Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Attachments in fast reply much needed!


  • Please log in to reply
85 replies to this topic

#21 Michael

Michael

    Meet Jay

  • +Clients
  • 19,562 posts

Posted 26 July 2012 - 10:05 AM

I did include an image in the post. ;) The img tag and the attachment system often serve the same purpose - to add images to your post.


So what? You didn't attach anything in your post, that's the point. If you want to add images using bbcode, you can (and did) do that already. It's a bbcode, it's not complicated. The attachment system is.

The attachment system is already a core feature, which is why we're discussing possible improvements to it here. Inevitably, it will effect all IP.Board installations if IPS add this. Communities that don't use the attachment system will simply disable it. For many communities that do make extensive use of this core feature, however, streamlining the process of uploading attachments would be a welcome change. By your logic, the entire attachment system should be turned into an optional hook just because some communities don't have much use for it.


I'd be fine with making the attachment system a hook. ;)

As has been brought up several times in this topic already, it would be possible to make the adding of a "fast reply attachment system" an ACP switch that admins can choose to toggle on and off. Browser caching will just about negate the additional overhead if it's there, and there's even the possibility of lazy-loading it.

In IPB 3.1.x, we had the option to toggle the fast-reply editor itself on a per-forum basis - who remembers that? :cool:


"Just add more settings" is the exact opposite of the direction the software is headed, and I think that's a good thing. The software should not add a bunch of stuff into it that some communities might want, but most don't, and then people just need to enable/disable a whole slew of things each time they set up a forum. That may be great for those folks who know their way around the software like the back of their hand, but it makes it so new people get frustrated with there being too many things they have to configure.

IP.Board should be designed so that it's got the set of features that will be of the most benefit to the most communities, and balanced that out with being easy enough for new admins to run, while at the same time flexible enough for power users to expand on. Uploading files while making a fast reply is something the average forum goer (across all communities, not just the ones you frequent) will rarely do. There is very little benefit to be gained from this, considering the resource needs of making the attachment system load on every topic view.
  • sunrisecc and Aiwa like this

Contact Me: Email · Facebook · Twitter · Google+


#22 MGBrose

MGBrose

    Advanced Member

  • +Clients
  • 278 posts

Posted 26 July 2012 - 12:15 PM

So what? You didn't attach anything in your post, that's the point. If you want to add images using bbcode, you can (and did) do that already. It's a bbcode, it's not complicated. The attachment system is.



I'd be fine with making the attachment system a hook. ;)



"Just add more settings" is the exact opposite of the direction the software is headed, and I think that's a good thing. The software should not add a bunch of stuff into it that some communities might want, but most don't, and then people just need to enable/disable a whole slew of things each time they set up a forum. That may be great for those folks who know their way around the software like the back of their hand, but it makes it so new people get frustrated with there being too many things they have to configure.

IP.Board should be designed so that it's got the set of features that will be of the most benefit to the most communities, and balanced that out with being easy enough for new admins to run, while at the same time flexible enough for power users to expand on. Uploading files while making a fast reply is something the average forum goer (across all communities, not just the ones you frequent) will rarely do. There is very little benefit to be gained from this, considering the resource needs of making the attachment system load on every topic view.


I respect you as a moderator for IPS and I'm not trying to be rude whatsoever. But its kinda interesting to me how resistant you are so opposed to having a upload image feature(in one form or another ckeditor button[in the editor toolbar] or attach image button[next to the post button]) added to fast reply. Image sharing is a core component of most discussion boards, let alone the entire internet, so making it easier to share images should be a top priority.

We have had a considerable amount of activity in this topic for being a few days old, especially if you compare it to the average other feedback thread with one or two replies and I think its unfair for you to act like you know what every paying IPboard admin wants, when you seem to be the only one disagreeing?

Making it easier to upload images gives our sites more content, Having more reliable images/content also directly benefits SEO . . . Which leads me to my next point.

The direction the software is headed? I completely disagree just the other day IPS announced IPSEO is becoming integrated into IPBoard itself. Is that featurism? Or is it streamlining key important core features.

