Disappointed With IPB 2.2

[Elemental Crisis]

I agree with dg0896.

IPS has done a damn good job with IPB and even though I don't have any complaints about IPB 2.2 others do. The fact is you cant please everyone as there will always be a group of people who are happy and another who aren't. What people seem to be missing is this great thing called the moding community. That community exists for the soul purpose of making the unhappy people happy with mods they release.

Give it some time guys, let IPB release 2.2 Final and see within a week or 2 the amount of mods released with features that were requested.

Also for the people that disappointed with IPB or leaving IPB for another forum software. Why don't you spend years developing your own forum software with EVERY feature suggested by EVERY member. Once down please post a link so I can request some feature that I think should without a doubt be a default feature.

[Mat Barrie]

IPS has done a damn good job with IPB and even though I don't have any complaints about IPB 2.2 others do. The fact is you cant please everyone as there will always be a group of people who are happy and another who aren't. What people seem to be missing is this great thing called the moding community. That community exists for the soul purpose of making the unhappy people happy with mods they release.

Unfortunately, we have members like Septerra who will not rest until IPB contains every unnecessary feature under the sun (like a Points System) and simply refuse to accept mods for it. No, it MUST be default.

[elj]

I'd love an easy way to get rid of the calendar, personally. It's a feature I've never used, and as far as I can see the best way to get rid of it is just to skin out the links to it...

[TestingSomething]

One of the goals for future versions is to ensure that unwanted features/components are completely disabled within the product - out of sight, out of mind. We get a lot of feedback in this regard... our enterprise customers generally strip out private messaging, calendar and other fluff items, while others want to just pack the features in there. A fair compromise is a way to turn such items completely on and off. If off, they will have no impact to the forum, you won't even know they exist. :)

I have put many many features on my main site and I never understand why so many people don't want a lot of features on their sites. Of course mine is a general discussion one (and not active at all right now) and I could see why companies running forums would NOT want a lot of "fun" features, but would rather have it be more professional.

[MindTooth]

I really love IPB the way it is. And 2.2.0 is adding soem neat features releated to a community board..

Birger :)

[Cooltad]

One of the goals for future versions is to ensure that unwanted features/components are completely disabled within the product - out of sight, out of mind. We get a lot of feedback in this regard... our enterprise customers generally strip out private messaging, calendar and other fluff items, while others want to just pack the features in there. A fair compromise is a way to turn such items completely on and off. If off, they will have no impact to the forum, you won't even know they exist. :)

ah yes, this is what I like to hear :D

[lupin84]

Ditto that sounds good to me. That way we can have a feature rich board while those concerned with loading times etc can knock all that stuff out easily. :D

[forums.bd]

- you still can't edit topic title by double clicking! you have to open the topic, scroll down, choose "edit topic title" , change it, and (don't lose patience, we're just one more step away), yes save it! wow!

- removing moderators from forum still remains a BIG pain!

[Dlf]

- you still can't edit topic title by double clicking! you have to open the topic, scroll down, choose "edit topic title" , change it, and (don't lose patience, we're just one more step away), yes save it! wow!

- removing moderators from forum still remains a BIG pain!

• You can highlight the topic-title to change it, but you have to see the topic titles though. Been there since the betas of 2.1.0
• You can double click a topic-description to change it. - I found that out in a support ticket.

[Josh]

- you still can't edit topic title by double clicking! you have to open the topic, scroll down, choose "edit topic title" , change it, and (don't lose patience, we're just one more step away), yes save it! wow!

You don't double click, you click and hold on the title, it will change to an edit box after a second or so.

[Alex Duggan]

- you still can't edit topic title by double clicking! you have to open the topic, scroll down, choose "edit topic title" , change it, and (don't lose patience, we're just one more step away), yes save it! wow!

As in IPB 2.1, you can edit the topic title from the topic listing page by holding your mouse button down on the topic title for about 2 seconds.

[lupin84]

You can lock threads by clicking on the icon too. :D I love those features so much. Saves a lot of time.

[Genestoy]

One of the goals for future versions is to ensure that unwanted features/components are completely disabled within the product - out of sight, out of mind. We get a lot of feedback in this regard... our enterprise customers generally strip out private messaging, calendar and other fluff items, while others want to just pack the features in there. A fair compromise is a way to turn such items completely on and off. If off, they will have no impact to the forum, you won't even know they exist. :)

AGREED Lindy!!!!

[Cherrymenthol]

I don't think I'd ever forgive IPS if they ever dropped the classic warning bars :P

[Arts&Faith]

I'm pleased with much of what I've read about 2.2, for example multiple choice polls and users being able to see the ratings they've set.

