I don't disagree Staffs FC, I was just reminding people of what a great facility we get, for no cost to us.

PaulM, you are right, I have asked and been told that, as things stand, RLFans has quite a healthy financial position, so I can only assume Admin didn't invest anything in Iceland!

(I wasn't having a pop at anyone, apologies if it came across that I was)

Smilies are all (or were, initially) based on textual representations of facial expressions to show how a comment should be taken. If someone needs to elucidate on how a post should be read, a simple [codeicon_smile.gif[/code or [codeicon_wink.gif[/code (or any of the many variations) could be used and would be far less resource-hungry. That then means you don't get into the situation where Roofs includes a minimum of 20 smilies in every post. Thinking about it, that is the problem: the occasional post where too many are included. Maybe just putting a limit of, say, two per post would be a better solution.



It can be, and I'm not saying it shouldn't exist at all, but it does make a mess of the display as far as I'm concerned. Having it as an optional/hideable feature would be an improvement.

What resources do smilies use? especially compared to the Flash adverts down the side of the screen?

One thing that needs sorting are massive signatures, and GML's moderation ability!

Good point



I have no problem with smilies and like you say, they can help add context to the post

Every little helps. And they obviously use a lot more than a couple of text characters. Each text character uses 1B, whereas [codea026.gif[/code, for example, requires 5.3kB. It's not much as a one-off, but when there are 20+ on one page, it's a fair bit more strain on the site. And for a site that has a lot of traffic and has struggled in the past to cope with it, minimising load where possible is a good idea. And yes, they are a lot less intensive than the flash adverts, but the flash adverts are self-sustaining, bringing in revenue that pays for their inclusion and much more besides.

I trust admin, they know what they are doing.

Frankly, I don't give a sh[size=100i[/sizet who you trust. I'm suggesting potential improvements (which there is no doubt that limiting smilies would be), not saying that the site admin don't know what they're doing.

TOSSER


jUST CHECKING THE SWEAR FILTER

What improvement would limiting smilies make, you haven't said as yet?

Along with the aesthetics of not having to see them as often, it would, as I thought I'd made clear, reduced the load on the site. Possibly not to a noticeable degree in general use, but it would help.

But the load on the site isn't a problem, it works fine and has done for some time.

So, it's down to the fact that you don't like them, which is hardly (with respect) any basis to dump or limit them.

That it works fine currently doesn't mean it can't/shouldn't be improved where possible.

There is an option under User Control Panel/Board Preferences/Edit Display Options to show smiles as either text or graphics.

But you haven't made any real suggestion, nor provided evidence, that removing emoticons would actually be a tangible "improvement", all you've done is stated a case that you, personally, don't like them.

:rjel1ylr

Yep, something that I'm surprised wasn't used more often when the site regularly used to struggle with the demands placed upon it.

:rjel1ylr

I've stated that it probably wouldn't be a noticeable improvement currently. I've provided evidence, and it should be obvious to all with even the most rudimentary computer knowledge that an animated graphic uses more resources than a couple of text characters and even more obvious that fewer animated graphics use less than more animated graphics. I can't believe you'd even question whether that is the case.

I don't particularly like them in large quantities (they're fine as a one-off to show how a post should be taken), but the strain they place upon the site can be a problem. (I was just about to demonstrate this, but it appears that someone on the admin team feels the same way and there [i:rjel1ylris[/i:rjel1ylr a limit on the number that can be included in one post. [irony



[/irony Not as low as I'd set it, but it's enough to help prevent the ridiculous, load-stopping amounts that were occasionally included.)'"

I know, which is why I'm surprised at your line of questioning.



I agree, in general. Aside from the occasional 'show stopper' being prevented, there wouldn't be a noticeable difference. That's been my position from the start.



I went from one to the other immediately after my first post, as soon as I gave it a bit more consideration than none at all.

You do realise we've spent the best part of a morning discussing the relative merits of animated little yello things!!

I like smilies.

I can't think of anything else I could've done that would've been more productive. It's a Friday, I'm off next week and there's next to no work I can get finished between now and 5pm. I'm guessing it's a similar story for you?

Having my usual down time after a long contract, been off two months now, not going back until mid Jan, fly to the USA on Thursday next week, it's all good!

I'd like to see the 'new posts' graphic in a brighter colour, is it just me who can't see it very well?

I think its crap !!!

I can't believe this thread runs to 223 posts over 15 pages.

Your shock emoticon just froze my com