Nimdock

I'm not going to pull apart posts, call people names or question what is said. Why? Because all it's doing is making everybody around here emotional!

What I will do is present my case for an option to disable avatars, signatures and images.

bfarber, on 12 August 2011 - 09:57 AM, said:

I browse my forums from work, both of which are based on IPB. I also browse several other forums, some of which are IPB and some of which are not. I am allowed to browse these forums, I work in an adult environment where I am trusted to balance my work with my downtime. The forums I browse are all gaming orientated. EVE Online, Battlefield, general FPS, a clan site, etc.

Now imagine the sorts of avatars, signatures and posts that may be present? This has all but locked me out of my forums from work because I cannot risk something even remotely obscene coming into view. I would get seriously reprimanded, if not dismissed.

The ability to disable images is absolutely crucial depending on the audience of the forums in question. It won't affect everybody for sure, but it does affect some very legitimately.

I agree that many of the features have been removed for security, to streamline the software, etc. I've no issues with that, but this isn't some pointless functionality that is easily resolved using the browser. For starters, I and many others who work for large corporations will not have the privileges to change our browser options.

I'm seriously disappointed this feature was removed. Now I dare only check threads in my admin/moderation area for keeping an eye on things, but I certainly cannot browse.

If there's one facility I would love to see reinstated, it's this.

I can't argue my case any further, nor will I try. I just really hope this is put back in 3.2.2.

Cheers

C

How about now?

I just added it, but have no way to test it.

As someone else mentioned - you can only stretch the "what if" questions so far. What if this car I am selling to someone could be used to rob a bank?

In theory, someone could use IP.Board to post illegal content, but that doesn't make IP.Board illegal. We don't police the marketplace on the terms of "This could be used for something illegal" - because there are dozens of legal uses for it as well. Just because it could be used for a bad reason doesn't mean it will be. At the end of the day, it's the customers choice how they will and will not use an application.

If you feel that a certain application has a potential legal issue, don't use it.

This is now in 3.2.1

Global Option:


Does this:

Ikadon - Correct
Lewis - Correct

Essentially if you enter a max-width, then the width of the full photo will not exceed the width specified but it will maintain the correct aspect ratio.

As Lewis said, the max width is to stop it flowing into the post body which would happen if you allowed 600px wide avatars.

You can still set per-group width and height maximums.

In the screenshot, the second avatar (User 0000) is actually 250px wide but it is shown as 170px wide as per settings.

This allows the best flexibility. You can keep large photos on the profile page without it breaking the topic view.

Also worth mentioning - you can set that setting to 500px if you like and it will make the user column 520px wide. So whatever you set, it will not flow into the post body. It might look a bit odd, though.

Here's a better example:

First, I just want to say thank you IPS for what you do. 3.2 is a huge success, and I honestly can't find one flaw in it. My members love it, and my staff members love it. The look and design is beyond amazing, not to mention how amazing the features are.
    
Second, I just want to say that the Auto-Installer works wonders. The second I found out that 3.2 came out, I went in and used it. Once I ran the upgrader, everything went smooth and perfect. What impresses me even more is the Installer said it would take 30 minutes, but in fact, it only took 10 minutes.

I have been waiting for this version for so long, and once and for all, I have it.
Thank you, Invision Power Services.

I will happily read sound constructive feedback even when it is negative.

I do not absorb personal rants, outlandish statements or people making wide accusations with no logic, research or factual evidence to back it up.

Phew, that was a lot of writing:

cdkey, on 14 June 2011 - 09:22 AM, said:

Would it help if I did like a blog entry of how I created that online indicator hook?

Here is a compromise and I would assume an easy solution to everyone's needs.

Allow for all 4 options

• Option to turn on or off animated avatars
  
• Allow for photo uploads (with option to turn on or off)
  
• Allow for Gravatar (with option to turn on or off)
  
• Allow for off site linked photos (with option to turn on or off)

This I would assume allow the best of all worlds combined.  Alternatively, The Webmasters / Administrators should be able to turn on or off all these features.

I would also suggest the option to completely turn off avatars completely, for those more "corporate" communities (sites).

Leadwerks, on 09 February 2010 - 10:34 PM, said:

Nothing else except an inbuilt bookmarking/favorites system, the soft delete feature being developed, ability to pin posts within a topic, etc.

We have heard you and are going to look into our options on this matter

I am going to close this topic as the same points are being made over and over plus new readers to this topic are becoming greatly confused.

We obviously never meant for something like an anti-spam service to turn into a bad thing for some clients

Give us a bit and we will figure something out that works for most people.

I know that 9 pages in, nearly everyone else will have covered the points I'm about to make, but I do wish to explain how this has come across to me.  I am a perpetual licence holder, which I bought in 2005.  

What worries me is that I feel that there is an effort going on to force me out of my perpetual licence.  The biggest issue in this is that we are not at all eligible to purchase the service - nor, it appears, any future service.  

It concerns me that there will be many other things released in the future which will be classed as a service, as a way of excluding perpetual and lifetime licence holders from useful extras to the software (thereby convincing people to relinquish their licences).  

I am also concerned that not being able to buy such services might somehow compromise my board.  I know it's an extra to the software, but spam is a very serious issue and I find it worrying that I won't be able to have any sort of access at all to a module that could prevent a significant spam attack.

I will stress that I don't think that IPS are unscrupulous at all, but I imagine some people might also be worrying that if a spam module provides enough robust protection against spam but there is a problem in the standard software and people are getting heavily attacked (like what happened in the later 2.3 series), IPS won't be as swift to respond to patching the software.  

I stress, I'm not saying that *will* happen, but you can understand how that might cross people's minds.  After all, four years ago, it would've been unthinkable that IPS wouldd be launching extra services in the manner they are now.  

Overall, I feel that I'm being forced out of my perpetual licence.  If we'd been able to pay an extra cost to obtain the service, then I understand that there might have been complaints but I can understand the difference between lifetime, perpetual and standard and if you wanted to make an offer to standard holders, that's understandable (honestly, I've been waiting for this for months because I could see where you were going with some of your forum posts last year).

But the crux is that we can't get the spam service at all without relinquishing what we currently own and have paid for...and I find that slightly odd.  It also concerns me that this won't be the first service released, nor the only effort to make us give up our licences.  

I bought the licence that was available to me at the time.  I didn't buy a perpetual licence to screw IPS out of money or to upset IPS or to make IPS hate me.  I also didn't force IPS to sell perpetual licences - I bought what IPS offered.  

I would be happy to pay additional costs for services - if I felt that they would be a benefit to my site - and it seems a shame that they're not available to purchase as add-on modules at all.

I love IPS's software and I always have done, and I don't ever want to have to change from using Invision...but I am being increasingly upset at the way I'm being treated by the company - a company who I've never hassled via the support, who I've only ever said good things about and have always strongly recommended to people.  

Lifetime and perpetual owners are still your customers - we run your software (and probably have done for years, so our users are used to your product and we probably don't wish to switch), so we're the best people to try and sell things to because we're a captive market.  Excluding us entirely just makes me feel unwanted and it feels like you're trying to trick us out of what we already own.  I respect you guys more than that, and it's horrible that that's how it's coming across.  You can't mean it to be like this, surely?