Who would like to see a Reputation system built into IPB?

[Super Mr Average]

I don't agree with this. Why? Because some users will use this feature to bash other members... I think a mod is more appropriate than a built-in feature... However, the member rating has been disabled for us.

You do know that negative reputations could be turned off in the version of the reputation system I have seen

Because even if it's an option it bloats the database, increases the size of the files, among other things - if you adopted this for every "mod" then IPB would be a huge ZIP file with neverending administration pages. They only add in things that many/most people will use, and quite frankly the reputation system is not one of those. Like I noted above, it's unprofessional as the poster above me agreed. It's just a popularity contest, where users can bash others and be stupid...

The "unprofessional" reasoning doesn't cut it as long as there is a consumer demand for something.
However I can agree with you on some part about not adding every mod due to database size etc however if this is the case then maybe Invision Power board should give us an easier way to add modifications to our existing configurations.
I mean having to install modifications everytime an upgrade happens it would be a major source of inconvenience hence why this thread has so many people voting for having it as a default option.
The current modification is quite a long modification to install

[UBERHOST.NET]

The "unprofessional" reasoning doesn't cut it as long as there is a consumer demand for something.

That's correct, but how would you accurately measure consumer demand for this?

[Guest]

I'm pro, if you can turn it off it should be no problem for those that don't want it.

basically the basics for the reputation system are already in the new profile where you can rate someone between 1 and 5 stars...

[Super Mr Average]

That's correct, but how would you accurately measure consumer demand for this?

Well one such measure is the poll in this very thread out of the people that can actually be bothered to vote the majority has voted for inclusion of a reputation system.

[UBERHOST.NET]

Well one such measure is the poll in this very thread out of the people that can actually be bothered to vote the majority has voted for inclusion of a reputation system.

Too small a sample to be called "accurate" by any means, plus the voters are all members here, so by nature they're more interested in bells and whistles. In the bigger picture, there are tens of thousands of IPB owners worldwide, and it's probable that their top concerns are security, reliability, and ease of management. Successful forums are based on content, and busy admins have their hands full already. To put it another way, if the world userbase was in want for a reputation system, IPS would know this and respond.

[Super Mr Average]

Too small a sample to be called "accurate" by any means, plus the voters are all members here, so by nature they're more interested in bells and whistles. In the bigger picture, there are tens of thousands of IPB owners worldwide, and it's probable that their top concerns are security, reliability, and ease of management. Successful forums are based on content, and busy admins have their hands full already.

Features of a forum have always been a top priority the rest of it is expected from a commercial forum.
I mean if we were to use that logic then Invision Power board would remain a forum only and wouldn't have Blog and Gallery addon which could be considered outside of the usual requirements.

I agree however on ease of management which is why I would personally like this as an intergrated option rather than as a modification.
I mean I just spent all morning installing the reputation mod and in the end it didn't work properly anyway due to differences between versions. Leading on from a previous post maybe they should make a modification API like Vbulletin because I know that this would fall under the ease of use catergory as customisation has always been a top priority for those that use forums

Also you are only looking at the tech admin side of forum licence holders what about those people that have personal websites and aren't as successful as those big super successful forums you are talking about, the ones that are trying to build up their community from scratch doesn't their licence count as being important as I can bet there are more unsuccessful forums then there are big successful ones
Invision advertises their software as a community building suite

To put it another way, if the world userbase was in want for a reputation system, IPS would know this and respond.

Well how would they ? I mean if you look this is a forum about giving feedback so I assume this is one of the ways they collate data on what people want out of their software

[Guest]

if the reputation mod would be a component I'm all for it being a modification, it's however not possible to write this as a component due to the fact you also have to mingle it into the member column of a post...

[Super Mr Average]

if the reputation mod would be a component I'm all for it being a modification, it's however not possible to write this as a component due to the fact you also have to mingle it into the member column of a post...

This just leads onto the path where the component system needs expansion to allow for any type of modification

[Digi]

if the reputation mod would be a component I'm all for it being a modification, it's however not possible to write this as a component due to the fact you also have to mingle it into the member column of a post...

So you are talking 2 skin edits (one for post one for profile, and I think profile could even be componentized). This is perfectly acceptable in terms of components, and could be done.

