Work Arounds... This is a milder example, gets you somewhere although benefits of member page customizations are lost among other things. And then there will be the joy of dealing questions to come after upgrades, when things seem to just disappear, such as the inane decision to simply drop post numbers and not even make them an option. The real issue is the repercussions of deciding that the input of your users isn't important. I will be doing a test later this week but I already see some serious limitations, such as where modules can appear after installation. The original concept was independence and I am not seeing that. And then there are the forum types rather than post types. I won't digress further but it stems from this mentality. I am going to hope for the best but can only urge honest, transparent discussion at this late date.
Agreed, as usual. FYI I don't use a general membership list because my forums are far too large. In general, the way the members page is constructed here and vBulletin is mostly useless. I think it's supposed to be what I've mentioned - a conspicuous place where people can browse and view members. The importance of a membership page and search comes into play when the membership is the draw, e.g. professional forums. In addition, some like to see who the most active members are and most member pages usually allow you to sort. By doing so you can see who posted the most articles and can be the largest influencer, etc. What always surprised me was that for "community" software the forum community pages were terrible. If you go to the "social networking" type scripts you see better iterations. We are talking about the single page, not the search function. Many sites want to have a conspicuous place that shows their community, e.g. here are our 10,000 members, check them out, you'll want to join, find interesting people etc. Many places exhibit this page, fwiw. If you place a function to find members only in search, you will have a small fraction of users even being aware it's actually there. Side point - considering the way search seems to work right now, I'm not sure how useful it is. Are profile fields available to be toggled on and off for advanced search? If it isn't, then you might as well consider the membership search functionality to be well below average and of marginal utility.
Understood and appreciated. I think we are saying different things. If the members list was already in IPS3 then we aren't reinventing the wheel by replicating what has already been done. Now if you're saying that the implementation in IPS 3 was so resource intensive so as to render it more of a problem for any version than a benefit, I completely appreciate the statement. Agreed, better not to have than to have - as is. But in removing the members page entirely, many sites are now left with no "community page" at all. That's not a good solution for sites who are trying to promote their community. And imagine the surprise to those who upgrade without being forewarned. I think some suitable replacement landing page should have been made. This could be as simple as an advanced search interface on top with a short list of top X most active members below, which gets cached every X minutes with no need for pagination beyond the toplist. It could also be a random list of X users based upon having a photo (and perhaps one attribute, e.g. most posts, at least one post, most likes, etc.), refreshed once per hour/day. Any type of "community" page would be acceptable that is within reasonable resource limits, even just a basic toplist that is cached.
Looks like quoting is backwards, unless you want to type responses above quotes and read up instead of down. There is also no button to easily edit quoted posts here (e.g. view source) and rearrange them or break up one quote into multiple quotes... My users will hate this as is. @Philosophie-fr and @We are Borg nailed the issue entirely - there isn't any reason that a very small group of people decided, without any discussion, to remove features available for years -- and it will just serve to tick off users if it's virtually effortless to just add it in . It's very short-sighted for anyone to say "well I don't use it and most of the people I know don't use it so it's gone because it doesn't affect me." The other stuff that has been omitted from IPS4 or very rigidly constructed because of this type of thinking isn't nearly so simple to fix. Another solution : you include the php file that generates the same stock "members page", leave the menu entry and users who don't use it can just delete the menu item. Problem solved. If you want to actually do something useful, make the stock members page able to be sorted by default, e.g. by most active members, and then you've got a "top members" type page. Not rocket science.
Everyone is a smart guy except when it comes to actually answering a question... So... what do communities do who have 10-15 years worth of content that makes reference to post numbers in topics/threads that have always been part of the basic, and visible IPS feature set? Yes, IPS appears ridiculous for removing this basic feature without even telling their customers . Just because you produce software doesn't mean you understand how your customers use it or problems they may have if you remove something conspicuous. And considering some of us build sites and they pay for the software, you'd think they'd want to help us help them selling and evangelizing the software. Pointless = legitimate points raised by many long time forum admins that go unread or ignored. Pointless = your cheerleading. Everyone knows about how long it took for the plugin and mod community here to even begin to show life. If IPS 4 needs to rely on third party development just to continue to get IPS 3 functionality, the room will empty even faster. Or if we start discussing what a site should use for an integrated CMS. So how about we dispense with the slick and get right down to brass tacks...
