Question: Extra profile modification

[THIRTY-SIX]

I was just wondering if it were possible to have it so that every member could change unknown.gif to another 60x 60 image.

Also what I mean by this is that instead of seeing:

member0036 would see:

member6950:

And so on for every other member.

What would be simpler would be a default list like the avatar stuff.

 

[Virtual Chatot]

Doesn't that defeat the purpose of even having a default image?

 

[Angela]

Doesn't that defeat the purpose of even having a default image?

I agree why let people put default Avatars if the others can always change it.

 

[Soul Eater]

You mean have the owner of the profile the images are displayed on change it for their profile specifically? (o_<)

I don't really see what the point of that would be. Those display if the person posting a VM in a profile or being shown in the friend-list hasn't set their own avatar yet, it seems strange to let the owner of a profile change those images when they aren't related to said profile owner.

I have to agree with Audy on this.

What if the person doesn't want to use there avvy? Are you saying that the staff or anyone else should be forced to use an avvy? That's just how I see it. D:

 

[Zet]

I think what is being meant here is that you the user viewing a profile without an avatar should have the option of making so that instead of seeing the unknown image you can set an image for yourself to see

 

[Forci Stikane]

I think what is being meant here is that you the user viewing a profile without an avatar should have the option of making so that instead of seeing the unknown image you can set an image for yourself to see

Why, then? Most users already have a set avatar, and adding one is so simple that those that do not most likely have a reason for it. It seems rather silly to force an avatar onto a user like that, even if only as far as what you personally can see.

 

[Zet]

you're still not getting it, only you can see the avatar you set for them, everyone else can see what they want, unless what munna means, you can set your own profile avatar for people to see and not have an avatar shown in posts

 

[Forci Stikane]

you're still not getting it, only you can see the avatar you set for them, everyone else can see what they want, unless what munna means, you can set your own profile avatar for people to see and not have an avatar shown in posts

It seems rather silly to force an avatar onto a user like that, even if only as far as what you personally can see.

I understood just fine. My point still stands.

 

[Zet]

from the looks of things you still don't understand, this

is forced on by default, what is being explained is that this

becomes something like this this

as the new default

 

[Forci Stikane]

from the looks of things you still don't understand, this

is forced on by default, what is being explained is that this

becomes something like this this

as the new default

...*sigh* So that any user profile that you visit that lacks a preset avatar will have whatever one you selected showing instead. Yes, I already understood that.

even if only as far as what you personally can see.

The term "you" here was referring to the person that sets the avatar, not the user lacking one.

 

[THIRTY-SIX]

I think what is being meant here is that you the user viewing a profile without an avatar should have the option of making so that instead of seeing the unknown image you can set an image for yourself to see

That's what I meant, in the places you see unknown.gif it'll be changed to another image. So it won't be shown in posts and only you can see said image.

I just thought it'd be nice to see an image you wanted rather than the default.

Ok… what about being able to switch off those icons next to the messages… like I can do with signatures and avatars.

 

[score_under]

Ok… what about being able to switch off those icons next to the messages… like I can do with signatures and avatars.

I think it would work with Privoxy if you used in your action file:
{+filter{post-icons}}
.pokecommunity.

and in your filters file:
FILTER: post-icons Remove icons next to the post
s@<img [^>]*src="images/icons/[^>]+>@@ig

But that's probably a hassle to set up.

 

[Legobricks]

May I come in and suggest that the question mark picture simply be replaced by a 60x60 square of transparency, as to denote the member having no avatar?

 

[Volkner's Apprentice]

May I come in and suggest that the question mark picture simply be replaced by a 60x60 square of transparency, as to denote the member having no avatar?

That idea seems like something that'd work well enough. It's better to see just a name than a ?

Although I don't really mind, since it's the users own fault for not putting up an avatar when it's really something people should do when they first visit a forum anyway..

But I'm not opposed to being able to choose the image, that'd be nice. You could set something you like as a default.

 

[Nick]

I read through this thread, completely understanding the first post's concept and then slowly moved on to getting more and more confused as later replies were posted. The concept itself would bring some originality to the community in my opinion. And, from what I can tell (please do tell me if this is the wrong concept I'm trying to simplify) is that default avatar of the question mark can be changed for everyone without an avatar in all aspects of the forum (be it posts, private messages, visitor messages, etc.) to one of the user's choosing thus overriding the default image.

I think this could work with the right coding involved and the possibility, of course. It'd be nice to see a different preset no-avatar image to one of someone's choosing. It could provide some effectiveness in showing that someone doesn't have an avatar to represent themselves and would provide the user (who is setting the default avatar in their CP) an original aspect of the community.

However, despite thinking this could work, I don't really see a point on it. Sure it will add more images to the forum (thus making it longer to load for some users with a specific service provider), but there's already a default one set that in most cases, like posts, wouldn't add any more time to the amount of time it takes to actually load the page. So in the end. And I may be over exaggerating the concept overall, but it's still true.