• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About Dll

  • Rank
    Spam Happy

Recent Profile Visitors

17,312 profile views
  1. 3.5.x series

    Oh no, I think there are at least 6 people wanting to switch - I imagine Lindy, Charles and Matt are locked in a board meeting right now to decide how to avert the crisis!
  2. cPanel access is crucial

    Cpanel seems like overkill to me, but you would think they could provide an email when you're nearing the limit, or something in the client area to tell you what your current storage level is.
  3. The lack of documentation has been a problem for years, not just when it comes to IPB4. I keep reading that it's a priority, but again that's been said for years as well and not a lot changes. 
  4. Couldn't you do something with an ad server, either by url or maybe by using javascript to tag certain parts of the site and target by that tag?
  5. The blame isn't on you for the lack of functionality or bugs, I'm with you in that respect and I'm of the opinion that IPB4 should still be considered a beta product and shouldn't have ever been made final when it was.BUT - if you blindly went ahead based on trust, then it is your fault. I've been a customer of IPS for longer than you and I haven't gone near to upgrading yet. Lots of others are the same I'm sure, so you probably going to have to accept that it was your mistake. You could have thoroughly tested and been making these points from a position of not needing them to be urgently fixed because the problems and lack of functionality are damaging your live website but unfortunately you're not. It must be annoying, but there's no point ranting that IPS must fix it instantly because of it, as that's highly unlikely to happen and no amount of shouting is going to help change that fact.
  6. Ultimately though, you're responsible for your own website. The least you can do is test and check that the features you need are there before deciding to upgrade, no-one forced you to use IPB4. 
  7. I'd think that maybe one thing IPS expect of medium size websites, is that they'll test before upgrading? Had you done that, you could have seen the limitations and not gone live with IPB4 until the features you require have been added back in?
  8. Warning for IPB owners

    Are you sure this isn't something more straight forward than you think? Maybe 50% of your visitors are using mobiles, and your mobile skin on 3.4 doesn't have ads?If 50% of your ads are really being loaded from elsewhere, then it should be simple enough to see what's happening by loading pages and digging into the code to see where the ads are loading from? 
  9.  You know those things like videos but kind of not moving? Photos I believe they're called.
  10. Improving Performance

    They may not mean 1/10 of a  second though, that's why I'm suggesting doing some real user testing - they may mean 1/100 of a second or less, and at that point what would you prefer, time spent on that or time spent on bug fixing, new features, or optimisations which are far more significant?
  11. Improving Performance

    Does it really make a difference though? You'd need to do some real-user testing to show that, and in my experience there's usually nothing in it when making this sort of change. I'm not saying it's not worth doing, but with only 24 hours in a day sometimes it's worth focusing on other things rather than spending a lot of time trying to get a better score on online speed testers. 
  12. Improving Performance

    Although online tests have a use, and point you in the right direction for best practices etc, they're not the be all and end all. The changes you describe have clearly improved those test scores, but I'd imagine that although they'll maybe improve the load by 100'th of a second here and there they'll make no noticeable difference to the user experience, which is the most important thing. 
  13. That's an unreasonable example. When it comes to development timeframes there has to be flexibility due to the fact that unforeseen issues, challenges and bugs can arise, either on a particular feature or one which precedes it in the schedule which would have a knock-on effect.  
  14. All seems fair, but reading the original post it sounds like IPS did the upgrade. That being the case, surely whoever did it should have checked the server environment, seen that it was using an ancient version of PHP and said it wasn't advisable to run the upgrade until that was sorted? That one simple check would have saved a lot of downtime, and a lot of work on IPS's part?
  15. Slow Load Speed

    This one does?