February 2005: Forum Changes - Avatars, Signatures
February 2005: Forum Changes - Avatars, Signatures
Comparing this February's site traffic to last February, there has been three times as many visitors and at the same time, more than three times as much bandwidth consumed. While I'm thrilled that UltimateDisney.com continues to grow and it's great that we're nearing 2000 forum members, many of whom actively participate, the bandwidth consumption is taking a pretty big toll. I personally can't afford to upgrade the site to dedicated server level. That would effectively remove bandwidth from the situation indefinitely, but it also costs a lot. I know in the past, I assumed the bandwidth situation would be resolved when we upgraded last fall and before that, but the site just continues to grow.
In the meantime, I'm going to implement some changes that can hopefully bring down bandwidth a bit. I don't know how much good they will do, but these changes are inevitable and they really shouldn't limit one's enjoyment of the forum at all.
1) The maximum filesize for an avatar was 35 KB. It will now be <b>21 KB</b>.
2) The maximum dimensions for an avatar was 140 x 140. It will now be <b>100 pixels by 100 pixels</b>.
3) Only members with 50 posts or more will be able to display an avatar next to their posts. Anyone who makes nonsense posts to reach this goal will be warned, and if need be, suspended.
4) Images in signatures (which must be hosted off-site) may not be larger than 100 pixels high, 600 pixels wide, or 35000 square pixels in total.
5) Please, please refrain from posting or linking directly to UD-hosted images on other forums, journals, websites, etc.
#s 1-3 are mostly to save bandwidth, while #3 also encourages regular contributions to forum discussions. An overwhelming majority of forum members post a few times and leave. There's no reason to have an avatar next to these few posts, and so you can think an avatar as a bit of a reward for being a long-term regular member of the forum.
#4 is an aesthetic reason. While signature images don't do much to bandwidth, they make the forum not very easy to navigate, particularly for those on slow connections.
#5 affects few of you, but there are a couple of foreign language forums that do this a lot, and while I won't mention names, it's being done by members of this forum. Please stop. You're welcome to link to a page that houses pictures or to save and host the images yourself, and provide a link to UD. But stealing bandwidth like that is a killer.
Thanks for understanding these changes. Feel free to post any questions or comments here. And of course, if the option is always there to make a monetary donation to the site (as little as $1 helps, though some of that goes to Amazon): http://www.amazon.com/paypage/PS5D9VFP3UXY
In the meantime, I'm going to implement some changes that can hopefully bring down bandwidth a bit. I don't know how much good they will do, but these changes are inevitable and they really shouldn't limit one's enjoyment of the forum at all.
1) The maximum filesize for an avatar was 35 KB. It will now be <b>21 KB</b>.
2) The maximum dimensions for an avatar was 140 x 140. It will now be <b>100 pixels by 100 pixels</b>.
3) Only members with 50 posts or more will be able to display an avatar next to their posts. Anyone who makes nonsense posts to reach this goal will be warned, and if need be, suspended.
4) Images in signatures (which must be hosted off-site) may not be larger than 100 pixels high, 600 pixels wide, or 35000 square pixels in total.
5) Please, please refrain from posting or linking directly to UD-hosted images on other forums, journals, websites, etc.
#s 1-3 are mostly to save bandwidth, while #3 also encourages regular contributions to forum discussions. An overwhelming majority of forum members post a few times and leave. There's no reason to have an avatar next to these few posts, and so you can think an avatar as a bit of a reward for being a long-term regular member of the forum.
#4 is an aesthetic reason. While signature images don't do much to bandwidth, they make the forum not very easy to navigate, particularly for those on slow connections.
#5 affects few of you, but there are a couple of foreign language forums that do this a lot, and while I won't mention names, it's being done by members of this forum. Please stop. You're welcome to link to a page that houses pictures or to save and host the images yourself, and provide a link to UD. But stealing bandwidth like that is a killer.
Thanks for understanding these changes. Feel free to post any questions or comments here. And of course, if the option is always there to make a monetary donation to the site (as little as $1 helps, though some of that goes to Amazon): http://www.amazon.com/paypage/PS5D9VFP3UXY
Last edited by Luke on Sat Mar 12, 2005 8:16 am, edited 1 time in total.
"Fifteen years from now, when people are talking about 3-D, they will talk about the business before 'Monsters vs. Aliens' and the business after 'Monsters vs. Aliens.' It's the line in the sand." - Greg Foster, IMAX chairman and president
- JiminyCrick91
- Platinum Edition
- Posts: 3930
- Joined: Thu Dec 02, 2004 8:39 pm
- Location: ont. canada
- Contact:
it all sounds good to meJiminyCrick91 wrote:even thou i am long past needing more postes to get an avatar by nonsense posts do you also count the games froum?

I was also wonderring if my avatar/signature is a good size or is it to big? cause i've never really understood this whole pixel thing

Jiminy, I don't consider posts in "Polls & Games" nonsense, but there's a few threads that seem kind of like a post count boost, and I may look into making those threads not increase post count, just to make sure that it's not.
Dan, your avatar is fine. It's 98 x 100, so it just fits.
orestes., I think for now you simply won't be allowed to select a new avatar that's bigger than 100 x 100, but it's not going to delete ones that are currently in place. You're free to resize to 100 x 100 now. If everyone did that on their own, it'd save me a lot of time.
Dan, your avatar is fine. It's 98 x 100, so it just fits.
orestes., I think for now you simply won't be allowed to select a new avatar that's bigger than 100 x 100, but it's not going to delete ones that are currently in place. You're free to resize to 100 x 100 now. If everyone did that on their own, it'd save me a lot of time.
"Fifteen years from now, when people are talking about 3-D, they will talk about the business before 'Monsters vs. Aliens' and the business after 'Monsters vs. Aliens.' It's the line in the sand." - Greg Foster, IMAX chairman and president
- AwallaceUNC
- Signature Collection
- Posts: 9439
- Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2003 1:00 am
- Contact:
Amy's been cropped and downsized.
-Aaron

