Well, this is a bit disappointing for me, as people on my forum refer to posts by the post number all the time. Often someone will ask me directly (as admin for the forum) to do something to a specific post number in a thread. Not everyone knows you can click on the post number to get a link to that post. And not everyone is going to know that in IP4 you can click on the "share" icon to get a link to the post. And I'm sure there are tons of references on my site to specific post numbers. Sure, post numbers may change when a topic is moderated in some fashion, but that is rare overall, and especially so for older threads. This does make me wonder how many such omissions there are in IPS 4.0. I'll have to upgrade a copy of my forum to the latest RC so I can compare 4.0 to 3.4.7 side-by-side.
Yes, this is a good point--when creating a new forum I often have to mass move relevant topics into the newly created forum. During operations such as this, I'm primarily doing searches on titles to find the bulk of the topics I want to move. ..Al
Yeah, I noticed that as well, which is disappointing. This is an advanced search page. It should have advanced options. If I know the topic or post I'm looking for contains specific words, I ONLY want results that contain all of those words. Otherwise the potential results can be staggeringly large , potentially making the results useless.
I just saw this topic for the first time, and then I went and took a look at the advanced search page. I'd like to chime in that I use "Only search in titles" VERY OFTEN on my forum. I have over three million posts on my forum, and sometimes I need to find a specific topic, versus wading through potentially hundreds (or thousands) of posts looking for that one bit of information I need. Many times, the term or terms I'm looking for may occur very frequently in posts, but less often in the titles. Being able to search only the titles gives me a much smaller result set to help narrow down my search. This works especially well when the topic starter has put some thought into their title. Please do not dumb down the search system. Comparing the 4.0 advanced search page with the 3.4.x advanced search page, I can see that several options have been removed. I've stated this before and I will state it again. Being able to search and find content on a forum is a critically important feature. Please do not dumb down the advanced search because you feel it's not worthwhile. The better the advanced search tools are in helping me (and others) narrow down the results, the faster I can find what I'm looking for. I need to install Beta 6 of this software on a copy of my existing forum and do some search tests side-by-side. I will not upgrade to 4.0 if the search system is noticeably worse. ..Al
Your argument immediately falls apart given Invision has released this (and other) security patches against 3.3.x AND 3.4.x. Security patches are "special" as far as bug fixes go. I'm not suggesting that Invision back port (or even test) regular bug fixes against older versions of their software. But when you have a ton of clients a version or two behind, I do expect them to test security patches against those versions, and to be clear in their release notes what versions the patches have been tested against. In an ideal world, everyone would upgrade their forum in a timely manner . But that's not how it works in the real world, unfortunately, and responsible companies will make reasonable efforts to make security patches work against recent prior versions of their software. This is especially true for public facing software, such as forum software, where an exploit in the wild can easily cause many unpatched forums to be compromised. This is the first patch I've seen from Invision that specifically stated it was only for the latest version (in this case 3.4.7). In the past, they've just labeled them as "3.3.x" and "3.4.x". Hence, why I wanted to get confirmation that it works against 3.4.5, and judging from the posts here, I am not alone. It's unfortunate that I have to rely on user reports to get confirmation, rather than from Invision themselves. ..Al
Personally, I feel it is irresponsible for IPS to not maintain several prior versions of their software for applying patches of this nature, most especially for security-related patches. Not everyone is going to be running the latest version of the software, for one reason or another. It would not take much time for Invision to have version 3.4.5 and 3.4.6 running on one of their virtual servers and to apply these patches to make sure there are no obvious issues. This practice is very common with software patches of this nature--they usually are tested against the latest version (of course), as well as one or more versions back. Given how much I'm paying Invision every year, I don't feel this is unreasonable at all. ..Al
Previous patches have been marked as for "3.4.x" and I've installed them without problems. This is the first one I've seen explicitly marked for 3.4.7 (or previously, 3.4.6), which is why I asked the question. Unfortunately, upgrading to 3.4.7 is quite a time consuming progress, as I have a forum with over three million posts, several custom skins, several hooks and applications installed, and several code modifications. It is not something I can even contemplating doing at the moment.. ..Al