Actually, most of the social networks mentioned work on a friends system with follow being the default setting. Every user has the ability to limit their content to just people who they follow or mutual friend request. For example, an instagram user can set their profile to private, but if they add you and you add them, then you can see each other's food pics. Twitter, Vine, Facebook, and Google+ work the same way. Tumblr is follow only but followbacks are an important part of the culture there, so it seems to be a missing feature. You can follow me on Facebook, but unless I accept a friend request from you, you won't see anything. Having both is not confusing at all. They are different tools for different jobs. I'd say that most users understand the difference. Context is also important here. Most of us aren't going to be building the next Facebook, however one of us could be building a niche site where privacy and user discretion is needed. That's where the importance of the friends system comes in.
YES. I've been trying, with some success I think, to convert to something more like a magazine site that just has a forum attached. I think I've gotten about as far as I can get on that path with the current software. I have 2 other sites in the concept stage right now. The URLs are purchased, but the sites exist on paper only. If I go with IPS for these two sites, there is a very good chance they will not include the forum module at all. My big hang up is the lack of the friends system which may force me into another software platform. I don't really want to do that because I'm comfortable in the IPS system.
@esquire brings up another good point. Privacy at the big guys. I've had at least 6 of my closer friends quit Facebook over the last few months over concerns of privacy. Not privacy among the people in their friends list, but privacy from Facebook (the company) itself. Those people still have social interests online. There are likely sites out there to fill that need.
You are right, you are not developing any of those social networks. You are developing software to run social communities. We admins are the ones building the next instagram or facebook or tumblr and we are trying to use your software to do it. However the software lacks the flexibility to do it. Lindy, it is really interesting that you say this: And then this ... in the same post. You've misinterpreted my statement about the ability to add friends the same way facebook does into thinking I want a full facebook, youtube, google+, instagram replacement from the IPS suite. I am not aiming nor asking for that. You are wrong about needing to distribute such a package on DVD.... clones of all of them plus many more are available in the Softlicious installer today. ----------------------- Except you are when you say things like: "I'm personally a believer in leveraging social networks, not duplicating them" "if your site becomes about cliques and private content .... what's the incentive for remaining on it when virtually everyone already has Facebook if they want to converse " There are certain niches that users would not want to share with their friends and family on facebook. Entirely separate social networks that operate like facebook but are separate are entirely appropriate here. Addiction social networks, adult themed social networks, emotional support social networks, health support group social networks are all scenarios that come to mind. If someone wants to join an alcoholics anonymous support group... Facebook is the very LAST place they are going to want to do that and having privacy controls via the friends feature is going to be a very important feature of such a site. ------------------------ Here is what I think bothers me by far; The lack of vision of what IPS software could be. Your entire last paragraph, Lindy, indicates to me that you are maintaining that "We build forum software" mentality even though IPS 4.0 is clearly moving beyond that. You mention that your enterprise customers don't seem to care about a friends feature... well of course not! They are happily running their forums as is and are likely to continue doing so for a while. Enterprise customers also tend to lack imagination. "That's the way we've always done it" is not a valid reason for continuing to do it when there is the potential for so much more. And here is the irony that bothers me so much. The bones of 4.0 are such that it could absolutely be the basis for another Facebook, Pintrest, Instagram, Vine, youtube, or Tumbler in functionality if not size. I've toyed around enough with 4.0 to realize just how much potential there is in the code to be any or all of the above. Sure it would take other plug-ins and mods from the marketplace, but all of the important stuff is there. With one crippling caveat....... no friend system. I am fairly certain, that with a 4.0 RC6 install with Gallery, Pages and maybe Blogs, I could build a functioning Tumblr, Vine, Instagram, or Pintrest clone today.... However, it is missing a friends system. Missing that ability, missing that flexibility, means that there is no way to build the software to perform the way end users expect it to perform. Friends system is an essential bone of this software that really shouldn't be handled by a 3rd party app. Adding a friends system will not cause huge (any?) amounts of server overhead. Please... think outside the forum. I can see the huge non-forum potential in 4.0, it surprises me that you don't seem to.
This. I think this is the essence of what most here who are "Pro-Friend" are arguing for. The technical mechanics may vary slightly... but in the end, I think this is what we/they are aiming for. Lacking that ability is a substantial limitation to a suite that is supposed to be incredibly flexible. It takes a substantial number of site concepts away from being able to be run on 4.0. The "it's a forum, everyone can see what the admin wants them to see" permissions concept is an antique. End users today expect some level of control over who sees their content because they have used that ability with Facebook, Instagram, Linked-In, Vine, Google+, and enumerable others. You broke the forums out of the core so that it is not just forum software with add-ons into a new software where it is core + whatever flexible features we admins want. Let us use it that way.
Boatload of assumptions there about how we admins run our communities. Here are the flaws in these assumptions that I see: Not all communities are public, some are quite locked down to outside viewers. It has been discussed at length, but friends v followers is very different levels of control. Anyone can follow you Lindy, but can you restrict what we see? Gallery currently has the feature that allows gallery sharing only with "friends" (so the assertion that friends does nothing currently is false) and a rather obvious addition to that could be users setting up a blog or downloads that are only visible to friends. If I "friend" you it is because I want you to be able to view certain content that I post that I don't want the general public to see. It is a positive granting of permission . There are plenty of communities types where user control over who sees that user's posts is very important. Sites specializing in emotional support, adult oriented sites, artwork and authoring sites, Instagram style sites, and recovery and addiction sites are just a few that I can think of in the 10 minutes it is taking me to type this. What many admins are keen on dictates the way the rest of us have to run our sites? Really? I've seen this idea before that IPS seems to assume all of the content on all of our sites is meant for general public consumption... or at least consumption for all members of that site. That may be the case for many sites, but certainly not all sites.
This happened in the 3.4.7 -> RC5 upgrade. I was told these errors were fixed in RC5a however I did not attempt to do an upgrade to that. I have now completed a 3.4.7 -> RC6 upgrade and got the exact same results. Perhaps additional investigation is in order? Previous bug report errors copied from that bug report as they were identical. One of the errors did not make an encore. ------------------------------------------------------ This is my 3rd upgrade from 3.4.7 to an RC. I did not have any errors during my previous upgrades: Table 'ddowdell_4dot.ipb2ccs_custom_database_1' doesn't exist /home/ddowdell/public_html/4dot/applications/cms/setup/upg_40000/upgrade.php::460 I hit continue and get to (no error txt.. just the following)
/home/ddowdell/public_html/4dot/system/Db/Db.php::1365 I hit continue and then the upgrade finishes... The upgrade appears..... unsuccessful. No styles are being applied http://4dot.cheersandgears.com/"
Before anyone asks... yes I used the correct files.