeah, I just did with yours.
I would like the sixe to increase to about 200 x 200.

They would all look better.
Chris

I've noticed that - mine is affected on some posts, but not on others. Some Avatars (which use larger pictures) are showing up as full size, which does throw the post display out a bit - I'm all for larger avatars, but perhaps there should be an upper limit (200x200 sounds about right!)
Au Res.,
Paul

I just noticed this too. Boggle's avatar of Willow turned into a huge picture!

Oddly, Kenny's avatar started out big when I first came to the page ,but while sitting here reading posts, it has reversed to it's normal small size.
Being on dial up, I'd be *against* (for want of a better word), larger images, pages load slow enough as it is

i didn't expect Willow to jump out at me like that

quote:

Originally posted by STCardGeek:
Oddly, Kenny's avatar started out big when I first came to the page ,but while sitting here reading posts, it has reversed to it's normal small size.
Being on dial up, I'd be *against* (for want of a better word), larger images, pages load slow enough as it is

I think I just found the trick. Do they seem back to the way they used to be now?

Oh, and I don't think making them display smaller will do anything to load times since you still have to load the image no matter how large or small it displays. No?

quote:

Originally posted by Kennywood:
I'd like to see larger avatars. But I wouldn't want to eat into the bandwidth by doing so.

Well, I could be wrong (and I hope someone will correct me if I am) but I think the only avatars that would eat into NSU's bandwidth are the ones that we host. This is a considerable amount of them, though. Any custom avatars that are in use (i.e. Paul's artwork for example) would eat into their bandwidth usage. This wouldn't be that big of a deal for each individual person as all the usage would get spread out over many people. But the extra bandwidth for the NSU ones would be pretty high for us.

Does that make any sense?

Oh, and the other issue would be that the avatars that we host and offer are set at the 48 x 48 size. So if we would go to a larger size, we'd either end up with different size avatars or stretch out ones for the Infopop ones, which looks ugly.

By the way, I am not a fan of nonstandard sized avatars on forums. I think it looks very sloppy and amateurish.

There, have I rambled on about this long enough. Anyone else have any other ideas on this?

quote:

Originally posted by STCardGeek:
Oddly, Kenny's avatar started out big when I first came to the page ,but while sitting here reading posts, it has reversed to it's normal small size.
)

It,s the cold weather causes that.

quote:

Originally posted by wolfman-golf:

quote:

Originally posted by STCardGeek:
Oddly, Kenny's avatar started out big when I first came to the page ,but while sitting here reading posts, it has reversed to it's normal small size.
)

It,s the cold weather causes that.

badbadbad wolfie

but unfortunately true

quote:

Originally posted by wolfman-golf:

quote:

Originally posted by STCardGeek:
Oddly, Kenny's avatar started out big when I first came to the page ,but while sitting here reading posts, it has reversed to it's normal small size.
)

It,s the cold weather causes that.

bad wolfie
funny as heck
but bad

I don't think that we need huge avatars. I think they look fine the way they are. Not like people takes that close of a look at them anyways.

Well, not to appear dreadfully dull next to Wolfie, but I imagine Kenny's is larger but only displays at 48because it's told to by the BB commands? Where, for example, mine is 48 at it's normal size. THe images may be loading in before the table/column size is set or until the code for the avatar dispaly size is set, so that by the time the page is done loading, it now has the command for the *proper* 48 size, so it shrinks back down?