I am completely calm, not sure why you are suggesting otherwise. I am replying to your post and giving you a different perspective in a reasonable and calm manner. Your opinion on the issue is just that, an opinion. Same with mine. I appreciate your personal offer to help and understand the matter, but I simply disagree with your perspective on the matter. I also appreciate that you have taken time to answer, but that is a choice you made. I also appreciate the alternative way to have suggested, which is why I stated "thanks for the suggestion" a few posts up. Not sure why you would suggest otherwise. I was actually hoping for an official reply from IPB staff. If this is how the system is going to work, I will have no option but to look for another forum software, something I would like to avoid. Having to go with a third party rss system seems to be a hassle.
Again, if you get a feed of 100 entries, how does one prevent it from taking over the entire forum with RSS posts in "New Content"? Especially a small forum? Do some people really have a forum with nothing more than RSS posts? It's even worse now that you are unable to filter certain forums from the "New Content" queries. How is limiting the number of latest RSS feeds "misusing the settings"? Is there some official RSS feed usage standards I need to read? It would seem the usage would be highly subjective to the needs of the one using the system. I am certain there are people who use RSS feeds in any number of different ways to suit their individual needs. If IPS wanted to save the server resources on previous versions, why didn't they hard code it in the previous versions in order to limit feed updating? I have been using IPB since 2004 and have been using this feature for nearly as long. It makes more sense to allow the forum owner to decide how often and how many RSS feed posts they want on their forums. How one uses the RSS import system should be left up to the forum owner. It's two settings, which give the site owners the freedom to use the RSS import system according to their specific needs. Doesn't make sense to suddenly remove those features and force everyone into a one size fits all box. I understand IPB is trying to simplify administration, but this one size fits all approach is not working for me.
Why would this have been included in the previous version of IPB and suddenly removed? I have been using it this way for years. In addition, I do control which to choose, the last x amount of the feed imported x amount of times a day. How else could you use a feed on a forum without all the new RSS import posts taking over the "new content" on a small forum? No matter what you were importing? Maybe I am missing something. Thanks for the suggestion, I will give it a shot. Just not sure why IPB thought it would be useful in previous versions and suddenly remove it and say it's no longer a useful feature.
I have been using the RSS feed tool on all my forums for a long time. I usually set it to import a set number of feeds based on the size of the community. I use it to add a little discussion to the site as well as to add some revenue generating posts. I see the ability to explicitly limit RSS imports has been removed from the latest version of IPB. Now my small forums are overrun if I use the RSS import feature. I had a member complaining on this small forum that he can no longer use the site because all he sees is RSS posts. Is there any possibility of bringing back the ability to limit the number and how many times a day the RSS feed feature runs? It won't be much use for smaller forums in it's current implementation. Any way to edit this in the hard code so I can make this feature useful on my smaller communities? Also, is there a way to filter forums from the New Content so we can filter out some forums from showing up?
I would like to be able to limit the number of imports and how many times it runs each day. The reason being, on a forum that is not very active, it's easy for the entire site to be overrun by RSS feed imports. It's nice to get a few new items by the RSS feed without it taking over the entire forum annoying the few active members the site has.
At one time I kept all of my licenses up to date, I did this for years, but after years of extremely poor support (slow, not incompetent), and lack of updates, I found that I was wasting money keeping my licenses up to date. I have to wonder why others see no value in keeping their licenses up to date. Maybe IPB should focus on the reasons why customers see no value in keeping their licenses up to date. I like the idea of paying for the "suite" all at once though, would make it much easier to keep track of as I have far too many licenses already, and it's a PITA to keep track of what licenses are up to date and which are expired.
I currently have the tags hook enabled, but it's quickly growing and will soon contain too many tags to keep it enabled. It would be nice if the admin could limit the number of tags to show in the hook and then arrange it based on the most popular from that limit.
I think IPS might want to fix up their current COPPA system as it leaves site owners open to litigation. It would also be nice to be able to enter your own message into the COPPA field if you wanted to filter and add your own message instead of the COPPA form.
This is getting stupid, what ever happened to parent being responsible for their own children? Shouldn't the parents be the ones who get into trouble when their kids lie and join a site? This world is upside down.
For any forum owner who has a site that may be considered in any way directed at children, even if it's not, the current COPPA verification setup can leave the site owner vulnerable.
From the FTC Website: http://www.ftc.gov/p.../coppafaqs.shtm
39. Can I block children under 13 from my general audience website?
Blocking children under 13 from participating in a general audience, or teen-directed, website does not violate COPPA. However, as described in Question 38, above, should you choose to block children under 13, it is important that you design your age collection input screens in a manner that does not encourage children to provide a false age in order to gain access to your site. If you take reasonable measures to screen for age, then you are not responsible if a child misstates his or her age. For example: Ask age information in a neutral manner at the point where you invite visitors to provide personal information or to create their log-in user ID. In designing a neutral age-screening mechanism, you might consider:
Making sure the data entry point allows users to enter their age accurately. An example of a neutral age-screen would be a system that allows a user to freely enter month, day, and year of birth. A site that includes a drop-down menu that only permits users to enter birth years making them 13 or older, would not be considered a neutral age-screening mechanism since children cannot enter their correct age on that site.
Not encouraging children to falsify their age information, for example, by stating that visitors under 13 cannot participate on your website or should ask their parents before participating. In addition, a site that does not ask for neutral date of birth information but rather simply includes a check box stating “I am over 12 years old” would not be considered a neutral age-screening mechanism.
In addition, we recommend using a temporary or a permanent cookie to prevent children from back-buttoning to enter a different age.
Note, however, that if you ask participants to enter age information, and then you fail to either screen out or obtain parental consent from those participants who indicate that they are under 13, you may be liable for violating COPPA and the Rule.