77 replies to this topic

[bfarber]

Ditchmonkey, on 19 March 2010 - 06:19 PM, said:

So to return to the discussion at hand: I really don't care about social groups or any of these social features that replicate the Facebook experience and I believe all of this stuff should be either official add ons by IPB or third part products. There's no doubt in my mind that IPB is the current industry leader and I'll stick with them even though I don't like some of the directions they are taking.

Trust me, we know where you are coming from. We get feedback from many of our customers that are in the same boat as you (indeed, Lindy feels at times we veer off course towards the social networking functionality too much as well - we treat him as the good anchor that he is).

It's a hard job balancing all of the features we get requested to build. So long as it doesn't impact the overall product and can be shut off, we're open to exploring new areas and trying new things, but we agree that fundamentally we can't add social networking features at the *expense* of our existing line up. Hence why you see stuff like the improved search engine coming in 3.1.

We have a lot of ideas for polishing and improving core functionality that will get more attention in the upcoming releases. There's a lot of stuff we'd like to improve before we get too far into adding much else. But, as I said, it's a balancing act.

[Alex]

Charles, on 19 March 2010 - 03:24 PM, said:

Lack of me: just another way vB users are deprived.

I couldn't agree more.. you're everything everyone is looking for!

Edited by Alex, 19 March 2010 - 08:16 PM.

[Morrigan]

bfarber, on 19 March 2010 - 08:13 PM, said:

But, as I said, it's a balancing act.

I wonder if it involves plates and sticks and do you guys post Youtube videos? *is totally against social groups, I should have complete control over the popular people of my website. I MAKE the popularity on my sites*

[Razasharp]

bfarber, on 19 March 2010 - 05:09 PM, said:

This topic is interesting to me. Almost EVERY converting vBulletin user I've spoken to or heard from has indicated that social groups simply weren't used on their site.

To me, unless your site is intended to specifically be a social networking forum, I don't think your visiting users are going to have much interest in social groups. That's just me. You can call them whatever you want, but the majority of users just don't spend that much time on a random website to bother with "clubs" or "social groups" in my experience.

The problem isn't groups - it was vB's implementation of them (it was almost there mind).

There are lots of community orientated sites that do groups well, I'm sure you're all web-savvy enough to have seen them around (tho they're probably not IPB/vB powered community sites). But of course not every site is suited to them, however, from the 5 (quite different) forum-based sites I run, ALL would benefit from a decent group set-up - tho it's worth pointing out that each site would use them slightly differently.

All I want from a platform like IPB/vB/Druapl - is the tools to let me created the type of site I want. I hate being restricted and forced to do things someone else's way (which is one of the reasons my next two projects are going to be custom builds, using one of the most popular frameworks). I am hoping IP.C is going to be flexible enough to let me do a lot of custom stuff too (Haven't really got round to looking at it yet.)

[Kyanar]

Razasharp, on 19 March 2010 - 08:37 PM, said:

All I want from a platform like IPB/vB/Druapl - is the tools to let me created the type of site I want. I hate being restricted and forced to do things someone else's way (which is one of the reasons my next two projects are going to be custom builds, using one of the most popular frameworks). I am hoping IP.C is going to be flexible enough to let me do a lot of custom stuff too (Haven't really got round to looking at it yet.)

IP.Content or IP.Converge?  Current v1 of Converge is about as flexible as a brick - it passes member data, that's it.  It's also encoded so we can't make it more useful.  v2 is apparently going to be better.  IP.Content is as flexible as you want it to be - I use it (nowhere near to it's fullest potential) and with v2 it will be very very worth it.  I may have to harangue our product team into putting together a fansite or news network just to utilise the cool new articles system.

[.Ian]

Always amuses me when people say 'a feature has never worked for my forum, so it should not be included'.

Every forum is different, and 90% of IPB owners never come onto these forums - yet for all you know 70% of them might benefit from a feature.

I think Razasharp summed it up perfectly...

Quote

All I want from a platform like IPB/vB/Druapl - is the tools to let me created the type of site I want. I hate being restricted and forced to do things someone else's way (which is one of the reasons my next two projects are going to be custom builds, using one of the most popular frameworks).

[Jυra]

You want tools that let you create a site you want, but what happens if you don't like the way it's implemented? You won't have the site you want. You could use a modification or add on to change it, but then you could have an add on or modification to have social groups.

[Panupat]

IPB already gave you all the tools you need.... You download the forum as pure PHP script. There's nothing you cannot do with it.

[Zhana]

Well I'd like social groups on my forum as study groups

[.Ian]

Panupat, on 20 March 2010 - 08:50 PM, said:

IPB already gave you all the tools you need.... You download the forum as pure PHP script. There's nothing you cannot do with it.

you might as well just say ' you have php on your server, why buy a script?'.

So why did you buy ip.board?

[Lewis P]

.Ian, on 25 March 2010 - 04:34 AM, said:

you might as well just say ' you have php on your server, why buy a script?'.

Not really, no.

If there was an option for every single feature possible, then you'd never stop development time and you'd never end up with a product. There has to be a line somewhere where the baton is passed over to mod/application authors who will fill in those gaps as you request them, be that feature one they wish to charge for, or one where they are willing to offer it for free.


