What is your opinion on having them enabled or disabled? I'm used to seeing them enabled and am usually quite surprised to see one or both disabled. The rationale I usually hear is that its to cut down on bandwidth and/or speed the site up. Personally I think it adds a very personal feel to each member, that you're actually talking to other people and not, say...robots. So, what is your opinion on having them?

I say keep them both. I think that bandwidth is a poor excuse for this. Most avatars are so small that they use very little bandwidth, some are even hyperlinked. I don't really know of any signatures that require bandwidth, as all images are remotely hosted. As far as speed is concerned, I can see how this could be an issue for some, but again, we are in the days of broadband connection...most people are on one. Some are still on dial up, yes, but the vast majority are not.

I would say that the biggest reasons to disable either of the two are for cleanliness and abuse problems...Forums tend to look cleaner without signatures and avatars...and people will often abuse signatures, so if you outlaw them all together, you don't have to worry about this.

When all is said and done, I think that these things are pretty miniscule and are easy to control. I feel like offering the use of avatars and signatures is a privilege that my members deserve. They take the time to visit and post at my forums, the least I can do is give them the privilege to promote their own site and express themselves via their avatar. The line is drawn where promotion goes over the edge though - signature/avatar usage is a privilege, not a right

__________________
...some super-sweet signature

I think both are fine unless they break the forum rules. I have signatures enabled for everyone and avatars enabled for people with 25 posts and 5 days of registration. I have dropped the requires for avatars twice so far.

I feel that it is a good idea. It does give you more freedom. Makes you feel like you are able to exspress yourself as a person.

__________________
http://www.LucnetSolutions.com - World Wide Hosting Solutions
http://www.decalcity.com - Decals and Custom Decals

You can keep signatures under control by just having a few rules about them, people abide by them. I don't really think forums look cleaner without signatures and avatars, I think they look a bit...boring

Edit: It seems like you moved my thread, I honestly couldn't figure out where to put it. It didn't seem like it fit here because it was more of a discussion on a certain aspect of a forum and less on memebrs themselves, it seems to have shifted to the latter however.

Avs and signatures are so easily managed that I agree with ryan that it's a poor excuse. I hate having the versatility of BB software and only a few options are enabled. Some boards don't even permit private messaging. What's the sense of even paying for robust software if you aren't gong to get the most out of it.

When I first opened my forum I kept the avatars disabled. Just as others mentioned here, my excuse was bandwidth. However, I quickly found out that it wasn't a problem at all and that some members may actually like to use them. I now allow them with only some basic restrictions to keep out the garbage. I agree that both signatures and avatars should be allowed without any question.

__________________
Mark Blair
NowParenting - "Parenting Discussion Community"
HostHideout - "Where Professionals Discuss Web Hosting"

We don't allow animated avatars of the movie clip type. Slide show types are okay. (lostforum)

__________________
I went to Vegas, and all I got was this Blister. - true story!

I allow avatars and signatures. But I limited the signatures to once per page. It makes the forum look cleaner.

__________________
My Blog - Follow Me on Twitter

I allow animated, why don't you? Just curious.