The new forum + icons.

How about we take away the whole voting thing from icon submission, and just make it so that you submit an icon, and if it is deemed family friendly, star wars related and within the file/pixel size limits by a specific staff member or panel of staff members, and you haven't exceeded your upload limit for the month/week, it is allowed, and uploaded by said staff member.

That seems more logical than making it be that only an elite few get to put icons up.

 

I like that idea.

Back-to-Back!: 2008-2009 & 2009-2010 L.A. Lakers: World Champions

 

This. Even when I was a mod I never really understood the long drawn out icon process. It takes like 30 seconds to add a icon. If it's Star Wars and doesn't look like crap I don't see the problem.

 

It's not an "elite few". I'm almost certain anyone can submit icons for consideration at any time. There's no "elite few" about it; you make an icon, you submit, it gets thrown into the mix, if it's good it goes up. Simple.

and

This.

 

I agree. I've been on other forums where users can load their own icons and with the different sizing and animations it just looks sloppy.

 

Yes, but how many people actually get their icons uploaded? The elite few do, that's who. We should discourage elitism, rather than encourage it, which is what we are currently doing. People feel intimidated to even come to the icon thread - look at the usual posts requesting an icon, and you will see what I mean.

Quality Control, would obviously be another thing the staff member who approves icons focuses on, but it shouldn't be focused on too much IMO, that goes back to the elitism being a no-no thing. And quite frankly, I doubt anyone would submit an icon that doesn't look good, just for that reason. If it doesn't look good to others, it likely doesn't look good to them.

 

Why is it that only the icon makers get a say on voting? I think that if everyone had a say it would shed some of the elitism that myself and others see. I know in the past that my current icon (had it since the first day I registered) was altered and I had to petition it be changed back.

 

All you have to do to get a vote is submit an icon. There's no poll tax.

How is quality control elitism? Maybe we should let anyone who wants to help code for the site move. I mean, so long as it's not completely broken, right? Let's not be elitists about this. We wouldn't want our standards to get in the way of anyone's self-esteem.

And as for looking good to others vs. looking good to oneself . . . you'd think that about the fat old men in speedos on the beach. Life doesn't bear that out, sorry. "Undesirable things would never happen, because no one wants undesirable things," is not a theory that has ever proved itself in reality.

I have had a legally blind kid insist on another site that his blurry image was by far the best possible image and he was absolutely right and everyone else who could actually see was wrong. Yeah, you're right. No one would ever submit anything less than perfect.

 

OK so I submitted a icon in 2001 and it got accepted so I can vote right? Totally garbage.

 

If I'm remembering the case correctly, that was actually just a goof on my part. When IGN did upgrades about a year and a half ago, they changed it so icons couldn't be named the same thing (which is why there's a string of numbers on all the new icons - those numbers, for anyone interested, are just the date of the upload). So if I accidently forget the numbers, the original icon is replaced by the new one, and doesn't show up on the new icons list. That happened a couple times, actually, and will no longer be a problem when we move.

And, like Grimby said, it's pretty easy to become an icon maker, and I definitely welcome anyone who's interested!

 

Well, as long as we're still discussing icons, can I mention one small thing? I once asked for a Jack Nicholson icon to be made, and even after a lightsaber was added to the icon, it still got refused. There's no reason for that.

Back-to-Back!: 2008-2009 & 2009-2010 L.A. Lakers: World Champions

 

This.

And although I disagree with the "elite few" part, the current icon system just seems really unnecessary. Since we do have a lotttttt of icons ATM, and we have icon makers, why not just switch to this system and let the icon makers make icons that people request? Nothing is stopping them from making whatever they want still, but if someone wants a particular icon uploaded and it fits the standards...what's the problem?

 

From what I understand, its pretty rare that a requested icon doesn't get in - Tunick's Nicholson example is pretty unusual.

 

RJ is correct. I tag requested icons, so icon makers know people want them and usually vote them through.

 

Yup..................I have a better idea for that: Use a picture of him that has someone to either his left or right..............fill in a SW character next to Nicholson, and it works!

Back-to-Back!: 2008-2009 & 2009-2010 L.A. Lakers: World Champions

 

So the way everyone is happy is if icon makers only make icons that people request? That makes no sense. If there's a group of willing and able icon makers who want to do nothing but take requests, then so be it. As it is, if an icon is requested it usually gets attention. Most icon makers are happy as can be to do requests; just because one odd one here or there doesn't get made doesn't mean that the system is broken.

I've been submitting icons to TF.n for a number of years. The system was the same then as it is now, with no changes implemented. It's not broken, so why restructure or try to fix it? It looks to me like some users get their feelings hurt when their icons don't get uploaded.

 

I totally agree on all of these standards, and it does make it look nicer/cleaner/more consistent than most other forums. On number 3, though, I thought there were two sizes: 50x50 square and 30x90/90x30 horizontal or vertical rectangles (unless those are being counted separately. ).

 

90x90 is a nice size. Thanks to higher resolutions, the 50x50 icons here are starting to look a little microscopic.

 

That's entirely not what I said.