Sorry, should have explained the reasoning when I posted earlier Red. It's always better to have a pic I think, but sometimes when folk are dipping their toe in the water having just come out of relationships they don't want to be identified or recognised (possibly by ex's etc.) so the option is there for those that need it
Yeah Boss Mom I understand that to an extent at least, but by the same ruling would it not be a little daunting perhaps to a new female member on the site to be getting viewed and nodded at by some mysterious shadow?
Happened to someone I know and gave her the jitters.
surely that means the person that joins a dating site ( which i understand this site is prompted as ) however once you enter those great towering gates and look around you may find its much more....
people that hide normally have something to hide.. group pics are confussing when profile names are not gender orientated (yes mine is one of those)
so as a dating site I think there is room for improvement as a social site it works as long as personal opions are kept personal.
ooppss slipped off soap box LOL now time to don the helmet and let the flack bounce of me ( makes a change from me bouncing off cars and tarmac lol )
haha love that idea, should have had that as an option indeed :-D
57 Only photos clearly identifying the member 38 Photos of member or with partner only, not big groups though 9 Photos of anything, I'm not bothered 0 Photos of member *OR* his/her bike (without the person on!) 0 Photos in groups, but only of people. Unable to identify who the member is!
The idea is that if it's you and your partner, we can make out who "Bob" is if "bob" is your username. The problem is with gay couples. If john and bob are next to each other, how do we know which is bob? lol
Loon if you actually read what i had written, you would have noticed i said most folk have opted for, if you take the number of votees and calculate the 2 as a percentage it works out at 90%, which to my mind is most folk :)
By saying both are fine as profile pics it satisfies the majority.
57 Only photos clearly identifying the member
38 Photos of member or with partner only, not big groups though
9 Photos of anything, I'm not bothered
0 Photos of member *OR* his/her bike (without the person on!)
0 Photos in groups, but only of people. Unable to identify who the member is!
Looking at these results it seems to me tha yes folks are happy with the 1st two. However the clear winner is number 1- photo clearly identifying the member
so around 90% of members that have voted dnt want group pics or other items....it seems being able to clearly identify who the member is paramount in a profile piccy.....
a no brainer really huh...
its great to be able to see what other folk are thinking on these issues. Must admit I bit surprised more didnt want to share profile pic with partner..after all you do come as a couple...not single. But, I guess there more singles than couples on BM which is its primary aim, a social site is secondary and is more a result of its success?
Wonder just how many members have found love or at least had a relationship from joining?
Gonna go start a new thread now on just that!
![Vote: The future of profile photos! (6) - Forums [Biker Match]](/images/backgrounds/strips/8mobileLQ.jpg)
![Vote: The future of profile photos! (6) - Forums [Biker Match]](/images/backgrounds/strips/8desktopLQ.jpg)