-----------

Still, I *could* make a use for 'Social' groups on my site as it will make my job of 'teams' slightly easier to deal with. I'd need the function to be admin/moderator controlled, with an option to turn off members joining them themselves. I'd also need, as an administrator, the access to all the 'group' areas where they can chat amongst themselves. I'd probably then need modifications for topic view etc so that the different members in different groups have a slightly different post/profile look. Going on from that I'd like the ability to have a 'group'/'team' page where it is wiki-styled so the members in that team can edit it to their hearts content describing that group.

See, what I'd have a use for is probably not what... 80% of others want. It just doesn't work.

Edited by Lewis P, 25 March 2010 - 05:07 AM.

[.Ian]

Lewis P, on 25 March 2010 - 05:03 AM, said:

Not really, no.

If there was an option for every single feature possible, then you'd never stop development time and you'd never end up with a product. There has to be a line somewhere where the baton is passed over to mod/application authors who will fill in those gaps as you request them, be that feature one they wish to charge for, or one where they are willing to offer it for free.

tosh

So by your own statement IP.Board never needs altering  - so why is 3.1 being released?

He was simply saying that you do not even need mods or any new features or anything - you might as well be running ip.board 1.

My point is that things always need moving forward and being given good basic tools that can be enhanced is the important factor.

or that is how I read his post.

For example there are several instances where secondary groups are not used both by ip.board and by mods - by properly using primary and secondary groups it allows us to develop further features.

Secondary groups is a good example, which might not be used by all, yet is there and should enable the forums and other software to be used in new ways to enhance the enjoyment of members.

[Lewis P]

I never said that it never needs altering. All I said is that a line needs to be drawn eventually.

If you had a choice between developing the topics/posts feature, or including social groups, what would you choose? The core function of a forum, or something that can be accomplished as a mod (and I believe there is one being developed, no?) a whole lot easier than an entire topics/posts module can be?

[.Ian]

Lewis P, on 25 March 2010 - 05:03 AM, said:

See, what I'd have a use for is probably not what... 80% of others want. It just doesn't work.

20% of IPB users is a large number - and if those 20% are made up of the larger forums, that is an awful lot (millions?) of members of forums that would benefit

so yes it would work for those millions of members who would benefit potentially.

[.Ian]

Lewis P, on 25 March 2010 - 05:17 AM, said:

I never said that it never needs altering. All I said is that a line needs to be drawn eventually.

If you had a choice between developing the topics/posts feature, or including social groups, what would you choose? The core function of a forum, or something that can be accomplished as a mod (and I believe there is one being developed, no?) a whole lot easier than an entire topics/posts module can be?

sure  - but a line was drawn after version 1  - that line is constantly rubbed out and redrawn.

social groups

I would say that some features could be more useful to some people than say twitter, facebook or notifications - that does not mean to say I will not use these - but every forum is different hence making available the best tools to move sites forward and to make them unique - how often have you viewed a VB forum and thought, that is identical to the previous VB forum that I viewed.

Giving admins the best tools can prevent every IPB from looking and functioning the same.  (Michaels skin tool is another good example of a great tool with potential)

[peaderfi]

.Ian, on 25 March 2010 - 05:17 AM, said:

20% of IPB users is a large number - and if those 20% are made up of the larger forums, that is an awful lot (millions?) of members of forums that would benefit

so yes it would work for those millions of members who would benefit potentially.

I think he was specifically referring to the fact that 80% of the users who want social groups would not use it in the way he wants, while only 20% would.

In any case, yes there is a mod being developed by me to implement Social Groups functionality

[Wolf]

Honestly, I think this should be a community project. A lot of people won't use/won't have use for a social groups function managed by IPS. While an unofficial modification is being developed, a lot of people who *NEED* social groups really don't feel comfortable relying on a third party to provide it, regardless of the developer's reputation. To make it a community project is win-win. Users who want the feature and have an active license can download it, and users who don't need it won't have their installation bloated by it. I personally would use them, but I know many others who will not.

[Alfa1]

I am seriously interested in converting my vbulletin big board to IPB. Over the years my board has accumulated a lot of important content that I would like to see converted to IPB.
However, there is a gap in core features that would make me loose vital content. Social Groups is one of these core functions. (reputation comments & points and tags being the others BTW)

On my board they are a big success, because:
- Social Groups allow members to start up new groups, to fill the demand for new forums that we would not add to the main forums.
- Social Groups allow a group of member work on the same project (like the improvement of specific site/forum areas or the assistance of your staff)
- Social Groups allow your members to connect to others with the same interest or demographics.

Even though vbulletins Social Group functionality is extremely basic, they have grown to be a big success and a vital part of my community.

If IPB would create social groups functionality comparable to the social groups of Joomla, PHPFox, Google groups or Usenet then I'm sure such Social Groups functionality would be highly successful on many IPB sites.

I'm not requesting IPB to become more like vbulletin, but I am requesting IPB to add Social Groups functionality that surpasses vbulletins incomplete attempt at Social Groups.

My board can not do without this vast amount of important data associated with this functionality.

Is there any chance that IPB would consider providing this functionality?