Also nearly any board admin thats been running a popular IPboard install for over 3-4 years will tell you they have had thousands if not tens of thousands of images disappear over the years, because they are hosted on imagebucket, photobucket, peoples private websites,geocites(dead), ISP webservers (makes up a large chunk of missing sites in waybackmachine). Your discussion board is about 2 years old, so you haven't felt the pain many of us have yet. Our discussion board is 10 years old, and has been with IPS for its entire life! Similar to another member here we had a custom hook developed that internalizes external image URLS because of the lack of reliability of external images, ANYTHING that IPS developers can do to help us get more locally hosted images is a HUGE benefit. Allowing attachments from fast reply, is exactly that.
mazda626.net, 10 Years on IPBoard, 1-3 second load times world wide!

#23 TSP

TSP

    Spam Happy

  • +Clients
  • 966 posts

Posted 26 July 2012 - 12:20 PM

Fast reply includes too many options already and I would personally like to just make it have the most basic bbcode buttons. Adding more things to the simple editor is opposite of the way I personally want them to go.
  • Aiwa and Cyrem like this

I am administrator TSP on the norwegian IPB 3.4.5-board Diskusjon.no.


#24 Jay

Jay

    Dirty Thirties

  • +Clients
  • 19,062 posts

Posted 26 July 2012 - 12:51 PM

So what? You didn't attach anything in your post, that's the point. If you want to add images using bbcode, you can (and did) do that already. It's a bbcode, it's not complicated. The attachment system is.


He knew he used BBcode, he mentioned it directly under the section you quoted.

That's not important though. The reason I quoted your post is that you replied to his and didn't address

The attachment manager is a client-side script. The server's role in getting it to the user is serving a small text file that the user's browser will cache after a single download (if you use a CDN, then your server never even gets involved). There would be a slight addition to the loading time of the first topic a user browses to, as their browser downloads and caches the script for the first time. Once the script is cached, it becomes a non-issue, really. Loading times for guests will remain unaffected unless you allow them to make posts. Make the fast-reply attachment system lazy-load only when you actually click the upload button, and you eliminate the issue of unneeded overhead entirely.


And I'd like to know your thoughts on that.

Thanks! :)
Posted Image

#25 Rimi

Rimi

    Strip Me

  • +Clients
  • 6,076 posts

Posted 26 July 2012 - 12:54 PM

Fast reply includes too many options already and I would personally like to just make it have the most basic bbcode buttons. Adding more things to the simple editor is opposite of the way I personally want them to go.

Honestly I don't even consider fast reply to be the stripped down version of replying that it used to be anymore. Since you cannot disable fast reply and there are no indications anywhere that it is a method for really quick replies I think that the fast reply has evolved into the standard form of replying. And lets face it, every modern forum software now has the function of replying to a thread and having your reply slide into the thread without firing a page refresh. And every social network, blog, and video sharing site is the same as well. As the internet continues to develop I'm more inclined to call the full editor the advanced editor and wouldn't mind if it was removed entirely. After all there are no such options for leaving comments. I'm sure the enable emoticons, and follow this content checkboxes could be useful in comments as well.

So really I think that instead of continuing to look at that ckeditor at the bottom of each thread as a fast reply I think it should be looked at as the standard method of replying.

Also I'm curious as to why loading attachments on every page is a big deal and loading the ckeditor isn't.
  • Feld0 likes this

#26 Aiwa

Aiwa

    I code for fun

  • +Clients
  • 6,894 posts

Posted 26 July 2012 - 01:01 PM

We have had a considerable amount of activity in this topic for being a few days old, especially if you compare it to the average other feedback thread with one or two replies and I think its unfair for you to act like you know what every paying IPboard admin wants, when you seem to be the only one disagreeing?

You seem to have missed all the posts I've made then... I am also opposed to it...

Making it easier to upload images gives our sites more content, Having more reliable images/content also directly benefits SEO . . . Which leads me to my next point.

The direction the software is headed? I completely disagree just the other day IPS announced IPSEO is becoming integrated into IPBoard itself. Is that featurism? Or is it streamlining key important core features.

They are including their own pre-made applications into the core software to enhance SEO. That's the way the internet has been moving for years, SEO... So that's a major selling point for the prduct... And, IMO, irellavant toto the current topic...

