Javascript Disabled Detected

You currently have javascript disabled. Several functions may not work. Please re-enable javascript to access full functionality.

Welcome to IPS!

Feel free to browse our community to get a feel for how our community software operates. Post in the pre-sales forum with any questions you have before purchasing or use the Test Posting forum to post a few messages yourself! You can also get a free demo to try the IPS Community Suite yourself.

Already an active IPS client?

2 votes

IP.Board 3.1.0 Dev Update: Profile Customization (II)

Posted by Matt, in Beta, 3.1.0 19 February 2010 · 506 views

We recently blogged about our new profile customization options. I've made a few updates since and wanted to update you on them.

As you may already be aware, we have added Twitter integration into IP.Board 3.1. This enables you to 'connect' your Twitter account to your forum account to share links, status updates and to allow you to use your Twitter photo on the board.

I've taken this a step further and added an option to allow you to import your Twitter background preferences to your profile:

Posted Image

My test Twitter account with using a different Twitter theme

Posted Image

The background preferences (img and color) imported into IP.Board

Posted Image

The preferences control panel

I've also added a few handy links to the Profile Customization control panel. These links allow you to revert all customizations, remove just the background image and load your profile to see the changes:

Posted Image

I've also included a quick way to remove your own customizations while viewing your profile:

Posted Image

And if you are a "Super Moderator", then you remove and remove and disable customizations on any profile you view:

Posted Image

We hope that you enjoy this feature and allowing Twitter to set your background further personalizes your board profile and re-enforces your own personal brand.

bfarber
Feb 23 2010 11:03 AM

Razasharp, on 22 February 2010 - 12:59 PM, said:

That's an excellent point - and actually one I address in another way. Withhold the first post from guests. If people want the info posted on our boards the least they can do is register. Noticed a big increase not just in registrations, but more people log-in everyday too now (even if you take away the new registrations). So I guess even tho some may have resented registering, overall we are getting more regular users and activity because of it. (And we don't have to give FB free advertising in the process *grin*)

Of course there are pros and cons - but it works well for us.

So whether you allowed FBC oor not would be irrelevant, because I'd never have found your site in the first place.

2) If I DID come across your site, and had to register to see the first post, I simply would have hit back and gone to the next result in Google. I don't have time to waste just to *see* if your site has the information I need. I wasn't in the mood to start registering on 50 sites hoping one would have information.

At some point you diminish the experience for the most common users: guests. If a guest does not have an enjoyable experience on your site, or if it's too hard for a guest to do what they want, they are just going to leave. You're going to get many more membership conversions by making guests happy (or having something extremely exclusive they can only get from your site). In this instance, I would have simply left your site and never returned.

I personally don't consider forums and facebook to be competition. I use both and neither is exclusive. I go to Facebook to socialize with friends, primarily friends that I haven't seen in a very long time, friends that don't use the internet as much as I do, etc. I also stay in touch with family on Facebook. I use forums to discuss subject-specific content. i.e., I discuss IPB and coding here. I wouldn't go to Facebook to discuss IPB with my mother. I'm not going to post pictures of my brother doing something stupid here.

Razasharp
Feb 23 2010 06:39 PM

bfarber, on 23 February 2010 - 04:03 PM, said:

1) You lose all search engine optimization in this manner, unless you decide to go underhanded and "cloak" (that is, show different result to search engines than you do to humans). Cloaking can get you banned entirely from search engines.

In that respect, your site would never have come up in the search results anyways for me. ;) So whether you allowed FBC oor not would be irrelevant, because I'd never have found your site in the first place.

2) If I DID come across your site, and had to register to see the first post, I simply would have hit back and gone to the next result in Google. I don't have time to waste just to *see* if your site has the information I need. I wasn't in the mood to start registering on 50 sites hoping one would have information.

At some point you diminish the experience for the most common users: guests. If a guest does not have an enjoyable experience on your site, or if it's too hard for a guest to do what they want, they are just going to leave. You're going to get many more membership conversions by making guests happy (or having something extremely exclusive they can only get from your site). In this instance, I would have simply left your site and never returned..

You're making a number of presumptions there Brandon.

How do you know my site doesn't rank well? I could be a hot SEO consultant for all you know. Let's just say my sites do pretty well, and any sacrifices we do make by withholding first post, we offset elsewhere. Not saying they're seo'd to the max either - just we're happy with their position right now, enough for me to confidently say that if you were searching for a topic and we have a thread about it, there's a good chance you'd find our site.

We're aware that many people will just click away (c'mon did you really think we'd think otherwise?). But we know that we get just as many visitors along with more registrations this way. So if some people want to close the window and find another site that's fine by me.

Are there other implications and considerations? Of course - but I'd like to think we've thought of them and mitigated or offset wherever possible. On balance we're fine with how we're doing things right now. Although I know it's not for everyone - for people who don't now what they're doing, it would be a mistake.

Razasharp
Feb 23 2010 07:56 PM

Can I also just quickly add that while I still think FB is competition, and I still think they're hurting smaller sites - I do think most of the damage is done now. Just think we ought to be a little cautious, that's all.

And I have been looking at the latest dev blog posts (that Charles posted in another thread) and I do like how you guys are going about things.

...so much so that I am beginning to come round to the idea. (Although if I did turn it on I would monitor the situation very closely

bfarber
Feb 24 2010 10:39 AM

For what it's worth, I think every admin should run their site the way they feel their site should be run. I'm not saying you're doing anything "wrong" by handling things in such a manner. I was merely relaying my personal opinions from a visitor perspective if I were to run into such a situation.

I gather that you already realized that, however.

Sinistra
Feb 26 2010 11:07 AM

I love this feature! Now I have a question can we posibly get a way to alter the complete profile pave (Css, logos,tabs)

Mastah
Mar 02 2010 05:05 PM

I would like more to allow my members permission to add a new background image or change the background color of their blogs. It's much more important for them than this stupid new profile page feature...

Think about it, dear developers!