25 replies to this topic

[Marcher Technologies]

This is NOT a Gripe about how we do not have them yet.
This is a Suggestion.
Make Tags a Database Field Type for IPC.
Please.
Allow block filtering BY these.
Please.
Capabilities and Usage for tags are FAR beyond Forum usage.
A Single Tag Field Per Database is Knee-capping what it COULD do.

[arikbo]

Marcher, not sure if I understand all it could do but it sounds good so I'm all for it.

I've had site wide/across all applications tags on my wishlist. I've laid off going category crazy in articles and databases in hopes that tags will come into play soon. Tags are really the glue that are needed to connect content together.

[Benny.]

im with you both,

as tags are part of 3.2 , its fundamental they come into play within ipcontent , after all, we need the same things site wide , and with many using ipcontent on homepage and ever increasing integration again site wide, this becomes even more important with searchs etc as marcher has pointed out.

benny

[Joerg-K]

Hello,

it is important, that we become the "Tags" on the Ip-Content System! Please add them

[Marcher Technologies]

This is NOT a Gripe about how we do not have them yet.
This is a Suggestion.
Make Tags a Database Field Type for IPC.
Please.
Allow block filtering BY these.
Please.
Capabilities and Usage for tags are FAR beyond Forum usage.
A Single Tag Field Per Database is Knee-capping what it COULD do.

Want to Elaborate.
The ability to Add Custom Tag Fields with a pre-made "Tag" Field Type(with options)... Would be UBER.

[bfarber]

We will see tags in the next IP.Content version - it is the most important addition in my eyes.

As for custom tag fields per-database (i.e. ability to create 'tag' fields at will), I'm not positive if this is even technically possible with the tag architecture in IP.Board. You have to create an extensions file to define the tag definition, and I'd have to see if there were some way we could trick that process.

[Marcher Technologies]

We will see tags in the next IP.Content version - it is the most important addition in my eyes.

As for custom tag fields per-database (i.e. ability to create 'tag' fields at will), I'm not positive if this is even technically possible with the tag architecture in IP.Board. You have to create an extensions file to define the tag definition, and I'd have to see if there were some way we could trick that process.

could we not have a field file extension that pulls the needed data from field options?(looking at feed block sources as example here)

[Joerg-K]

We will see tags in the next IP.Content version - it is the most important addition in my eyes.

you mean, in the next release ( IP.Content 2.2.2)?

[Marcher Technologies]

results url could look something like
/index.php?app=core&module=search&do=search&search_tags=test&search_app=ccs&search_database=#&search_field=field

[Darksbane0]

We will see tags in the next IP.Content version - it is the most important addition in my eyes.

Yay this makes me extremely happy. Tags open up so many possibilities on how we can show data to the users.

[bfarber]

you mean, in the next release ( IP.Content 2.2.2)?

No, next major version (i.e. 2.3.x)

[Marcher Technologies]

No, next major version (i.e. 2.3.x)

http://community.inv...ost__p__1999395
http://community.inv...5-clone-blocks/
http://community.inv...nt-23-wishlist/ (take a look through for relevance)

We will see tags in the next IP.Content version - it is the most important addition in my eyes.

As for custom tag fields per-database (i.e. ability to create 'tag' fields at will), I'm not positive if this is even technically possible with the tag architecture in IP.Board. You have to create an extensions file to define the tag definition, and I'd have to see if there were some way we could trick that process.

Bear with me... but these are all interrelated ... php blocks can function as hooks do... albeit convoluted (hey, at least I'm actually using ACP configurable system settings and normal passable $vars instead of $this->settings[''] hard-coded to a $var!!)... i seriously think that you can viably make a hook(+maybe a plugin block with full configuration?) act as the processor for custom tags... and can we get ACP hook points into the IPC Configuration?(Im talking EVERYWHERE ... Blocks, Databases, Categories, Article Configuration, EVERYTHING not based in system settings!)... half the things people want could be solve-able with custom mods+template-ing... it simply still feels too inflexible....

Edited by Marcher Technologies, 26 September 2011 - 08:18 PM.

[Benny.]

We will see tags in the next IP.Content version - it is the most important addition in my eyes.

great news lets hope many other requested features are implemented too.