This is exactly where a modification like this should be kept too, a component or module. And, like said before, your poll have enough bearing as the sample size doesn't even speak for 5% of invision customers nor for 1% of invision capital (yeah that is right, those with steeper pockets and, as such, more pull on features). This doesn't mean that IPS isn't keeping it in the back of their minds. This request has lasted for years, and one day my become part of the product. For now though, thankfully, it won't.

This just leads onto the path where the component system needs expansion to allow for any type of modification

No. That isn't the purpose of the components/modules system.


Btw, just for those curious, IPB's default package has increased 160% in size from 1.3 to 2.2.1 (ha I don't have 2.2.2 decompressed atm :P). Lets keep that number from grow too quickly on feature that many sites don't care for. A simple off button doesn't make code more optimized, it doesn't decrease overall size, and it definetly doesn't quantify adding this feature to the line up. Leave this one for the vB kiddies and modules/components.

[Jaggi]

This just leads onto the path where the component system needs expansion to allow for any type of modification

thats where a proposed hooks system in 3.0 comes into play.

[Super Mr Average]

thats where a proposed hooks system in 3.0 comes into play.

I wasn't aware that it was already on the cards but in that case I'm happy btw is there a thread on Invision 3.0 anywhere ?

[Jaggi]

there is no thread or official conversation about 3.0 not even within IPB itself however bfarber has confirmed serious looking into if not a promise of a hooks system in 3.0.

[.Sephiroth.]

I voted No. Reason has already been stated several times in this thread.

[Super Mr Average]

I'd like to know what the criteria for inclusion of a feature request in the default installation of Invision Power Board ?

So far I've read against

• Performance issues // I can only really say that If vbulletin developers can add this efficiently to their forums so should Invision be able to
• Unprofessional // Not everyone runs a professional site I would say the my space like profiles don't exactly constitute professional but they attracted me to Invision as a new licence holder
• Other suggested ideas take precedence // What are these ideas that are more important than this feature and if they are more important why not make a todo list

I do have one idea though If its possible then make Invision Power Board modular and features could be added and removed as required by the admin this would save arguements of for and against because that way turning a feature off would near enough mean it being uninstalled

[The Clash]

Why not, as long as it can be turned off. Set it up like the warning system IPB 1.3 had.

[stobbo]

Why not, as long as it can be turned off. Set it up like the warning system IPB 1.3 had.

As someone stated before, turning off still means you have unecessary files and databases table.

[Digi]

Not to mention all the "checks" to see if it is still on.

@msimplay How do you propose a module that inserts itself in the topic and profile page (not to mention pages needed to actually tally and collect reputation) without modification of the source files? This just is not possible without a hook type system, which I still am fully against (well against a vB type one which seems to be the way that IPS is going *puke*).

As for your "request to know what validates inclusion", you've already been given the answer numerous times. Sure, you can rally up the troops, but until your troops actually speak for a large number of IPS customers or future customers, I'd doubt you will see any acknowledgment of the validity of your feature request. It has been pushed since long before vB released theirs (ok, maybe only about 2.5 years), and still hasn't made it. Don't you think that IPS knows if the feature is worth it to their customers by now?

[Super Mr Average]

Not to mention all the "checks" to see if it is still on.

@msimplay How do you propose a module that inserts itself in the topic and profile page (not to mention pages needed to actually tally and collect reputation) without modification of the source files? This just is not possible without a hook type system, which I still am fully against (well against a vB type one which seems to be the way that IPS is going *puke*).

What reason do you have to be against the hook system btw ?

As for your "request to know what validates inclusion", you've already been given the answer numerous times. Sure, you can rally up the troops, but until your troops actually speak for a large number of IPS customers or future customers, I'd doubt you will see any acknowledgment of the validity of your feature request. It has been pushed since long before vB released theirs (ok, maybe only about 2.5 years), and still hasn't made it.

I think you misunderstood my post if Invision was made modular for example any feature could be installed and uninstalled.

• For example private messaging system uninstall
• Attachment system uninstall

This would of course bring about a need for a major overhaul of the whole forum if it was made so modular that every single feature was split into its own module.
However it would mean there being no checks if the module wasn't installed to see if it was on or not

Don't you think that IPS knows if the feature is worth it to their customers by now?

Thats a stupid question about IPS knowing what something is worth to their customers I'm a valid licence holder and my opinion on what should be included counts as much as anyone elses if IPS decide not to include it that is their choice but I'll request any feature I feel would benefit my community.

[Digi]

What reason do you have to be against the hook system btw ?