BUT, one feature, self-selectable groups, has been missing forever, it's in a competing product (phpBB), and has been popular in the forums here. Why hasn't this made it? It wouldn't seem that difficult to (1) give groups a _selectable attribute and then (2) add an interface in "My Controls" to list groups for users to select to join.

And that wouldn't EVEN get to phpBB's level, but it's a start. In phpBB (three years ago when I last used it!), groups could also have leaders that could authorize (or deny) membership requests. That's great, but understandably much more complex to implement.

I hate modding because it messes up upgrades.

[Dlf]

If I remember from reading a post by Matt a couple of months ago (and I means months) that should be comming in 3.0. Or something like it.

[dg0896]

I agree with dg0896.

IPS has done a damn good job with IPB and even though I don't have any complaints about IPB 2.2 others do. The fact is you cant please everyone as there will always be a group of people who are happy and another who aren't. What people seem to be missing is this great thing called the moding community. That community exists for the soul purpose of making the unhappy people happy with mods they release.

Give it some time guys, let IPB release 2.2 Final and see within a week or 2 the amount of mods released with features that were requested.

Also for the people that disappointed with IPB or leaving IPB for another forum software. Why don't you spend years developing your own forum software with EVERY feature suggested by EVERY member. Once down please post a link so I can request some feature that I think should without a doubt be a default feature.

Back to what I said, this is true Elemental Crisis, there are always mods for people that want more features. They put together a damn good software for what people wanted, I downloaded my copy of IPB 2.2 Beta 1 from the members area to test, and there's a lot of improvements, not to mention a ton more security features, including NO MORE SQL INJECTION, be happy with that for the release of 2.2 let alone all the new features. :)

[harmor]

Back to what I said, this is true Elemental Crisis, there are always mods for people that want more features. They put together a damn good software for what people wanted, I downloaded my copy of IPB 2.2 Beta 1 from the members area to test, and there's a lot of improvements, not to mention a ton more security features, including NO MORE SQL INJECTION, be happy with that for the release of 2.2 let alone all the new features. :)

How can you be certain that there will be no SQL injection?

[dg0896]

How can you be certain that there will be no SQL injection?

They had it tested by a third party company, and I read something in the release notes you should read them :rolleyes: :P

[harmor]

They had it tested by a third party company, and I read something in the release notes you should read them :rolleyes: :P

I knew they had a third party look over the script for about a month. There could be the possibly of a security hole somewhere in the coding.

[dg0896]

I knew they had a third party look over the script for about a month. There could be the possibly of a security hole somewhere in the coding.

I am sure they tested it in Alpha private testing stage, and I am sure (and hope) there wont be a hole in the coding.:)

[Guest]

I knew they had a third party look over the script for about a month. There could be the possibly of a security hole somewhere in the coding.

that's true, and there probably will be, but there will be less of those cause the third party will have looked into it. :)

[harmor]

that's true, and there probably will be, but there will be less of those cause the third party will have looked into it. :)

That's probably true aswell. I wonder if there ever was a security hole would IPS blame the third part company that looked over the script?

[bfarber]

Firstly, regarding the last few replies about 'security' - all software invariably has some sort of security hole. Often times, it may not be something known about or possible when the software is released. IE could have an update in 6 months that opens a new XSS hole that just isn't possible now. The point is - all we can do is work our hardest at preventing and plugging as many potential holes as possible, and the third party security audit, as well as internal improvements we've made, will be a good core to enact this from.

The user that said "no more SQL injection" - we've added code into our database driver at the core level to attempt to prevent typical SQL injections. In our tests, it has proven to be quite effective. This means that even if a new SQL injection hole were discovered, our core should still stop it from being exploitable.

l'm glad to see you acknowledge the suggestions members post, and l see something l asked for, the searching of secondary groups, has been included.

However, if you use a suggestion, it doesn't take that long to say so in the thread, and close it, that way we know we are being listened to.

The problem with this is if I begin doing this, other users will then start up with the "you replied to xyz's topic, what about mine" and I just don't have the time to do it. As well, I don't want to begin debates about which features we are choosing as we are working on them.

Just post feature suggestions, and let it stand at that. I read the suggestions forums every day, and reply to maybe 1/100th of the topics - you'll find more often the topics I DO reply to I do so because I disagree with, or don't understand, a feature being requested. If I understand it and it makes sense, it's easier just to go ahead and add it then reply stating that I'm adding it, and then add it.