[bfarber]

Guys, just because I confirmed one feature I would like to ensure is added for 2.3 does not mean we need to start listing every other feature you'd like to see. There are already suggestion topics - I've read them. We can leave it at that. Tags are not likely to be the only thing added to the next release, and I can't confirm what else will be added.

it simply still feels too inflexible

Frankly, 99% of the IP.Content complaints are that it is too flexible, and thus confusing, not that it is not flexible enough. I think a large focus will be placed on making it easier to use.

[arikbo]

Frankly, 99% of the IP.Content complaints are that it is too flexible, and thus confusing, not that it is not flexible enough. I think a large focus will be placed on making it easier to use.

I don't think anyone is upset over it being too flexible but rather a majority of us don't understand how to use it. I hope that future upgrades make the admin interface (and directions) more user friendly rather than dumbing down the software itself. I would hate to see the software become so simplistic it loses it's customizability.

[Marcher Technologies]

I don't think anyone is upset over it being too flexible but rather a majority of us don't understand how to use it. I hope that future upgrades make the admin interface (and directions) more user friendly rather than dumbing down the software itself. I would hate to see the software become so simplistic it loses it's customizability.

THIS.... Farber...... please dont dumb it down...
. Yes, it is Confusing to many at first(Documentation!!!) but Dumbing down IPC.... no good... not at all.... the reason many use IPB is the level of customization possible, IPC is thrice this...... at least..... and far more complain at the limitations of IPC and having to fight it to do something like.... say, customize a submission form, or getting it to look nice on mobile, (or even replicating "articles" in a homegrown database!!) than ever do about it being too "flexible"....

[bfarber]

You guys are reading too much into what I've said. I half-expected that, however.

I never said we'd remove the functionality in the software at present. I was merely saying our primary focus is on making the software simpler to use, not adding a thousand new features (which would inevitably make it harder to use). Priorities.

[ZakRhyno]

You guys are reading too much into what I've said. I half-expected that, however.

I never said we'd remove the functionality in the software at present. I was merely saying our primary focus is on making the software simpler to use, not adding a thousand new features (which would inevitably make it harder to use). Priorities.

What about the issues of documentation and the lack there of when ask in other forums and no reply from anybody. If I recall there were going to be big upgrade to improving and even adding to what we have. In the New Docs (work in progress) --> IP.Content there is only one new document when the IP.Board upgrade to 1.2.X was release. I forgot whom does that (or stated he did it) but there were updates. But there has been any new nothing of any type short for a few here that came in a small bit ago. (i.e. 2 articles). You guys ask what do you we need to improve, post it, hit reply to said article to improve it. That all been done, but as of yet no results have been made. This is not "I'm going to bash you for this or that," this is "I'm frustrated and been waiting to use this and there been no help improvement and don't want to open up a ticket for something that can be easy answer if it was written down and explain where it should have been explain, the documentations."

[Marcher Technologies]

What about the issues of documentation and the lack there of when ask in other forums and no reply from anybody. If I recall there were going to be big upgrade to improving and even adding to what we have. In the New Docs (work in progress) --> IP.Content there is only one new document when the IP.Board upgrade to 1.2.X was release. I forgot whom does that (or stated he did it) but there were updates. But there has been any new nothing of any type short for a few here that came in a small bit ago. (i.e. 2 articles). You guys ask what do you we need to improve, post it, hit reply to said article to improve it. That all been done, but as of yet no results have been made. This is not "I'm going to bash you for this or that," this is "I'm frustrated and been waiting to use this and there been no help improvement and don't want to open up a ticket for something that can be easy answer if it was written down and explain where it should have been explain, the documentations."

Better Verbiage in the ACP.... ^ has learned more in half an hour of speaking to me about field/database options than he has since owning this product simply because he could not understand what they did from the acp description(English IS this Individuals native tongue BTW).... I would think(i could be wrong) that IPC IS an app that every setting pane should have documentation on what does what.... it would help new individuals greatly.... example Forum posting options per-category with reply/comment sharing.... many think it cannot be done until guided through the relevant settings... IPC is a Powerhouse, no doubt, but what good is having developer lego's without some instructions? if the end-user cannot understand the basic use of their purchase, they feel said purchase is a waste.

[Chel]

All I want from the next release is documentation. Not that I'm not managing, but being able to reference something, without trawling the core files, would be great.