Also nearly any board admin thats been running a popular IPboard install for over 3-4 years will tell you they have had thousands if not tens of thousands of images disappear over the years, because they are hosted on imagebucket, photobucket, peoples private websites,geocites(dead), ISP webservers (makes up a large chunk of missing sites in waybackmachine). Your discussion board is about 2 years old, so you haven't felt the pain many of us have yet. Our discussion board is 10 years old, and has been with IPS for its entire life! Similar to another member here we had a custom hook developed that internalizes external image URLS because of the lack of reliability of external images, ANYTHING that IPS developers can do to help us get more locally hosted images is a HUGE benefit. Allowing attachments from fast reply, is exactly that.

While my board may be relatively 'young', it's been up since '98 and only IPB since '08... Prior it was PHPNuke and/or another open source board... It's evolved over the years... We've never had the inclination to upload images via the fast reply editor... There is a reason there is an 'Advanced' editor that is fully featured...

I would honestly be happier if there were features REMOVED from the fast reply box to keep it what it is supposed to be, a 'fast reply'.

#27 MGBrose

MGBrose

    Advanced Member

  • +Clients
  • 278 posts

Posted 26 July 2012 - 01:57 PM

They are including their own pre-made applications into the core software to enhance SEO. That's the way the internet has been moving for years, SEO... So that's a major selling point for the prduct... And, IMO, irellavant toto the current topic...


Local Images is a SEO enhancement, the more images you have floating around externally on photobucket, geocites, comcast, etc, the less benefit your reaping from them, especially when they disappear from the internet FOREVER, so anything you do to improve the odds that somone uploads a file locally the better.

Dead Images = No SEO benefit



While my board may be relatively 'young', it's been up since '98 and only IPB since '08... Prior it was PHPNuke and/or another open source board... It's evolved over the years... We've never had the inclination to upload images via the fast reply editor... There is a reason there is an 'Advanced' editor that is fully featured...

I would honestly be happier if there were features REMOVED from the fast reply box to keep it what it is supposed to be, a 'fast reply'.


I really don't think a functioning upload button via the editor is going to make anyone's site explode. Nor do I think a optional attach/upload button in fast reply will kill anyones server performance, especially when the uploaded is run clientside.


Kinda goes to everyone here:

If you don't want this feature that's fine, I respect your opinion and the needs of your community. But I'd say also if 50% support it, and 50% are against it. It might be a perfectly viable feature for IPS to implement(with a little radio button that has enable/disable).

We could argue all day over additional parts of the IPBoard suite that aren't really necessary. A calendar? Probably 50% of forums don't use them, and yet they are integrated as a core feature. IPS isn't building this software for just one community, which is why they offer so many ACP options.
mazda626.net, 10 Years on IPBoard, 1-3 second load times world wide!

#28 Dmacleo

Dmacleo

    Needs Life

  • +Clients
  • 9,227 posts

Posted 26 July 2012 - 02:08 PM

most of the time the ONLY reason I open full editor is JUST to attach something.
and really, its about the only real difference in usability/posting between fast reply and full editor.
would be handy to have the option.
  • Feld0, Kirito and GreenLinks like this

Dave M
I'm a man.
I can change.
If I have to.
I guess.....


#29 Aiwa

Aiwa

    I code for fun

  • +Clients
  • 6,894 posts

Posted 26 July 2012 - 02:12 PM

Kinda goes to everyone here:

If you don't want this feature that's fine, I respect your opinion and the needs of your community. But I'd say also if 50% support it, and 50% are against it. It might be a perfectly viable feature for IPS to implement(with a little radio button that has enable/disable).

We could argue all day over additional parts of the IPBoard suite that aren't really necessary. A calendar? Probably 50% of forums don't use them, and yet they are integrated as a core feature. IPS isn't building this software for just one community, which is why they offer so many ACP options.

You realize that IP.Calendar is a separate download right? It's FREE, but it's not included in the core download...

Settings here, settings there, settings everwhere... Michael makes a valid point... At some point, too many settings CAN be added such that setting up a new board is an extreme learning curve.... Yes, this is just one... But will it be per usergroup? will it be global? We can't turn off fast reply anymore, so at some point I would see IPS removing the setting and then the 50% that didn't want it are now stuck with it...