I think gossip sites are the silliest waste of time - ever. Ever. Yet I absolutely acknowledge them as a huge niche that must be acknowledged as a legitimate customer group that demands attention. There is nothing that I can do to force people to stop wasting time at gossip sites and become more productive. If I make my forum software unusable for that demographic, they will just find another forum software to use, end of story. People have used forum posts in text for 15+ years because it was the way to do it and also easier (not because they were silly or stupid.) The older the forum, the larger and greater chance this has occurred. Sticking your head in the sand to be "progressive" isn't going to change the fact that you have 15 years worth of posts, "hard coded" as text using the "old" method that suddenly become totally useless . There is also the ease in which professional forums may identify posts on a single page in email, etc. I'd take the minute chance that one of my threads might change post numbers than having a big fat zero. The head shaking factor is that many big boards have been around for a very long time and exhibit this behavior. If IPS wants to only focus on new sites and tell their largest and oldest forums to putter off and get a plugin -- hey, that's their decision if it was one. Having been developing sites for a very long time, this is the type of oversight you don't make when you have a dialogue with customers. What's frustrating me is that coming back to the product, I see this type of shortsighted, limited use mindset all over the place. As a result, IPS 3 >> IPS 4 due to foundation, not maturity of the product. PS - And @AtariAge makes several good points. It's a lot easier to say "in Joe's post right above mine (#15)" as opposed to clicking the share button, clicking the hyperlink and either double clicking or using control-A to select all, then making sure you had text to highlight if you want to use anchor text, then highlighting that text, choosing the link icon, pasting the link into the box and pressing save. No need for all those gymnastics.
LOL. "Developing and maintaining" post numbers or just a link in the install to a members page (to avoid all the eventual questions)... yes, resource consuming rocket science. Bold. LOL. Yes, ignore the content people have posted for the past 15+ years on forums that used page numbers. Now I understand why direction here took the turn that it did. Anyone with an attention span of more than 5 minutes has left the building...
When I search I find these at the top: http://community.invisionpower.com/topic/404590-clean-upgrade/ http://community.invisionpower.com/topic/407562-can-i-a-clean-upgrade/ If that particular page is indexed, it's poor SEO not because of the titling. You can title it "404590-nobody-really-cars&query=3453434" and it might not make a huge difference. The issue to me would why such a page wouldn't have a rel=canonical so that only certain types of pages are indexed which would include, by one single reference , all the content on the page.
This is very true. A bare directory you can sort by letter or by number is totally useless on any sizeable community. As others pointed out above, if the search system wasn't so useless the member directory would be more useful. The real purpose of the "members" area - at least to me - is some type of visible landing page which can provide users with some useful place to search for other members. Unless you specifically inform users about how to find users, they will assume they can't do it. And the current search system is very frustrating (such as the seeming inability to properly search for strings by enclosing in quotes.) And the searches I'd actually want to do (by profile field, e.g. type of doctor, type of coder, etc.) may not be offered that would make the IPS search useful. The answer to me wasn't removing the members page entirely but to make it actually usable and meaningful for communities. For example, if you run a professional skateboarding site, it would be fun and useful to have the top members listed by some profile field. For example, most posts/articles in the city/location of the logged in user. I'm from Chicago. I hit the "members" page and I see all the boarders from my hood, most active down. Joe_from_Chicago Latest Articles Latest Posts While some forums don't care, many "communities" really would care. And isn't this community called a "community" here for a reason? How about a coders forum where a profile field prioritized is your core development language. And then on the members page you get to see all the top members who have contributed the most articles/posts to "PHP"? I don't understand the thinking behind removing options entirely, including post numbers. To me it feels like thinking in a small box that is in a much larger box. If you want to remove a stock user's landing page that doesn't have all this jazz, easy enough. I just wouldn't remove it and consider it not useful. Thank you for any consideration.
