Profile User Card Badge <none>

What is this and why is the field unchangeable? (i.e., why is it even there?)

What are you talking about?

Click on your icon, access your Profile, click Preferences, locate 11th item (between web site and email).

Discourse (our forums platform) has a FAQ that seems to answer your question.

Also here:

In any event, the behavior of user cards isn’t something we have control over. We don’t develop the Discourse platform. We only use it for the forums, and I’m pretty certain developing our own platform isn’t a priority right now.


I loaded images for Profile and User Card Backgrounds. I see what Profile Background does but do not see the Card Background anywhere at OGS. What is it?

Click on my head left to this text. The partially hidden tea kettle and cups is the Card background.

1 Like

I see. It only works on the little head. When I click on the big head in profile it does nothing. It works when I click on my little icon too. Some places clicking on the little icon does not display it. Now I know what the User Card Background is, my unasked question “what is a User Card” is answered.

Okay, here is a suggestion about the setup of these items in Profile Preferences…
Edit: That material has been moved to this topic Profile Background and User Card Backgound

Probably rather questions for the discourse forum

Yet another website? There is a forum here for discussing things about OGS, there is a place I was told to post an idea where it could be voted on and now there is another one? If all this is designed to get users to set up accounts and visit numerous websites where they can be tracked, measured and monetized, it would be nice to know.

How is anyone supposed to even know about all these different sites? … Not that I intend to make accounts at them or other yet to be revealed ones.

The aspects that suggest changes related to the original question should probably be moved to a more appropriate forum here. Done.

Lol, dude, OGS doesn’t make the forum software. They use a very common offering called Discourse. That’s like you going to a restaurant that serves Coca Cola products and making suggestions on how to improve the label on bottles of Coca Cola. They’ll tell you they don’t have any control over that and maybe give you the phone number for the Coca Cola company.

1 Like

So “OGS” is even more of an unintegrated kluge than I realized? Then it’s a waste of time bothering with any of this other than to play a game and report bugs associated with that “site” or whatever it is. There’s only so many sites I want to contribute free labor to. Thanks.

Nobody’s requesting “free labor” out of you. You take that upon yourself of your own volition. Most people posting here fall into one of three categories:

  • Admin/dev/mod performing their responsibilities
  • General users who want to help make a site they care about better by actively contributing to the community (This group contains me.)
  • People with a specific support issue/question

If you want to hop on and be helpful, then by all means, please. However, if you find it’s more time and effort than you’re willing to contribute, there’s not a thing in the world wrong with that. Nobody is asking or requiring that of you. Feel free to simply enjoy the site by playing games.

If you’re referring to providing free labor for Discourse, that’s again your call. If you want to make a suggestion, go for it. If it’s too much work, don’t feel obligated.

As for OGS being unintegrated, I think the forum and main site session cookie sharing is solid and plenty of integration. Discourse is a super common piece of forum software, alongside PHPBB, vBulletin, Invision, etc. Almost no site writes their own forum software from the ground up, because it’s actually a very complex piece of code. I, for one, would much rather the devs focus on the core site and leave forum development to people whose job it is to develop forum software.

Sorry you didn’t realize this, I know it’s not obvious (there’s no “Welcome to our Discourse-based forum!” banner or anything), but that’s why Trohde was trying to be helpful and point you towards where such a suggestion could be acted upon.


I did not say anyone was requesting anything of me. Suggest you read what I wrote.

I’m sorry you feel that way. Have a nice day.

Okay, here is a suggestion about the setup of these items in Profile Preferences. The image fields specify that “Profile backgrounds will be centered and have a default width of 850px” and “Background images will be centered and have a default width of 590px”. This leaves the actual proportions of the image field unspecified (it’s even conceivable that it is not the same as the fields one sees). Therefore the proportions of the final image should be given to aid users in selecting or editing the picture they want to use. Approximate measurements of proportions are as follows (see Update below):

Profile Background (w x h): ~850x55 Unexpanded*; ~850x297 Expanded.
(*e.g., could be useful if someone wants something that looks good without taking up extra space with expanded version.)
User Card Background (w x h): ~590x270

If the user wants to adjust the image so the main item of interest is not obscured by the user icon, they can center the portion of the image they want seen in the rightmost ~440x270 sub-rectangle of that field. An rough example follows:

I’d also suggest that the bottom ~2/3 section be made more transparent for an obvious reason: it seems more opaque than necessary. Maybe degree of opacity could be user selectable.

By the way, is there a file size limit?

Update: _I discovered that the proportions of the images are not what I thought. Not knowing, I measured from what I saw in one instance. So the range of dimensions possible would be useful to know. If I submit an image with width of 850, or 590, what heights are accommodated/will be displayed? The user card I made was about right but that seems to be constrained by the proportions of the card itself. The profile image apparently allows for a range of heights. Ex. user Trohde, who is an OGS Team member - they deservedly may have different allowances - has profile image in proportions ~850x345 (user card looks different too). _