226 replies to this topic

[rastaX]

This program tries so hard not to be like other CMS's that it completely misses the point of a CMS.

That is to quickly and easily create places to add and display CONTENT.

Sure, IP.Content in the right hands is capable of lots of things. But the work needed to get there is daunting to most. Not to mention the skill. Most people don't have the ability or time to create content display systems from the ground up.

Most people require something ready made that has just enough flexibility to allow them to customize it to their specific needs.

Columns, blocks and a content creation module.

It's a well known, easy to use framework that will allow most anybody to create any number of ways to display content.

Throw navigation, some feeds such as recent this or that in the narrow column, and display your content in the main column. That, my friends is what I believe most people really need out of this type of application.
Create a reviews system. Boom, start posting reviews.
Create a recipe system. Boom start posting recipes.
Create a video system. Boom, start posting videos.

Most of this is kinda doable right now. The big missing link is the ability to drop in a content creation module.

I don't know about you, Charles, but frankly I get totally lost when it comes to the whole database thing. I am just not sure how to go about creating the framework to store, create and categorize content. I kinda think it is a bit much of you guys to expect that from most people.

IP.Content lacks the modularity most people feel comfortable with. It is essentially an anything-is-possible-as-long-as-you-know-how-to-do-it-from-scratch type of program in a modular drag and drop type of world.

[ZakRhyno]

I would have to agree with RastaX. The database part is something I don't fully understand.

[bfarber]

Can working website types or the 'A to Z' complete walkthrough equivalent be submitted by IPS or agents designated or commisioned by it, since it's been numerous times told it would be so very easy and quick to produce it with that veterancy?

This documentation has been available for quite some time. Since 2.0 was released, actually.

http://community.inv...content-20-r448

This is an "A-Z Walkthrough" of how to build an entire website in IP.Content (the default demo site from 2.0, specifically). I can respect that this may not help you specifically, because you have different end goals, but that's exactly what Charles was mentioning in his last reply. No body wants the same end website, so following a tutorial how to create a site in IP.Content is only as useful as your abilities to then customize it afterwards so that it suits you specifically.

I don't really see how "website types" help. If you mean "custom databases" we can look into importing/exporting of them in a future version (it's on my radar, but lower priority than things like template import/export, which was added in 2.1) but I don't honestly think that's what you are asking. I think you are asking for the ability to import and export basically an entire website, and my question is then ... why? Who do you think is going to export their entire custom website they made in IP.Content and share it? People share web templates frequently, but people do not tend to share their entire website with everyone. It may sound like a nice idea because it makes you think "I could then just import an entire website to get started" but the problem is - no one will create and export their websites in the first place, so the whole feature would be pointless.

We cannot spend our time building websites for people, I'm afraid, so I don't think we would live up to the expectation that we would be creating custom websites and exporting them.

This program tries so hard not to be like other CMS's that it completely misses the point of a CMS.

That is to quickly and easily create places to add and display CONTENT.

Sure, IP.Content in the right hands is capable of lots of things. But the work needed to get there is daunting to most. Not to mention the skill. Most people don't have the ability or time to create content display systems from the ground up.

Most people require something ready made that has just enough flexibility to allow them to customize it to their specific needs.

Columns, blocks and a content creation module.

It's a well known, easy to use framework that will allow most anybody to create any number of ways to display content.

Throw navigation, some feeds such as recent this or that in the narrow column, and display your content in the main column. That, my friends is what I believe most people really need out of this type of application.
Create a reviews system. Boom, start posting reviews.
Create a recipe system. Boom start posting recipes.
Create a video system. Boom, start posting videos.

Most of this is kinda doable right now. The big missing link is the ability to drop in a content creation module.

I don't know about you, Charles, but frankly I get totally lost when it comes to the whole database thing. I am just not sure how to go about creating the framework to store, create and categorize content. I kinda think it is a bit much of you guys to expect that from most people.

IP.Content lacks the modularity most people feel comfortable with. It is essentially an anything-is-possible-as-long-as-you-know-how-to-do-it-from-scratch type of program in a modular drag and drop type of world.

