Tanax

I've had requests from my members to have the ability to set visibility options per article instead of simply per blog.  Sometimes, they want to post an article in their blog that they don't want just anybody reading in an otherwise public blog.  

It would be nice to offer this functionality, as it has cost me two bloggers so far.

joelle, on 19 July 2011 - 02:46 AM, said:

That's why everyone I know loves facebook. It's a clean interface that shows them a feed of all their friends activities. Some even use their cell phones to alert them of updates made on facebook. Personally, I only use it for our business. I deleted my personal account a long time ago so that my time and updates are posted on my own sites instead of Facebook or Twitter.

Forums are great for topical discussions, yes. But, some people would also like to be able to follow updates of just their friends. People make connections in forums. It would be nice if they could keep up with those connections in a more personal level instead of saying "Hey, follow me on Twitter." or "Hey, friend me of Facebook". It would be great if they could stay connected on that personal level in the forum community instead of having to go to other sites to do so.

Just my humble opinion...

Robulosity2, on 03 July 2011 - 02:48 AM, said:

Normally bumping can only be done by the topic starter or moderators, which makes that almost entirely irrelevant.

No need to be harsh about it.

If you want, effectively, a pinned topic - make a pinned topic.

Announcements *should* "scream" at you in my opinion.  They should be used for important information administrators want to ensure their members see.  If announcements are simply duplicating the functionality of pinned topics, what is the point in having them given that we already have pinned topics?

Not reading what you wrote...just saying.

I agree with Tanax.  Maybe you oughta read what he writes.

Christophe, on 21 June 2011 - 08:56 PM, said:

I wasn't saying that the Visual Skin Editor had anything to do with the current suggestion—I was just using it as an example to point out your logical fallacy.

Quite honestly, I've said everything about this feature that I want to say. Not to oversimplify, but I see our debate a little like this:

You're arguing that this thread's suggestion shouldn't be considered because

• It isn't necessary
  
• It would be difficult to implement, and
  
• People could abuse it.

I'm arguing that

• Many IPS features aren't "necessary", but they improve the product
  
• You shouldn't be concerned with how difficult it is to implement; that's a problem to be solved by the developers, not by you, and
  
• Many IPS features can be abused (HTML editing, anyone?), so again, this is a non-issue.

And considering that you wouldn't have to use this feature even if it WAS implemented, it's rather pointless to continue arguing against it.

I too would have to agree with what Kyle is trying to say. Christophe, you don't notice a pattern here in this thread? People are 'Liking' what Kyle and others are saying, yet I don't see any 'likes' on your replies. Why? Because the majority of us agree on his point of views. You keep writing all these long posts, but basically are repeating the same thing over and over again. At some point I stopped reading your replies because one, as I mentioned, you keep repeating your point that nobody agrees with. And two, quite frankly, I get bored of reading posts that long. You keep trying to make your argument as if everyone who will use this feature will be stupid enough to abuse it and put countless tabs and thus create "broken" navigations. First of all, you don't know that as a fact. Why not them try it out and see if it does "break" the navigation or create some disastrous results as you keep trying to point out. If an actual  IPS developer can reply in this thread to verify what you're saying is true, then perhaps I'll believe it. Until that happens, I'm going to continue to support this suggestion.

Your argument is illogical, Christophe. You're saying that since the feature could be abused by adding too many menus, it shouldn't be added at all. That brand-new Visual Skin Editor will no doubt produce some hideous skins, but is that the fault of the developers? No, it's the fault of the site owners who decided they wanted cyan text on a neon green background. It's still a great feature, even though not everyone will use it as intended.

Moreover, I don't understand your "time is limited" argument. Invision sets deadlines for itself, so really, they have all the time they want. (I believe there was a discussion awhile back of people wanting to change IPS's slogan to "when it's ready".) Their only true goal is to stay ahead of their competition, and quite frankly, they're way ahead of that game. So I'm positive that if the developers thought that a navigation management system would be put to good use, they'd spend the time adding one.

Christophe, on 20 June 2011 - 06:37 PM, said:

People shouldn't have to have a "strong argument" to suggest a feature. We all pay for Invision products, so we're all entitled to our own opinions. If you don't think that a navigation system needs to be added—great. Obviously, a lot of others (myself included) do, so there's no reason you should discredit them for that opinion.

I think that a navigation management system is crucial, for all of the reasons pointed out above. I've spent hours trying to add links and have them display as active on the pages they are active on. It's not simple. Though YOU may not use a nav management system, I certainly will, and I'm sure others will also.

Christophe, on 20 June 2011 - 06:37 PM, said:

No, you are alone talking about the forums only. There are many things in the core that need to be in the core for some reason. Apart from that, I still don't care if this is implemented into IP.Board or IP.Content, I just want to be able to use it across all the different applications.

I (and others) have suggested this several times, but I still don't understand why IPB doesn't allow one to easily add custom navigation tabs/buttons (like the forums, members, etc buttons at the top).  I am aware that you can edit the skin to do this, but this should be easily done through the ACP.  This would be especially useful for those with IP.content integrated into their IPB installation.

And one with the tag

OK, forgot about that little thing

Here you go

I did another change and left the hover alone (for now) and also filled up the "whitespace" some. Of course my board is at 99% width also so that left a LOT of whitespace.

And yes, the "No Hover" mod over the username works just fine too

Now on to changing the "Tags" back to "Descriptions"