-Aaron
• Author of Hocus Pocus in Focus: The Thinking Fan's Guide to Disney's Halloween Classic
and The Thinking Fan's Guide to Walt Disney World: Magic Kingdom (Epcot coming soon)
• Host of Zip-A-Dee-Doo-Pod, the longest-running Disney podcast
• Entertainment Writer & Moderator at DVDizzy.com
• Twitter - @aaronspod
and The Thinking Fan's Guide to Walt Disney World: Magic Kingdom (Epcot coming soon)
• Host of Zip-A-Dee-Doo-Pod, the longest-running Disney podcast
• Entertainment Writer & Moderator at DVDizzy.com
• Twitter - @aaronspod
- anger is pointless
- Special Edition
- Posts: 589
- Joined: Wed Feb 23, 2005 1:38 pm
- Location: texas
- Contact:
- AwallaceUNC
- Signature Collection
- Posts: 9439
- Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2003 1:00 am
- Contact:
Re: February 2005: Forum Changes - Avatars, Signatures
:angerispointless wrote:um would taking images out of our sigs help too
Luke wrote:4) Images in signatures (which must be hosted off-site) may not be larger than 100 pixels high, 600 pixels wide, or 35000 square pixels in total.
#4 is an aesthetic reason. While signature images don't do much to bandwidth, they make the forum not very easy to navigate, particularly for those on slow connections.

As long as the pic in your signature is small and doesn't come from a UD url you should be ok, and you won't be taking away from the site's bandwith.

-Aaron
• Author of Hocus Pocus in Focus: The Thinking Fan's Guide to Disney's Halloween Classic
and The Thinking Fan's Guide to Walt Disney World: Magic Kingdom (Epcot coming soon)
• Host of Zip-A-Dee-Doo-Pod, the longest-running Disney podcast
• Entertainment Writer & Moderator at DVDizzy.com
• Twitter - @aaronspod
and The Thinking Fan's Guide to Walt Disney World: Magic Kingdom (Epcot coming soon)
• Host of Zip-A-Dee-Doo-Pod, the longest-running Disney podcast
• Entertainment Writer & Moderator at DVDizzy.com
• Twitter - @aaronspod
- littlefuzzy
- Anniversary Edition
- Posts: 1700
- Joined: Sun Oct 10, 2004 6:36 pm
I was worried for a sec... But it turns out my avatar is only 80x80, and about 1.5K in size...
BTW, if anyone wants to check their avatar size, they can right click on the picture and go to properties, that will show the pixel size and the byte size.
The fifty posts thing makes perfect sense. If you contribute to discussions, you will get there sooner or later, and if you don't, why do you need an avatar anyway?
I joined on the 10th of October 2004, and I was at 50 posts by the end of the month. I wasn't making posts just to bump my count, but because I felt I could add something (however minute) to the conversation.
As far as other sites using your bandwidth goes, that needs to be stopped dead in its tracks, even if it would mean banning a member that was doing it. Also, here are various things you could do so that hotlinking wouldn't work, etc.

The fifty posts thing makes perfect sense. If you contribute to discussions, you will get there sooner or later, and if you don't, why do you need an avatar anyway?
I joined on the 10th of October 2004, and I was at 50 posts by the end of the month. I wasn't making posts just to bump my count, but because I felt I could add something (however minute) to the conversation.
As far as other sites using your bandwidth goes, that needs to be stopped dead in its tracks, even if it would mean banning a member that was doing it. Also, here are various things you could do so that hotlinking wouldn't work, etc.
I haven't even been involved in these forums for a month yet, but I've been enjoying them alot. I appreciate the efforts you're taking to keep everything going.
I assume that clicking the amazon.com and bestbuy.com links bring in money toward the running of this website... If this is the case, maybe people could show their support of UD in that way.
Thanks again for being so cooperative!
I assume that clicking the amazon.com and bestbuy.com links bring in money toward the running of this website... If this is the case, maybe people could show their support of UD in that way.
Thanks again for being so cooperative!
"When your heart is in your dream, no request is too extreme."
- poco
- Special Edition
- Posts: 929
- Joined: Sat Apr 19, 2003 10:40 am
- Location: looking for the blue fairy
Thanks for the changes Luke. One reason I don't come on a lot is that pages do take a while to load with the pics and all, and personally when I only have a few minutes break, you can understand my dilemma!
"I like nonsense, it wakes up the brain cells. Fantasy is a necessary ingredient in living." -- Dr. Seuss
Ah I'm going through a faze where I like rectangle avatars more than square. After I get tired of my current one I'm going for the widescreen one again. Keeping 100X100 is too "fullscreen" for me.RJKD23 wrote:wowweee, you know what?
I like how the 100 x 100 pixels is the max!
Everything looks so uniformed and organized!![]()
(oh, and it saves with the bandwidth issue too.)

hey hey hey, put your "Fullscreen" opinions in the correct thread!orestes. wrote:Ah I'm going through a faze where I like rectangle avatars more than square. After I get tired of my current one I'm going for the widescreen one again. Keeping 100X100 is too "fullscreen" for me.RJKD23 wrote:wowweee, you know what?
I like how the 100 x 100 pixels is the max!
Everything looks so uniformed and organized!![]()
(oh, and it saves with the bandwidth issue too.)

you're saying you don't like this uniformity?
although now that you mention it...widescreen does look better huh.