Honestly, it just comes down to documentation (and perhaps some video tutorials). It is extremely easy to create these things on a basic level (and not very hard to take them to a more advanced level, if you know HTML/CSS which is a bit of a necessity when you are building webpages). We are looking to improve documentation and tutorials and hopefully that will help some of your concerns.

Most people, with a basic CMS, want to create a few webpages for their site. Maybe an "About Us" page or a "Contact Us" page or a list of latest news to show on their homepage. All of this can be done in under 5 minutes in IP.Content (provided you already have the copy for the page) if you know how. Again, hopefully documentation will show you how these things can be done - it's really not hard. You walk through a wizard that helps you create a page and that's basically all there is to it.

[Tanax]

This program tries so hard not to be like other CMS's that it completely misses the point of a CMS.

I was under the impression that IPC isn't a CMS.

[Shadow Wolf]

Documentation here would be ideal and relatively simple, as well as a "Quick Start" guide so that people who have limited time to work on stuff will be able to jump right into it. We are eager to see the new versions of course, but without setting some priorities on what you're trying to accomplish, I find it difficult to keep my attention on IPC when other products have integration with IPB and simply work with less frustration and time than using IPS' own software solution.

This is the one comment I find funny. Sorry not specifically directing this at a single user, "just quoting the part about the documentation so people can jump right into it". This seems to be a constant theme of what people want. HOWEVER it is not what they are asking. NO ONE wants simple instructions that gets them working out of the box. The reason is because there hasn't been one person who has posted on this thread who uses IP.Content like any other same user.

Since IP.Content 2.x out of the box it works and functions as an article system. It even had a demo site. With IP 2.1 they changed the demo to use your IP.Board wrapper. Install. Start making articles, no configuration and it is initiative. It is that simple. Boom they can add 'Content'.

The problem is even though that is what people are asking for, it isn't what they want. Now they want instructions to use the database. Now they want instructions on how skin it. Now they want instructions on how to get X to display, instead of Y. How to create a 'custom' navigation bar, etc. These requests aren't about simply using the product, these requests are the result of wanting to use features of the product that the 'user' probably doesn't even have an idea how to incorporate it. They just see it, they want to use it. So they ask for direction and help.

People can not create 'generic' documentation. It already exists. They want more precise information. But the main issue is what 'User X' wants 'User Y' wants differently. Most of the questions about layout, design, that is just simple CSS and HTML and there are already documentation on that all over the web. The database is a bit more trickier and most users don't even use it.

IP.Content is not a CMS. It has the makings to become a CMS and has a good foundation to move beyond a CMS, however it is not a CMS. You have the ability to create dynamic content for your community with IP.Content. But most people 'ask for a generic template (which it has)' but they really want something more complex.

It has come a long way. Has the users help define the direction, it tends to point the direction that IP.Content goes. Like the recent addition of 'Widgets' and 'Demo' site using the IPB Wrapper instead of not.

However when it comes to the hours I spent making Joomla and Wordpress databases compatibility with IP.Board, member databases sync up only to have to redo it every update. I'm sorry it doesn't matter how many features they have. When it comes down to it most users don't realize they are using Joomla/Wordpress as a blog, post articles or various videos/text content. IP.Content does that already and I don't have to spend hours trying to sync up member databases.

[Echelon One]

I bought IP.Content awhile ago, but it's only been lately that I have really got my hands around it. Now, I have used vBulletin's vBcms, which is very limited compared to what can be achieved with IPC, plus it doesn't create over 100+ queries per page!! If you can code in simple HTML, then you can use IPC.

I started off with a simple CSS/HTML template, which I then started by adding it to IPC, got it all working just like any other standard HTML page. After this I started adding PHP and jQuery, which is probably throws most people off, since unless you know how to reference MySQL variables through PHP, you will end up with limited results.

It is very easy if you can use a program like Dreameweaver, which will produce the code for you. IPC does make life a lot easier and can produce some clever stuff, but it may be quite a steep learning curve for someone that knows nothing about coding at all.

To me, IPC is probably one of the better products that IPS has developed, apart from IPB itself. Everything I have done in IPC, I haven't yet got on public view, mainly because I'm skinning my whole forum and integrating my own header and footer in to the design.

[.Ian]

I was under the impression that IPC isn't a CMS.