The highlighted red is nothing but internal cleanling that the user never will see. What I am referring to is the absolute lack of documentation that gets updated with new features. The "Help" button at the top of IPB forums. That literally has not changed since v1.x. The help pages themselves need to be rewritten by someone that is skilled in communicating with end users. Dumb them down. Explain what is going on and why the option is useful for them. Another one is the lack of admin control panel documentation, feature by feature where it has the inline help right there for the admins of the product they are buying from you. Making it much more obvious help is available with a little question mark there to open up the help for that option. The PDF document you've written is a teriffic start. It explains things quite well. And others have said you intend to make it an HTML document and link to it throughout the AdminCP. That's a good step. And I'm glad to see it get done. I am just disappointed it has not made it to this release. The inconsistent error pages thrown at unwitting users asking them to login with inconsistent login forms with "useful links" so far down in HTML table hell that they are long since unuseful. Refinement is sorely needed. That is what I was referring to, sir.

Many of the "features" are just extra AJAX here and there. I agree with many that were included, they were needed. I've said that prior. The improved post editor, the improved attachments system. Albeit bloated like some say, these complaints can be fixed by allowing on/off switches in the admin cp. Much of my topic I linked to was desperately asking for refinements to be made, for things to be able to be turned on/off. To appease those who want the bloat and those who do not. To appease those like myself who desperately want your system to become more consistent, easier to use for the end user. To stop throwing convoluted errors at the users of our communities. To unify the 5 or 6 different login forms into one single login form that gets used everywhere--board offline, user does not have permission page, standard login, etc... redo the error system so that it does not merely say "you do not have access."

Tell them what they're trying to access, why its blocked. Say at the very least, "The administrator of this forum community has chosen to disable access to these features or x and x reasons. If you would like to contact your administrator about these you may do so with this contact form." The contact form sending PMs to the entire administrators enabled user group so that issues with the software can be addressed. If the system is down, email instead. Instead of throwing ungainly SQL errors at the user, say instead a simple html page that says "we're sorry for the inconvenience, the administrators have automatically been notified, until then go check out our main site." Or whatever the admin configures the error message to read to the user. Admin configurable error pages that are 100x times more friendly to the user. The simple refinements are needed. Badly.

I am ecstatic to see the software has received a full out security shakedown from a private firm and that there is improved security and sanitization going on in the backend to proactively try to stop the common forms of attacks. Cleaner code is always faster and that's always good for the communities running your software. I am ecstatic that you, and your company have decided to change the development process and include your customers more in the process. That is a wonderful position to take and I eagerly await what the result of these improvements may bring to the products you develop, the happiness of customers like myself. Changes are needed and I am glad to see them being made. But I feel no less strongly about my stance. Please do not misinterpret my topic here as a threat or displeasure to you as a company. If I were disenfranchised I would not take the time to reply and post such long feature suggestion threads. I care for the software and I think it's of an extremely high quality. I just want to see the improvements made. Much of the features, as I said, were refinements, not new features in the sense that they are completely new. Just improving what is already there.

It is good news that the customers are being kept more involved. I'm glad to hear that. And thank you for making the necessary internal changes to allow these things to take place. I'm sure in the end it will result in a more streamlined company and happier customers. Possibly even increased sales. Who knows. But it's good to see changes being made.

Believe me when I say that a lot of the things you're pointing out, we too want to get added in. At the end of the day, it's all about timelines and deadlines - we couldn't add everything in and still have 2.2 out by this time.

We expect with so many core updates that needed to be done completed now, moving forward we will have a much cleaner and powerful slate to build off of. :)

I'm pleased with much of what I've read about 2.2, for example multiple choice polls and users being able to see the ratings they've set.

BUT, one feature, self-selectable groups, has been missing forever, it's in a competing product (phpBB), and has been popular in the forums here. Why hasn't this made it? It wouldn't seem that difficult to (1) give groups a _selectable attribute and then (2) add an interface in "My Controls" to list groups for users to select to join.

And that wouldn't EVEN get to phpBB's level, but it's a start. In phpBB (three years ago when I last used it!), groups could also have leaders that could authorize (or deny) membership requests. That's great, but understandably much more complex to implement.

I hate modding because it messes up upgrades.

This is something we've discussed for a future version. But again, understand that the next user wants a different feature added and THAT one is the most important to them, and then a third user wants a different feature that's most important to them. We have to determine which features are the most userful for everyone as a whole. :)

[Arts&Faith]

Hmmm. If only there were some sort of polling system that could be used to (1) nominate, (2) pick leading options, and (3) vote for finalists.

Naaaah.

Seriously, though, there have been multiple suggestions for this, going back years (at least two years, anyway), and it's always been greeted very enthusiastically. It's not some pie-in-the-sky wish, because it's a known, mature, working feature in other products.

It would great increase the value of moderators, by allowing administrators to delete some group administration to them without having to promote them to admins to take care of it. It would, thereby, increase the productivity of board administrators and allow for greater board flexibility and the ability to more directly address the interests of specific groups. Even groups themselves would become more valuable.