Thanks, esquire - I appreciate the response. I know friends and QA top your list (believe me, I know ) -- I'm going to demonstrate a point here. After seeing it in practical usage, we've recognized that the QA features we want to incorporate can't be done to our standard within the confines of the "forums" app. Our intent (and this of course is subject to change) is to split QA off into its own app where those features can truly involve and introduce a separate solution in the suite for handling basic things like "Best Answer", "Most Liked" etc. See, now the problem is, I know it's not going to end there and that's one of several reasons why we're hesitant to "air" things until they're fully vetted and we have a solid game plan in place... you're going to want to know things like: can existing QA be converted? what would the app cost? how will it work? what will it look like? what are we talking here, 3 months, 6 months? I need to know for planning purposes, etc. We don't have all of that information available yet and I'm reasonably confident someone is going to make me regret even mentioning it at this point. The same principle applies to things like friends. I've said before, we're not going to (re)add a list of friends that does not benefit virtually the entire suite. We do have a lot of plans on the internal roadmap for social engagement and I can say I think your itch will be scratched. That's as much as I can say right now. Am I being too vague and secretive? Perhaps, but I don't feel a compelling obligation to share every detail of our operation beyond what's available in the release note tracker for several reasons: 1) It can become confusing and misleading if we outline something and we get into it and decide we need to do it differently, or another feature suggestion comes in (like this one) that we can incorporate, but changes the scope of the initial task somewhat. 2) Believe it or not, we do have competitors that are following us and we do prefer to keep things that are still a few months off under our hat. There were rumors for several years regarding the iPhone getting a bigger screen. Each year, people holding out were disappointed and they had no idea whether it was coming or not until the day it went on sale. An inside joke at IPS is the number of times I tried to switch to Android. All I wanted from an iPhone was a larger, more usable screen for my aging eyes. At the time, I was the minority -- many people thought huge phones were ridiculous. They'd release the next one without a bigger screen, but other cool features that I thought would make up for the lack of screen improvement like touchID, so I'd switch anyway - which worked for me for a while, but the small screen would eat at me... I'd switch to Android again, be miserable (but with a bigger screen) and the cycle would continue until the next iPhone release. FINALLY, everyone wanted a bigger screen and they released the 6 and 6+ (I went with the 6) and I had everything I wanted. Apple would never tell me when and if they were going to do it, but part of it is their business philosophy and part of it is their knack for creating buzz and controlling demand. The point is, if your equivalent of a bigger screen is a deal-breaker and you can't afford to wait any longer, you may indeed to wish to put yourself out of your misery and find a more immediate solution. While it may not make sense from the outside looking in - especially to the forum enthusiast crowd, we're moving at a very strategic and calculated pace and direction to ensure the foundation is solidified and that we're laying bricks in the appropriate order vs "eh, we'll do this and then come back to that later." I'm sorry we're not in a position to give you a map of the puzzle to let you see how it all fits together and I know that people such as yourself have waited for what seems like an eternity already, but really, all that's left to do is continue to watch or find a narrower focused solution with a greater strength in the specific area(s) you're looking for immediately.
I'm not sure that's completely accurate based on what I've seen. You want a product that fits your specific needs perfectly out of the box -- which apparently IPB (3.x) did. IPB was 13yrs old -- it was packed with features and functionality that made it so top heavy it would take ages to shoehorn features into which resulted in release upon release of bugs. You like to say we work in a vacuum in "stealth mode" and frankly, it frustrates me more than you can imagine. https://community.invisionpower.com/release-notes/ that is virtually all derived from feedback. Very little of it is from our internal roadmap at this point, which we will be rolling forward with in coming weeks. Not agreeing with your particular specific needs for a community or not being able to immediately act is not the same as not listening to feedback. There's a pretty large difference there. No, we don't ask for feedback on everything and we're not going to - if you would like that level of involvement in development, you should find a solid free/open source solution. We do talk to customers - we have focus groups, we garner feedback from this community, sales interactions, support, conference calls with managed clients, etc. We don't elicit everyone's opinion because at some point, we have to have less talking and more doing. We've explained our philosophy about solidifying the foundation before getting crazy with features and I feel we've demonstrated thus far that we have the ability to do that... the proof is in the pudding from 4.0 to 4.0.9. If you take note of the list of people that have very vocal opinions here and elsewhere - it's literally the same dozen people or less (out of thousands) saying the same things over and over and my goodness, does it get tiresome sometimes, if I'm being honest as to newcomers, it appears to be epidemic level feedback, when a look at the author info reveals it really is the same group of people - it's something I feel we're going to have to deal with at some point and simply say "maybe the product isn't right for you after all - I'm sorry." In some regards, I'd like to personally buy licenses for other products just so we can move forward without the constant distraction on where we've been vs where we're going. I love solving problems; I love turning a negative situation into a positive one and reaching a middle ground when possible and above all, I truly love making a client happy. At some point though, I have to just accept "this client thinks their community represents all communities and is not open to anything else, nothing I say will please them and we all need to move on." IPS is stronger now than we were 4 years ago, gaining business on both ends of the spectrum and the overall feedback on IPS4 is better than even we had hoped. So, it's difficult to take seriously the notion that we've taken the wrong direction and approach - sales and overall feedback dictate otherwise and I feel we're doing something right and also feel the future is bright. There is, however, a lot to do and we will get there. As a client, you can either choose to evolve with the platform, find a different solution or continuously hammer the same points over and over and eventually be labeled a distraction instead of an asset. As for the topic at hand, I've been reminded that we have upcoming plans with social groups, reputation and a criteria system we can tie some promotion enhancements into. I don't have a timeline for that as Pages, Gallery and search improvements are next up as priority.
