I disagree to be honest, having tried them both I've seen no situations where SFS flags positive, and many situations where the Invision system misses very obvious spammers who have been listed in SFS and ProjectHoneypot many times.
Also, the implementation of the spam flagging is very messy within the AdminCP at the moment, flagging a user as a spammer when viewing the validation queue only seems to remove them from the queue, you then have to reflag them within the normal member view to get them properly moved into the spammer group, and the same applies the other way around as well..
After being sold the enterprise spam service on a ticket and pointed towards the announcement on the company blog in June for details,( '?do=embed' frameborder='0' data-embedContent>> ), I have to admit that we're really disappointed in the fact that it's not actually complete, and were only told this after we'd paid.
This is the section from the blog
The product does work but doesn't yet include any option for changing weighting preferences or black/whitelisting. I don't really understand why it would be announced as having these features if they weren't ready, I also can't see why 5 months later it's still not complete or why it's being sold as if it is. What's going on with it, and when can we expect the product we've paid for to be available in it's entirety?
What he's responding to is the request from Matt to get as many people bug testing as possible, you're right you may get duplicates and reports of non-existent bugs but the idea would be that you'd also have a lot more people testing which should also mean you get a lot more legitimate reports too.
Matt, perhaps you could look at offering a scheme for licence holders who are prepared to do as you suggest with a discount on their licence when they're actively testing new releases and reporting bugs?
Most people running businesses and websites are obviously going to be against spending too much time on things which aren't their core activity, and when buying a commercial product will have the expectation that in the main it should work out of the box anyway, but if there were a reciprocal arrangement in place maybe more would be prepared to do some testing?
Is this thread starting to miss the point a little? I understand there are many with a more technical knowledge in terms of the workings of the editor and the options surrounding that but the long and short story really has to be that the editor just works.
We know there is a very broad range of user types out there - some are power users, some are completely uncomfortable with any type of technology and many are something in between. Although it's potentially a massively complex thing to achieve, it's a fundamental part of any community so it has to work for all users. What does work mean? In my opinion it needs to:
Be a true WYSIWYG editor - what the users sees in the editor needs to translate to what their post ends up as. It's not this at the moment, there's still a mix of wysiwyg and code which displays depending on what the user is putting into their post.
BBCode needs to work out of the box - it's widely used on forum software and more importantly widely used on some major sites with forum embed codes. I see no reason to phase it out other than the complexity of making it work with the editor software currently being used - this isn't how development should work. Phasing something out needs to be based on what users are using and the fact is that BBcode is still widely known and used.
HTML needs to work out of the box - it's not something a lot of communities use right now, but the additional flexibility, particularly for more technical forums makes it worth having.
Documentation needs to drastically improve. Any changes will confuse users, many users probably don't understand how the editor works even now, but all this can be solved by offering a much more user friendly and accessible help page for the editor with screenshots, examples, maybe even video.
Customisation - allow community admins to select which features are available within the editor - they are the ones best placed to understand what their membership will use or not.
The more complex the editor gets, the more important it is that it remains simple for anyone to use which at this time isn't what we have. The editor is quite complicated, doesn't always publish posts in the way that the user expects and has some bugs which end up with code being displayed and functions that people have got used to using not working properly.
I hope this ever more complex plan to re-invent the editor doesn't result in it going through a prolonged phase of broken functionality as there will come a point where users stop posting, and that's where communities will start to struggle.
I don't think the discussion here needs to be about whether an app is a good idea, IPB know clearly that apps will add something to the suite, and to their customer's communities as they've been trying to develop them for the last 2 years. The fact that they have failed to do so doesn't make the apps a bad idea which aren't worth pursuing, and to suggest that they are at this point is a bit disingenuous.
Personally I don't think it's the way forward - it's all well and good admitting something hasn't worked and re-focussing existing staff on what they're good at. But we're not talking an insignificant thing here, it's mobile, apps are huge and are highly likely to continue to grow, they offer both technical advantages and usability advantages, and as has already been said they add another element to marketing a site/business/community via the marketplaces.
Most web developers and companies with a significant online presence in one form or another are investing heavily in mobile, and in particular apps - it's either incredibly brave or more likely foolhardy to ignore that and go a different way. I imagine that all IPB's competitors who have maybe lost market share in recent years because of IPB's progress may be reading this blog entry and getting quite excited at the opportunity it presents them.
Sometimes putting your hands up and admitting that you can't do something is the way forward, but if that something happens to be the major growth area on the internet and probably the way the majority of people will spend their time online in the years to come I'm not so sure.
This could be very useful, we already use a cdn but having the functionality to refresh new content out of the box will save a few workarounds we've had to put in place. Will you be releasing info on the cdn(s) you're using and their networks as obviously not all cdn's are equal...
That's not actually true, the directive applies to any website being used by EU citizens. Clearly though if your business is outside of the EU and has no legal entity in the EU then then it's going to be hard to enforce it, but if you're based in Europe and your users are coming from the EU then it doesn't matter where your servers are hosted.
With the best will in the world Lindy, we're talking about a fairly important point, it was a discussion about a change in the law and Matt said that IPB had a solution which would be implemented in 3.3.2, it also made it into at least one beta version and was used on these forums.
Dress that up any way you like but I don't think it's unreasonable to ask for better communication when it comes to something that isn't a trivial matter.
We've been customers for something like 7 years now, and we're really disappointed with IPS of late, it's all the more frustrating as the software is pretty good in the main but something just isn't right & of all the 3rd party suppliers we spend money with, IPB are without doubt top of our 'wish we could find an alternative' list, sad really.