Emoticons

[W. Joe Smith]

I was curious if there was ever a discussion on implementing a limit to the number of emoticons a person can use in a single post. It isn't a major problem or anything, but when I see a post with 20 crying faces, face smashes, and various other emoticons I usually ignore the post. Maybe I'm the only one it bothers, but using a couple is alright, but using a ton of them seriously detracts from the post to me. I get too distracted by them (especially moving ones) to get through the post.

Then again, I am also distracted by shiny thi...oh, squirrel!

[paul wheaton]

Maybe when somebody is typing something in and they go for the tenth emoticon, there can be a pop up that says "Hey buddy, maybe you should slow down --- bartender". If the user keeps using them, there could be more messages like that. And finally a cutoff at 20.

Just a thought.

[Jeanne Boyarsky]

Or we could point it out when we see it. I haven't noticed this too frequently.

[Mike Simmons]

It doesn't seem to me like this is much of a problem. But if a limit were imposed, it would be better implemented in terms of the ratio of emoticons to characters. Ten smilies isn't bad if they're spread across many paragraphs. But if they're all in one short paragraph, or one line, it's a bit much.

I was once an admin on a message board that had a limit - I think it was 6 smilies total. Very annoying for those of us who sometimes make long posts. I increased the smiley limit several times, ending at 20 I think.

Actually I think the larger animated smilies should count against you more than the small static ones. Things like are OK in moderation, but they grow annoying a lot sooner than or - in my opinion, of course.

Still, I think Jeanne's suggestion is best here.

[Vikas Kapoor]

Jeanne Boyarsky wrote:Or we could point it out when we see it. I haven't noticed this too frequently.

+1.

Not worth the effort.

[Christophe Verré]

I haven't seen such behaviour often either.

[Ernest Friedman-Hill]

In ancient times, there was indeed a problem with this here, so bad that a limit was hacked into the Perl code of UBB. I guess when we moved to JForum, we lost the limit, unintentionally. I agree that this really doesn't seem to be much of a problem here nowadays.

[Gregg Bolinger]

Ernest Friedman-Hill wrote:II agree that this really doesn't seem to be much of a problem here nowadays.

Oh yea?

[Jim Yingst]

Some problems are probably easier to solve by banning.

[Gregg Bolinger]

I just like how all the rolling ones roll together. Perfect harmony.

[Campbell Ritchie]

Nothing wrong with Gregg's posting. For a start it didn't have any in.

[W. Joe Smith]

Campbell Ritchie wrote:Nothing wrong with Gregg's posting. For a start it didn't have any in.

Really? Cause I see that one in there too.

[Jim Yingst]

[Gregg Bolinger]

Wow, Jim's Pissed!! Sweet.

[Jim Yingst]

I always liked the growly icon best.

[Vikas Kapoor]

Jim,

You're back.

[Gregg Bolinger]

Vikas Kapoor wrote:Jim,

You're back.

Did you see his signature?

[Vikas Kapoor]

Gregg Bolinger wrote:

Vikas Kapoor wrote:Jim,

You're back.

Did you see his signature?

Actually after reading his sig only I commented that way.

[Campbell Ritchie]

Yes, he has got a I hate s

[Ernest Friedman-Hill]

OK, well, I have added an item to the to-do list.