So how does on intuitively break up this quote easily to answer each point? Whatever. Maybe I'll tell my users what you told me - if you're not going to be progressive, you can cling to the security of your limited silliness. Not . And it appears you didn't actually think about my example in the 32 milliseconds of time it took you to read and type. Ah... hubris. Perhaps you're much younger than myself. Some of us have actually been running forums close to the dark ages, back when the thing called "the World Wide Web" began. That's the silly "www" you see at the beginning of some wasteful people's websites. Backlinks looked really ugly and didn't auto-shorten with pretty little icons at the beginning of URLs. Post numbers were used very often and still are in certain niches, demographics and certain by ages. Unfortunately, very few were as keenly brilliant and insightful as you are and they posted many years worth of silly/crappy looking URLs.
Hmmm.... So trying to just post in an old IPS URL results in just a topic "Driver Error" in this Release Candidate. No useful information whatsoever displayed in this rather large waste of space. And the "share" URL goes to the wrong post. So I will have to post in a URL with spaces because doing the simplest, most obvious action doesn't work any more. Fail . ht tp://community.in visionpower.com/topi c/297903-driver-error/#comment-1874433 Hmmm... looks like IPS customers weren't that smart back then either... Now in that forum post (which IPS now calls a "topic" in search so as to be indecipherable from "articles") user Bubba says: So there were two problems, the first was the issue as it was concerning the Messenger and that was fixed by IPS Staff. The second pictured in post number 6 is a bug in 3.0.4 that is a false report and has been fixed in 3.0.5 so if you see that but your board is not broke dont worry about as it will magically go away on the next update. The disease of refusing to provide post numbers is worse than the cure. Most of us can't "upgrade" to a site whose most obvious features are no longer present. And no forum owner wants to be paying yet more money after IPS 4 upgrade costs for unofficial third party plugins for visible functionality which was (for many years) and still should be in the software. I will assume that this was a most unusual oversight by the IPS team which they will correct and include, at the very least, as an option in the admin CP. PS - Yes, I donated enough of my valuable time here to give feedback. But when it was clear there was no discussion, I lost interest, especially after someone promised that IPS would have a beta to show us definitely no later than the very beginning of 2014. IP.C is a shadow of its former self and not a viable upgrade. And I sure wasn't going to pay to renew my IPS 3 licenses in 2013 just so that I could donate yet more of my valuable time - which I did on the test site and gave a list of a dozen items wrong with the Gallery module which received no answer from IPS and many users in agreement. Compelling enough for you?
One more question -- without post numbers, what is a forum owner supposed to do if he/she has 10 years worth of references to forum post numbers which are no longer visible? There is no way to convert text that refers to post numbers easily that I can see, e.g. "see what I'm talking about in post numbers 2 and 5 on this page." No post numbers means these useful posts are now deemed ridiculously difficult for users to follow (who will have to count posts from the top of the page and try to remember which number is which.) There is no way this can be any type of proper release without post numbers included, at least as an option or some type of promise that support will convert all those post number references to this new system.
I wish - Not in the slightest. Hard to believe anyone would do this, especially if you understand how people use forums. Forcing them to do it your way is ridiculous and the simple is now impossible, e.g. see post 3,4 and 8 Above. I have already discovered that the cms / IPC isn't anywhere close to usable after waiting for years. Installing modules also is limited to subdirectory only. There are other innovations in the structure of the forum type options which are so rigid so as to make one wonder. Talking with active, experienced users is essential. Thinking you've invented the a new wheel and discussing it with no one before release is usually not a good idea.
If this is the case, which I cannot believe it is, then I am truly frightened to see what other innovations await discovery. Hopefully someone at IPS will chime in since this really will throw people for a huge loop in certain communities.
This is a release candidate and I'd use that term very loosely here. You gotta be nuts to use it and I would recommend using a backup from your 3.4.7 site instead of trying to make this work. Priority is certainly on getting it to work far before upgrade issues like this as well - just guessing. Good luck.
Tried to login here after being a member several years. The rest explains itself. Hmmm... so let us use the display name and/or email address that doesn't belong to any account and reset that password.... Hmmm... it would appear that this is either a bug or a message that isn't accurate.... or both a bug and an inaccurate message, probably the latter as the account and email address are active but the password was wrong. Probably should say "account or the password for the account is incorrect."