I certainly understand your point, but it's essentially taking functionality from Pages and porting it to the core, which again, is redundant. I know not everyone has Pages licenses, in which case, you could use or repurpose the Site Guidelines feature for key information like introductions.
I thought that's what we were talking about? We don't have BBCode anymore and the editor is pretty standard in terms of WYSIWYG. I'm not sure why you'd need to go to "Help" and search how to click "Create"? I'm not being facetious, it's just the idea of the help files feels a bit antiquated... if it's needed, I feel we've not done our job from an interface standpoint and we should be focusing on that instead. Obviously the need for stronger documentation exists for admins and that's where we'd rather focus. Virtually everything from a user perspective should be relatively self-explanatory and if it's not, we'd like to hear about that. The feedback we received was largely that the help files were redundant. Some liked adding their own though, so Pages would be better for creating a site resource database.
We're not "every other script" and aren't aiming to be - I assume that's why you chose IPS. As said, if a request becomes popular or something we feel we could expand on to be of greater benefit than what's being asked for, we have no issue adding it. We have 8 complex applications - we're not just "a script" so we do need to be very mindful of adding things just because. If it becomes a popular request or again, something we're getting feedback on through other channels, we'll definitely give it consideration. It seems like a cool idea to me personally, but that alone doesn't mean it's worth adding. It needs further evaluation and consideration and since October 2013 when this topic was started, there doesn't seem to be strong demand compared to more pressing things that many more can benefit from, such as social groups. By and large, after having done this for so long, most either: simply want to ensure someone is active before they get promoted to full member status -or- they use commerce and sell membership levels. Is there a need for more complex promotion criteria in the stock product? Perhaps! That's the purpose of feedback such as this.
Yes, it's understandable if you're used to something, move to another platform and it doesn't exist. Likewise, if you were to move from IPS to something else - you'd experience the same. I would suspect, if anything, we can make improvements to the core functionality. Others may have had feedback through other mediums (managed client feedback, sales, etc.) that are not prevalent here, which is the purpose of our internal discussion tracker, but as it stands, I've not seen this come up. Given the complex nature of what you're describing, I would say the cost to develop vs benefit ratio probably isn't there, but we've been surprised before. These types of topics are important for vetting feature requests in addition to our other channels.
As you've noticed, this can easily be accomplished with Pages. One of the goals is not to recreate redundant functionality in the core that exists in applications, whenever possible. Before the conspiracy theorists come along claiming we're trying to force the purchase of another product -- we're not. We just don't want to bloat the core when there's already "an app for that.™" Conversely, there's a couple of things we've put in apps that we feel may be better suited to be moved to the core for everyone to benefit. The menu manager will be a likely example of this soon.
I've added this to our internal tracker for further consideration. In the grand scheme of things, I don't see it being a high priority item (I haven't seen this come up since the creation of the topic and that was in 2013.) I would think this would be an opportunity for a marketplace developer, but we can certainly look at enhancing the core functionality.
For those requesting such a feature, have you actually tried to use this ? I don't see a single use case mentioned that can't be accomplished using that page - maybe I'm missing something?
As for quickly messaging - simply hovering over any name in the list brings up a hover card with "Message" We've had a lot of things that people have presented good use cases for that were reintroduced (perhaps in a different and better way) in IPS4 after feedback and consideration. Conversely, we've had quite a lot of "well I could do this in v3, that's why!" with no explanation beyond that. In reality, in many cases, you still can in IPS4 and this seems to be one of those examples. If there's a purpose for more than what the above page provides, please let us know and we can give it further consideration.
@LinkMania - we can't begin to describe how much we appreciate the followup. We keep saying over and over that IPS4 will run amazingly well on a proper setup, but it's less forgiving from a hosting standpoint than IP.Board was because it's leveraging later technologies and has greater demands that are going to highlight existing hosting issues. Good job on a good setup and thanks again for sharing.
I appreciate you taking the time to express your feedback and I'm very sorry you were caught in the middle here. Unfortunately, virtually all of your issues were caused by self-hosted server issues beginning with PHP 5.2 which has been considered end of life for over 4 years now. The server was not able to handle the rebuild process and it also appears you had table corruption issues, which also were the result of server issues. While we do what we can, we can't control the environment, deal with out of date PHP versions, corrupted tables and inadequate specifications. Since the framework for IP.Board (3.x) was virtually the same as when you became a customer 10 years ago, you've never had this issue before, but with the advance of technology that we were able to leverage in IPS4, it is unfortunately going to demand that self-hosted customers conform to standards of today -- this means it's going to be less forgiving to older or less adequate hosting setups. We knew that going in and felt it was an appropriate sacrifice that would ultimately benefit the product and more importantly, clients. It seems that between your host and our T2 team that your concerns have been addressed. Hopefully you're past the niggles and can enjoy the suite from here on. Please let us know if you have further concerns and thanks again for your feedback... and your business.