Washerhelp

Yes clarification would be a good compromise. I'm definitely not stupid and I got confused. People are often busy and scan messages for the gist of it.

I don't agree that you can't allow such messages to be dismissed though. People don't need that amount of mollycoddling. If they are responsible enough to be running and controlling a forum, with all the complicated settings and decisions to make then they are more than capable of dismissing a message. If possible an "Are you sure" confirmation window requiring a second click should be enough. It seems a blunderbuss approach to display a message for potentially weeks after the user has fixed the problem. Also, what if they start to tune it out and another important message needs bringing to people's attention and they don't read it?

Hi Michael. I can see how technically it can mean that, I think it isn't really that clear. As ip.board is capable of checking files (as it does with many of the security tools) it isn't clear enough that the system isn't reporting the security issue because it's detecting the vulnerable file version - especially as the message only appears after a second or so which gave me the impression it was checking.

It would be a big improvement if the warning was much clearer in declaring it is just an automatic (dumb) warning that will continue to warn even when the security fix has been carried out.

Thanks for your reply Ryan. When I refresh the page, or revisit the dashboard from elsewhere, the page loads without the message and the message appears after about a 1 second delay. This gives the impression the dashboard is checking which version of the file I have and reporting on it.

If the message is just automatically blasting out the warning unaware if the security issue has been fixed or not surely it should contain information that this is the case? Otherwise why wouldn't many people become confused and wonder if they've applied the right patch or if something's gone wrong?

The message should either say it has detected the board is running with the vulnerable file, or it should say after the warning, "You can ignore this warning if you have already updated the file".

Andy

I appreciate it must be frustrating when non programmers expect things can be done easily but you do have to explain why something is impractical to be fair. It will be great if you can come up with something.

My main concern has always been about the ambiguity of the "There is no new content" statement given to users. The link promises to let users "View New Content" but it reports only on a specific type of content determined by where a user last visited yet gives a seemingly categorical "No new content" result instead of specifying no new "articles" or no new "forum posts" etc. It assumes all users know how the system works, but people who aren't knowledgeable about how ip works may well just see the no new content statement and leave.

.. What you want is to be able to access all the boxes at once. If you try to do that then all the boxes will explode!

Hi I would expect it to access the boxes one at a time and present the results. If I go to the View New Content page it checks where I was last time (forums or articles etc) and fetches the latest content to match. If it shows content from say the forums and I click on Articles in the left filter box it instantly fetches any new articles. I'm not understanding why it can't simply forget worrying about where I was last time and just fetch new forum posts, display them and then either fetch new articles and display them underneath or at least count how many there are and display "x new articles" which can be clicked and fetched instead of just stating there is no new content.