I seem to recall when it was first introduced it was made clear that it is not a CMS, however earlier in this thread (I think) Brandon called it a CMS - so maybe that has changed.

[bfarber]

We have made it a point NOT to refer to IP.Content as a CMS, because the term "CMS" has certain connotations and everyone has certain things they expect a "CMS" to do. At the end of the day, CMS stands for "Content Management System", so in reality, anything that allows you to manage your content is a "CMS". Does that make IP.Content a CMS? Yes, technically. But we prefer to avoid that terminology lest we begin getting into arguments about "it doesn't have x feature so it's not a CMS", etc. We're not really interested in the terminology. We're interested in the end result.

[ZakRhyno]

While IPS is not trying to make a CMS. Why not make a hybrid of a CMS to a simple degree. Like the blocks that are made in IPC. How about giving the block a name after it is made. Then for the simpler people whom don't know coding that well. How about make a two or three layer CSS or HTML template that allows the user to apply drag and drop blocks so when the page is made the blocks show on the output HTML page. So people would really make a new pages, add what blocks they want, drag and drop to where they want it at then save and load new page. If the user wants to do more with a page that option is still there and can be done with what IPC does not. Simple, Easy, Covers all parts from high coders to non-coding skill people.

Always trying to make IPS better
Zak

[bfarber]

1) I don't see drag n drop as being all that useful, myself, although I understand some customers who are not familiar with HTML would find it helpful in creating pages.

2) Drag n drop is extremely challenging to get right in an HTML creation environment. That is why dedicated products that do this are available (Dreamweaver, and previously Frontpage).

3) Drag n drop would be a time-consuming feature to implement


It's something I've got on the backburner. I'm not ruling it out of course, but it's not a feature at this time, and I can't promise when or if it will be a feature.

[rastaX]

Brandon, I'm really looking forward to some expanded documentation. I have worked very hard at understanding this program and continue to be unable to do the one simple thing I need to do; create multiple article-like pages/systems to display content in different ways. I suppose that's one of the frustrations here, that no matter what you want to call this thing, I desperately need a content management system. Content is king in today's FB/Twitter dominated world. I have a need to present my subject matter in a well organized, multi media rich manner. CMS's do what they do because that is the need people have for them.

This program seems to be well suited to displaying statistical data and designing custom pages and sites. The advanced functionality that other content systems lack is solid, innovative and well liked by those able to utilize it.

That said, I do believe there is also a great demand and need for the standard functionality of traditional CMS's. The need to create content in all it's many facets and add it from the front end, multiple articles systems which could be tasked with the display of alternative forms of content. (ie Reviews, Videos, Tutorials, Guides, etc.)

I really think IPS might be able to benefit from the services of a professional technical writer to bang out the needed documentation in a timely manner. Quite frankly, it is an entirely different set of skills and talent to compile documentation understandable to the wide range of customers who use IPS products. Not to mention letting you do what you do best can only be a good thing.

Good things come to those who wait and this product is so close to being most things to most people. If it's just a matter of documenting the path to CMS nirvana, I'll try to meditate a little while longer while I contemplate the possibilities.

[Ditchmonkey]

Its a framework to add any kind of content to a website using templates and functions shared by the forum and other integrated software products. Its absolutely unique in the community software industry and it does what it was designed to do very well. IMO it is IPS's strongest feature that differentiates their software from other forums like Xenforo and Vbulletin.

If you don't get it or it doesn't suit your needs, then use something else. There seems to be an awful lot of complaining about nothing in this thread. It's not Joomla. End of story.

[rastaX]

Jeez, take it personal why dontcha.

I'm sure IPS would like me to keep my money right here as a matter of fact.

[Tanax]

I don't see what IPS would benefit from making IP.Content only a CMS. As it is currently it's so much more than a CMS. Basically, you can build your OWN CMS in IP.Content. That's how powerful it is. Why only limit it to a CMS?

[Amy T]

I don't see what IPS would benefit from making IP.Content only a CMS. As it is currently it's so much more than a CMS. Basically, you can build your OWN CMS in IP.Content. That's how powerful it is. Why only limit it to a CMS?