A hooks system takes perfectly stable and efficient code and turns it in to a question and answer session. Sure, during compilation it doesn't take much time to process one question, but multiply that by 1500000 calls. If it took .00001 (just an example not realistic) to process one answer you just added 15 seconds to page execution. Again, not realistic by any means, but still probable (imagine getting 100 hits to a page per hour and the server resources this would hog!!!). Not only that, but the requirements to make a "perfect" hooks system (also similar to your suggested modularization of IPB) means that these "questions" of what is active or not would need to be asked at pretty much every line (if not multiple times per line) within the code. Even an imperfect hooks system attempting to be remotely useful would require these checks atleast 2-10 times per function (depending on complexity).

I think you misunderstood my post if Invision was made modular for example any feature could be installed and uninstalled.

• For example private messaging system uninstall
• Attachment system uninstall

This would of course bring about a need for a major overhaul of the whole forum if it was made so modular that every single feature was split into its own module.

However it would mean there being no checks if the module wasn't installed to see if it was on or not

Sure, things can be "uninstalled". Did you think about how IPB knows that it is or isn't installed? Whether or not the feature is off, un-installed, on, etc it sill needs to ask. Asking equals greater execution time.

Not only that, but it wouldn't prevent modifications to be needed in these new "subsystems". Now, instead of plugging in a mod directly to invision code, people who program the mods for it would be required to split up their modification instructions to more files, instructions would become more cluttered with things like "Well, if you have X install you also need to do this". There is no such thing as "perfectly modular" as you suggest. The perfect modular system would stop code execution at every line of code to check and see if every other line of code wants to change how that line of code executes......More "modules" means more trouble overall, see above...

Modularization does not work for a feature specific system (ie BBS) beyond extensions like those available though the components/modules systems already provided.

Thats a stupid question about IPS knowing what something is worth to their customers I'm a valid licence holder and my opinion on what should be included counts as much as anyone elses if IPS decide not to include it that is their choice but I'll request any feature I feel would benefit my community.

I wasn't saying that you shouldn't voice your opinion. You have every right to it, so I'm sorry if it sounded that way. However, you are making the case that "so many people" are requesting this feature to be added. When in reality, as I've stated before, your poll and the people requesting the feature now, then, and probably in the future doesn't speak for anywhere near the entirety of the Invision customer base. ;) So, if you want to win this battle of features, rally the troops and get people on your side. Forcing your opinion (of how great this is) won't win the war. :P

[Super Mr Average]

A hooks system takes perfectly stable and efficient code and turns it in to a question and answer session. Sure, during compilation it doesn't take much time to process one question, but multiply that by 1500000 calls. If it took .00001 (just an example not realistic) to process one answer you just added 15 seconds to page execution. Again, not realistic by any means, but still probable (imagine getting 100 hits to a page per hour and the server resources this would hog!!!). Not only that, but the requirements to make a "perfect" hooks system (also similar to your suggested modularization of IPB) means that these "questions" of what is active or not would need to be asked at pretty much every line (if not multiple times per line) within the code. Even an imperfect hooks system attempting to be remotely useful would require these checks atleast 2-10 times per function (depending on complexity).

So you are saying there is no efficient way to add in a hooks system then ?

Sure, things can be "uninstalled". Did you think about how IPB knows that it is or isn't installed? Whether or not the feature is off, un-installed, on, etc it sill needs to ask. Asking equals greater execution time.

Not only that, but it wouldn't prevent modifications to be needed in these new "subsystems". Now, instead of plugging in a mod directly to invision code, people who program the mods for it would be required to split up their modification instructions to more files, instructions would become more cluttered with things like "Well, if you have X install you also need to do this". There is no such thing as "perfectly modular" as you suggest. The perfect modular system would stop code execution at every line of code to check and see if every other line of code wants to change how that line of code executes......More "modules" means more trouble overall, see above...

Modularization does not work for a feature specific system (ie BBS) beyond extensions like those available though the components/modules systems already provided.