The ideal solution for this is a hook. Get it if you want it, don't if you don't.

#30 Rimi

Rimi

    Strip Me

  • +Clients
  • 6,076 posts

Posted 26 July 2012 - 02:46 PM

You realize that IP.Calendar is a separate download right? It's FREE, but it's not included in the core download...

Settings here, settings there, settings everwhere... Michael makes a valid point... At some point, too many settings CAN be added such that setting up a new board is an extreme learning curve.... Yes, this is just one... But will it be per usergroup? will it be global? We can't turn off fast reply anymore, so at some point I would see IPS removing the setting and then the 50% that didn't want it are now stuck with it...

The ideal solution for this is a hook. Get it if you want it, don't if you don't.

That's a slippery slope and you know it. We're talking about a setting for attachments. The ACP already has 6 settings for attachments plus another 2 which are on a per usergroup basis. So the structure and organization for attachment based settings are already there. And you know as well as I do that the code to maintain a yes or no setting for attachments in fast reply is just an addition to the templates.

Besides, the subject of additional settings has little to do with the advantages of having attachments in fast reply. Developers are in favor of less settings. Casual end users are in favor of more settings. It's a pointless discussion and rather than focusing on that never ending debate of simplification vs. customization I think the more beneficial discussion lies in the improved usability by adding attachments to the fast reply. And that is namely this:

most of the time the ONLY reason I open full editor is JUST to attach something.
and really, its about the only real difference in usability/posting between fast reply and full editor.
would be handy to have the option.


Putting attachments in the fast reply makes the user experience smoother and that was one of the goals of 3.2 when the fast reply was made to slide into the topic rather than refresh the page. It also means less clicks for the user and it makes for an advanced interface. Is there an argument for attachments in fast reply actually hindering the front end user experience? I don't see one. I only see benefits. The only argument I see here is related to server resources, and frankly I'm still not convinced of that. Threads already load the ckeditor, lightbox, hovercard, prettify, ratings, likes, quick pm, and a connection to facebook. I'm sorry, but I just don't understand what is in attachments that significantly increases the load already on threads and furthermore, why that load cannot be delayed until the attachments system is actually clicked on. Forgive my ignorance.

EDIT: And another thing. I have a hard time believing that a high end software like Xenforo would implement this if it causes load problems. One of Xenforo's benefits is how light and quick it is. Supposedly. I don't use it.
  • Feld0 likes this

#31 Heyhoe

Heyhoe

    Let's Race!

  • +Clients
  • 604 posts

Posted 26 July 2012 - 03:42 PM

Either remove the many CK editor options from fast reply or get rid of the full editor.

Currently the user is seeing so many options, they would not think to look for anywhere else to add images. They assume all the options are already on their screen.

If you made the full editor load as the fast reply does now, there would be no issue.

ps. I changed the "More Reply Options" to "Compose Message" and then edited the template to state that the user is using Fast Reply and to attach images they need to click "Compose Message" but I keep forgetting to edit my template after an upgrade so it's not ideal.
  • Aiwa and Darksbane0 like this

#32 Kirito

Kirito

    Needs Serious Help

  • +Clients
  • 2,176 posts

Posted 26 July 2012 - 05:20 PM

Honestly, I fully support implementing CKEditor's image upload feature to the fast reply box.

I just got a basic preview of it here,
http://ckeditor.com/demo/

And I see no reason it shouldn't be integrated in. It's an extra tab in the already existing "image" button, right?

What I didn't want to see as this crammed down bellow the fast reply box on every thread,

I offer technical support and server installation/optimization services for IP.Board, Nginx, MariaDB, Sphinx, and more

If you're in need of such services, please feel free to send me a personal message!


#33 Marcher Technologies

Marcher Technologies

    $life=FALSE;$code=TRUE;$time--;

  • +Clients
  • 11,700 posts

Posted 26 July 2012 - 05:40 PM

Honestly, I fully support implementing CKEditor's image upload feature to the fast reply box.

I just got a basic preview of it here,
http://ckeditor.com/demo/

And I see no reason it shouldn't be integrated in. It's an extra tab in the already existing "image" button, right?

What I didn't want to see as this crammed down bellow the fast reply box on every thread,

sigh... thanks everyone for proving Michael's point.
That is exactly what half the people in this topic are explicitly asking for, attachments underneath fast reply.
  • Sonya* likes this

#34 Rimi

Rimi

    Strip Me

  • +Clients
  • 6,076 posts

Posted 26 July 2012 - 05:54 PM

I think its a given that Rikki wouldn't allow that whole chunk beneath the editor. I thought it was assumed it would be like xenforo or a pop-up of some sort.

#35 Kirito

Kirito

    Needs Serious Help

  • +Clients
  • 2,176 posts

Posted 26 July 2012 - 07:17 PM

sigh... thanks everyone for proving Michael's point.
That is exactly what half the people in this topic are explicitly asking for, attachments underneath fast reply.

Proving what, exactly? I don't care what they're asking for, I'm saying the CKEditor attachments feature is a good compromise. This is actually a feature I would find useful and it doesn't add any extra clutter.

I offer technical support and server installation/optimization services for IP.Board, Nginx, MariaDB, Sphinx, and more

If you're in need of such services, please feel free to send me a personal message!


#36 Marcher Technologies

Marcher Technologies

    $life=FALSE;$code=TRUE;$time--;

  • +Clients
  • 11,700 posts

Posted 26 July 2012 - 07:24 PM

Proving what, exactly? I don't care what they're asking for, I'm saying the CKEditor attachments feature is a good compromise. This is actually a feature I would find useful and it doesn't add any extra clutter.

That a wholesale inbuilt global solution will not satisfy everyone, or even a majority, and it should be a mod/app outside the core of IPB(note I said core, not suite... see gallery mention).... I would definitively enjoy being able to upload an attachment of ANY allowed type in fast reply, others do not want it at all, still others wish attachments NOT be used when gallery is installed for images, while better stream-lining that process to allow direct submission from here to gallery and allowing better SEO from attached images instead of being mired 'in the post', and yet others want the cke to handle solely image attachments in an easier fashion.... so... um.... who wins here?

#37 Kirito

Kirito

    Needs Serious Help

  • +Clients
  • 2,176 posts

Posted 26 July 2012 - 07:49 PM

That a wholesale inbuilt global solution will not satisfy everyone, or even a majority, and it should be a mod/app outside the core of IPB(note I said core, not suite... see gallery mention).... I would definitively enjoy being able to upload an attachment of ANY allowed type in fast reply, others do not want it at all, still others wish attachments NOT be used when gallery is installed for images, while better stream-lining that process to allow direct submission from here to gallery and allowing better SEO from attached images instead of being mired 'in the post', and yet others want the cke to handle solely image attachments in an easier fashion.... so... um.... who wins here?

And why is enabling CKEditors already existing image uploading function a bad thing? What is there to complain about that? It's not in anyone's way.

It's logical to complaint about cluttering the fast reply, but this doesn't clutter it at all.

I offer technical support and server installation/optimization services for IP.Board, Nginx, MariaDB, Sphinx, and more

If you're in need of such services, please feel free to send me a personal message!


#38 Aiwa

Aiwa

    I code for fun

  • +Clients
  • 6,894 posts

Posted 26 July 2012 - 08:01 PM

And why is enabling CKEditors already existing image uploading function a bad thing? What is there to complain about that? It's not in anyone's way.

It's logical to complaint about cluttering the fast reply, but this doesn't clutter it at all.

Because it is JUST an image uploader... It can't do anything other than IMAGES. That's Marcher's point...
  • Marcher Technologies likes this

#39 Kirito

Kirito

    Needs Serious Help

  • +Clients
  • 2,176 posts

Posted 26 July 2012 - 08:34 PM

Because it is JUST an image uploader... It can't do anything other than IMAGES. That's Marcher's point...

And? It's still a useful extra functionality.

I offer technical support and server installation/optimization services for IP.Board, Nginx, MariaDB, Sphinx, and more

If you're in need of such services, please feel free to send me a personal message!


#40 Aiwa

Aiwa

    I code for fun

  • +Clients
  • 6,894 posts

Posted 26 July 2012 - 08:37 PM

And? It's still a useful extra functionality.

If it's added, it should be done right... It shouldn't be gimp... That's the point.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users