I think every one has a different idea of what a cms is. In my view you can not have some thing more powerful then a cms that is not a cms it self. A cms is a script that helps manage your content so any thing that helps you manage your content is a cms in my opinion. So how can IP.content be more then a cms? Like you said you can build a cms inside of it but you are still managing content so still a cms. Never understood why some cms's claim to be more then a cms. Even ocportal says it is more then just a cms. Although it might have more of a right to call it self that since it has a built in gallery, wiki, cms and forum (unless you integrate it with ipb or other forums).

When I did buy IP.content it seemed to be almost an exact copy of drupal except with its integration abilities with IP.board.

[bfarber]

I think every one has a different idea of what a cms is.

I agree

In my view you can not have some thing more powerful then a cms that is not a cms it self. A cms is a script that helps manage your content so any thing that helps you manage your content is a cms in my opinion. So how can IP.content be more then a cms?

Here you've contradicted yourself. Does IP.Content not let you manage content? If so, is it not a CMS?



This is the reason we really try to avoid the "CMS" title. Let's stop focusing on what we call our product (it's irrelevant at the end of the day - you can even rename the application yourself in the ACP) and focus on what the product should or shouldn't have in terms of featureset.

[Tanax]

I think every one has a different idea of what a cms is. In my view you can not have some thing more powerful then a cms that is not a cms it self. A cms is a script that helps manage your content so any thing that helps you manage your content is a cms in my opinion. So how can IP.content be more then a cms? Like you said you can build a cms inside of it but you are still managing content so still a cms. Never understood why some cms's claim to be more then a cms. Even ocportal says it is more then just a cms. Although it might have more of a right to call it self that since it has a built in gallery, wiki, cms and forum (unless you integrate it with ipb or other forums).

When I did buy IP.content it seemed to be almost an exact copy of drupal except with its integration abilities with IP.board.

I meant that it's more powerful that the "regular CMS" systems that were developed for forum softwares. For instance vBAdvanced was a CMS, yes? IP.Content does more than they did. IP.Content does more than vB's own CMS.

But I agree. IP.Content is a system that lets you manage your content so in a sense it is a CMS. I just think that it's.. MORE.
However, like bfarber said, let's drop this naming-discussion.

[Mike54]

It needs work. A lot of it. It doesn't need more features until the core of the UI is done in such a way that it can be used as EASILY as Wordpress, yet give you the power of everything IPS has built into its suite of products. You'll keep me as a forum customer, but IP Content is a loser right now, and it needs some strategic vision for the future, and a roadmap I can look to count on as well. Until then, I have no interest in devoting any time to working on it, because while the integration won't be as great, using Joomla or Drupal as a frontend and hacking it to integrate with IPB will work *better* than what IPContent does today, just in terms of what the end-user sees. When you get the roadmap together let us all know, because I'll be the one shouting from the highest rooftops to have people buy it, and I've done this with IPB and made you probably thousands in revenue on that alone. And if you add up all the users who want to do the same thing with IPC (myself included), there's a huge untapped market for content management that if the product is usable and easy, then is just easy money.

I agree, wholeheartedly. 12-13 months ago, I was desperate to get away from vBulletin, but I used the GARS add-on and did not want to convert to any other forum platform without having the same ease of setting up articles, tutorials and reviews. From the outside looking in, IP.Content seemed like it would be perfect for me.

I was wrong. GARS came with a bit of a learning curve, but if you spent an hour or so working with it, you could see how everything came together. I've spent a year trying to wrap my head around IPC and it has, quite frankly, left me wishing I had just stuck it out with vB and GARS. I didn't think I would ever miss vBulletin, but I was wrong there, as well. I can see where Content has much more potential than GARS, but there is an associated and vertical learning curve that has broken my spirit.

I think IP.Board is an incredible forum platform. I really enjoy using IP.Gallery, as well. As Matt has offered glimpses into Gallery 4, I was eager to see it released. But my outright disappointment with IP.Content has done an excellent job of dampening my enthusiasm for any of it. My frustration level has reached a point where I can't even be bothered to upgrade all my sites to IPB 3.1.4, so what do I care about the release of Gallery 4? A year ago, IPB made the operation of my sites much more enjoyable than they were whilst running vBulletin. Content has managed to turn all that around.

I operate forum sites. I do not code. I understand enough code to generally accomplish what I need, but that is where it ends. You'll note I'm not mentioning how long it took me to do it, but I managed to slog my way through the stock IPB templates and CSS to come up with the skin colors I wanted for my sites. I've never been able to accomplish that same feat with Content and my Content articles look like rubbish.

I know my limitations and it seems no matter how hard I try, Content remains outside those lines. It frustrates and disappoints me to see how IP.Board becomes easier and easier to use and understand, yet IP.Content remains well beyond my comprehension. I plan to start moving article content back into the forum posts I promoted it all from, setting up a couple of static pages to display things like TOS and my Privacy Policy. Once I have that accomplished, I will be removing Content from all of my sites. There comes a time to cut one's losses and I have reached that point. I tip my hat to those who are capable of creating sharp-looking Content sites. I'm actually quite envious. But it's obviously beyond my own abilities to do the same and I'm tired of banging my forehead on the desk. I just hope by distancing myself from Content, I can regain my earlier enthusiasm for IPB.

[bfarber]

I agree, wholeheartedly. 12-13 months ago, I was desperate to get away from vBulletin, but I used the GARS add-on and did not want to convert to any other forum platform without having the same ease of setting up articles, tutorials and reviews. From the outside looking in, IP.Content seemed like it would be perfect for me.

I was wrong. GARS came with a bit of a learning curve, but if you spent an hour or so working with it, you could see how everything came together. I've spent a year trying to wrap my head around IPC and it has, quite frankly, left me wishing I had just stuck it out with vB and GARS. I didn't think I would ever miss vBulletin, but I was wrong there, as well. I can see where Content has much more potential than GARS, but there is an associated and vertical learning curve that has broken my spirit.

I think IP.Board is an incredible forum platform. I really enjoy using IP.Gallery, as well. As Matt has offered glimpses into Gallery 4, I was eager to see it released. But my outright disappointment with IP.Content has done an excellent job of dampening my enthusiasm for any of it. My frustration level has reached a point where I can't even be bothered to upgrade all my sites to IPB 3.1.4, so what do I care about the release of Gallery 4? A year ago, IPB made the operation of my sites much more enjoyable than they were whilst running vBulletin. Content has managed to turn all that around.

I operate forum sites. I do not code. I understand enough code to generally accomplish what I need, but that is where it ends. You'll note I'm not mentioning how long it took me to do it, but I managed to slog my way through the stock IPB templates and CSS to come up with the skin colors I wanted for my sites. I've never been able to accomplish that same feat with Content and my Content articles look like rubbish.

I know my limitations and it seems no matter how hard I try, Content remains outside those lines. It frustrates and disappoints me to see how IP.Board becomes easier and easier to use and understand, yet IP.Content remains well beyond my comprehension. I plan to start moving article content back into the forum posts I promoted it all from, setting up a couple of static pages to display things like TOS and my Privacy Policy. Once I have that accomplished, I will be removing Content from all of my sites. There comes a time to cut one's losses and I have reached that point. I tip my hat to those who are capable of creating sharp-looking Content sites. I'm actually quite envious. But it's obviously beyond my own abilities to do the same and I'm tired of banging my forehead on the desk. I just hope by distancing myself from Content, I can regain my earlier enthusiasm for IPB.

Where exactly does IP.Content become or remain confusing for you, and what would you like to see changed to make it easier to use?

I hear so often "it confused me" but without real details (i.e. you did not provide any in your post above). It makes it hard to take action and make it easier when no one has feasible suggestions to do so.

[Shadow Wolf]

I operate forum sites. I do not code. I understand enough code to generally accomplish what I need, but that is where it ends. You'll note I'm not mentioning how long it took me to do it, but I managed to slog my way through the stock IPB templates and CSS to come up with the skin colors I wanted for my sites. I've never been able to accomplish that same feat with Content and my Content articles look like rubbish.

If any of those sites are in your signature links. 2 of them I saw used the Article system, the rest were portals. The latest version of IP.Content solves most of your skinning issues honestly. The article system by default uses the 'IPB Wrapper'. So as long as your forum is skinned, the rest of IP.Content will have that same wrapper, feel and colors. No more trying to combine two CSS scripts and not understanding which style/id is stepping on the other. They already stripped it out and made them compatible for you.