Alright given it's going to increase execution times maybe but by your reasoning there should be no new features added at all because they would all infact increase load times , size of files and increase bandwidth.
We might aswell all be using IPB 1.0x with security bug fixes :P. Of course this won't sell IPS software though as long as the competitors have wanted features :)
Ok so what we are saying the only way to make things easier for admins would be to do the hooks system and the modular idea is out the window :P

I wasn't saying that you shouldn't voice your opinion. You have every right to it, so I'm sorry if it sounded that way. However, you are making the case that "so many people" are requesting this feature to be added. When in reality, as I've stated before, your poll and the people requesting the feature now, then, and probably in the future doesn't speak for anywhere near the entirety of the Invision customer base. ;) So, if you want to win this battle of features, rally the troops and get people on your side. Forcing your opinion (of how great this is) won't win the war. :P

I agree that this pole is a miniscul compared to the entirity of the entire IPB customer base so I'll ask again what is the criteria for making judgements as to wether something will get included or not ?

Also based on your entirity of IPB customer base statment where are the statistics because although I can't speak for the whole customer base the simple fact of the matter is that neither can you and my views are based on what I have seen so far.
That this pole says that most people want the rep system to be added

How exactly am I forcing my opinion ? I'm putting my point forward same as anyone else as to why it should be added I also don't see how there is any war this is a suggestion forum and by replying yes to it being added on the pole I'm simply adding my support for the feature.

lol I don't care of rallying troops this one feature isn't going to kill me if its not added but of course I'm adding my support because I would like it included it's IPS's job to collate this data of who wants what and wether or not to include it I can only add my support for the people that do want it and for me that means +1 for reputation system to be added

[UBERHOST.NET]

We get it, msimplay. :rolleyes:

[Digi]

So you are saying there is no efficient way to add in a hooks system then ?

Yes, hooks systems are the epitome of inefficiency.

Alright given it's going to increase execution times maybe but by your reasoning there should be no new features added at all because they would all infact increase load times , size of files and increase bandwidth.

Code added directly in doesn't require (as many) extra checks to check (as you've suggeted) whether it is installed, turned on, active in that particular location (this is the biggest one that will increase times). This is because during execution, if it isn't there it isn't there. The code could care less about what isn't there. In the hooks or modular idea, you are requiring that the code check and make sure nothing is there. So now it cares and that is the root of the efficiency problems.

Sure, adding new features will increase overhead. However, they are far from being comparable (in most cases) to adding new or even missing (un-installed or otherwise) features in a hooks or modular system or even adding in the hook/modular system in at all.

I agree that this pole is a miniscul compared to the entirity of the entire IPB customer base so I'll ask again what is the criteria for making judgements as to wether something will get included or not ?

Why not email IPS management if you are so interested. Though I'd doubt they are going to divulge business practices to you.

Also based on your entirity of IPB customer base statment where are the statistics because although I can't speak for the whole customer base the simple fact of the matter is that neither can you and my views are based on what I have seen so far.

I'm not speaking for "everyone". In fact, I do not see one time where I've said "IPS's customers do not want this feature so shut up msimplay", or anything similar for that matter. I've actually said that you have every right to your opinion and believe I have been very respectable towards you. Yet, you seem to want to come back here and reply to each of my posts like I've launched a personal attack on you. That is why I made the "forcing your opinion" remark. All I've stated is that this feature has been battled for years and hasn't been added. I think that alone speaks for the particular wants of the Invision body. There is no need for me to "speak for them."

[Super Mr Average]

We get it, msimplay. :rolleyes:

Well thanks for the sarcasm but yeah I was typing to Digi :thumbsup:

[Brian Garcia]

Yes just leave it as an add-on mod. I want professional software and don't need any reputation mod, if I did I would go to Invisionize and install it. Not sure why your complaining so much about something like this...

[Super Mr Average]

I'm not speaking for "everyone". In fact, I do not see one time where I've said "IPS's customers do not want this feature so shut up msimplay", or anything similar for that matter. I've actually said that you have every right to your opinion and believe I have been very respectable towards you. Yet, you seem to want to come back here and reply to each of my posts like I've launched a personal attack on you. That is why I made the "forcing your opinion" remark. All I've stated is that this feature has been battled for years and hasn't been added. I think that alone speaks for the particular wants of the Invision body. There is no need for me to "speak for them."

In any case apologise since I it may have been a case of me misunderstanding what you meant when you said because at the time I felt you were belittling my opinion hence my reply

Don't you think that IPS knows if the feature is worth it to their customers by now?

However I was simply arguing my case for having it in the same fashion you were for example
You can't speak for the whole customer base , I replied well neither can you

I didn't mean anything to sound like an arguement in any case well I think we know I want the reputation system to be included so I'll conclude my participation in this thread :thumbsup: