Jump to content

True multiple attachments yet?


Guest skysober

Recommended Posts

Posted

Strange, I WAS talking about the javascript one... as I DID drag and drop just fine into it 3 photos. (just like it states it is preset to allow only 3 ;) ) yes, I said JAVASCRIPT and yes, just in case I just now retested and amazingly, it still works ;)


What magic trickery is this? I have dragged files onto it and all it did was cause the browser to invoke them (resulting in some extra programs running). So no, there is no drag and drop.

I agree there. With the exception to Sun Java and Macromedia Flash, which I insure is installed on all my PC's. Yet java WAS actually a part of explorer for a few years under Sun, then MS made their own, then the fight, then and so on, so now it is just automatic site send users to Sun automatically. Of course it is always an OPTION if they choose to install it... Most good sites offer an alternative native html if one does not wish to install Java. (and you are telling me honestly you do NOT have Java installed on your PC's? :) )


Don't know about him, but I sure as heck don't. I despise Java, it's too damn slow. Nothing like waiting 1 minute for your browser to load, 20 seconds for the page to load, and 6 minutes for the Java runtime to load up (while your browser happily stops responding).

We actually use the PDA skin on our sites, and I like about 5% of the members access the site via this. Of course my phone is a simple sprint flip phone that has java (not javascript,) built into it... It works, albeit I have to scroll right sometimes as the screen is not full PDA size. Let alone I can use mini Opera (a java based mobile browser,) or Openwave which converts quite nicely 76% of all websites without modification to the websites code... (It does not handle flash ;) ) As to ajax, my phone can NOT handle it, and it gives a page handler error each and every time. But then my Muzik phone is almost 2 months old, so probably obsolete.


I think they refer to modern phones, like Windows Mobile 6 based phones, and the Apple iPhone. Both of which support AJaX.

Many of those whom chose to purchase the latest upgrades may even agree. I don't have to wonder how many did not upgrade or chose not to purchase IPB, as I hear about it every day from so many whom who have left IPB for any of the free or commercial packages out there that do offer this. I choose not to loose all I have invested in IPB and just throw it away... If my car had cruise control, then I trade it in on a newer model of the same type and find out it doesn't have such a standard item, I don't throw the car away, I simply let the manufacture know they need to get a factory add-on (not necessarily a third party,) to bring it back up to standard ;)


I highly doubt anyone is leaving IPB just because it can only upload one attachment at a time - annoying though it might me.
  • Replies 132
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Posted

@ kyanar... please read ALL of the thread before responding... I answered about my link mistake to Digi that it was the other one Java that does this. Yet we are focusing on Javascript which IPB seems to feel is acceptable...

I am glad you do not have Java on your system. Since PCworld states that 28% of websites use Java in some form, that should bring your access to the web up to the 1990's :) Of course I am unsure what browser you are using... I've never viewed more than a few milliseconds to get my PC's to load any site with Java. Perhaps you are on slower connect? This thread is about multiple attachments and a means to get this back into the software, and Java was one option that IPB states not due to the 'speed', but due to there being some people in the world whom do not have Java installed would have to install it to use it. Yet if it were an option then those whom chose not to use Java could simply use the limited php way, while those that did use Java could utilize true multiple attachments.

But as to javascript, it WILL allow true multiple attachement, even tho not drag and drop. One can browse and select multiple files and upload then with a single click after all are selected... thus saving time and giving what the members want and need.


I think they refer to modern phones, like Windows Mobile 6 based phones, and the Apple iPhone. Both of which support AJaX.

again if you had read the threads... Windows mobile phones make up .075 percent of the cell phone market. Iphone Browser .1 percent (stats computerworld Feb08) Thus about 99% do NOT have this... and these are 'modern phone" like the Muzik, which offers more nationwide features than the Iphone according to PCworld. ;) But really I could care less about phone access. I just want it to work right for our members using regular PC with good old explorer or fizzlefox.

I highly doubt anyone is leaving IPB just because it can only upload one attachment at a time - annoying though it might me



You do not think this? Ah, well I only know of about 300 who have. Surf the net, you can view topics about this quite easily. Just not here exclusively :) Sure it is only about 300 for this reason alone. I suspect more have left for additional reasons and this was only one of many factors, but that is not important. Getting multiple attachments back is...
Posted

@ kyanar... please read ALL of the thread before responding... I answered about my link mistake to Digi that it was the other one Java that does this. Yet we are focusing on Javascript which IPB seems to feel is acceptable...


Not before I replied you didn't - and by the way, replies take more than 30 seconds to write.

I am glad you do not have Java on your system. Since PCworld states that 28% of websites use Java in some form, that should bring your access to the web up to the 1990's :) Of course I am unsure what browser you are using... I've never viewed more than a few milliseconds to get my PC's to load any site with Java. Perhaps you are on slower connect? This thread is about multiple attachments and a means to get this back into the software, and Java was one [i]option[/i] that IPB states not due to the 'speed', but due to there being some people in the world whom do not have Java installed would have to install it to use it. Yet if it were an [i]option[/i] then those whom chose not to use Java could simply use the limited php way, while those that did use Java could utilize true multiple attachments.


Don't patronise me. I don't like Java, don't use Java, and refuse to use it. It's slow, bloated, and inefficient.

But as to javascript, it WILL allow true multiple attachement, even tho not drag and drop. One can browse and select multiple files and upload then with a single click after all are selected... thus saving time and giving what the members want and need.


Agreed.

again if you had read the threads... Windows mobile phones make up .075 percent of the cell phone market. Iphone Browser .1 percent (stats computerworld Feb08) Thus about 99% do NOT have this... and these are 'modern phone" like the Muzik, which offers more nationwide features than the Iphone according to PCworld. ;) But really I could care less about phone access. I just want it to work right for our members using regular PC with good old explorer or fizzlefox.


Modern phones not running WM or OSX have the ability to install Opera Mini via their Java function, and Opera Mini does support AJaX OTOH.

You do not think this? Ah, well I only know of about 300 who have. Surf the net, you can view topics about this quite easily. Just not here exclusively :) Sure it is only about 300 for this reason alone. I suspect more have left for additional reasons and this was only one of many factors, but that is not important. Getting multiple attachments back is...


Again, I think that's being blown out of proportion. Anyone who leaves just because they have to upload one attachment at a time has bigger things to worry about.
Posted

Not before I replied you didn't - and by the way, replies take more than 30 seconds to write.

Hmm... I read the dates at 3 days different... but pehaps my java plug in is messing up the dates it shows before the replies ;) ( I know... patronizing again - tease. Sorry, but sometimes my frustration at IPB dragging its feet shows through sideways and I apologize.

I am glad you agree on that javascript can give true multiple attachments. Now if IPB could be convinced of this ;)

I have mini opera on my phone as well, (as noted in a much previous post...) but it does NOT work with ajax nor java. You must mean Opera Mobile... available to phones such as the blackberry or those able to run windows mobile. This is stated even on the Opera home site...

And yes, people do leave because of this. Not everyone uses a forum as a BBS. Some actually use them for photos and videos... okay, a LOT of them use forums for this :) If competitors do have this and a site owner has members screaming for it... He has to weight the options... Completely rebuild the site loosing all past attachments because IPB 2 does not convert... or stick with what has already been paid for with hopes IPB catches up. Many I know who only had a few thousand attachments decided it was worth the rebuild. Others like myself with attachments in the half million or more decided to stay with IPB and hope...

Perhaps IPB only has focus on the consumer that is using a shared or free server expecting a membership of less than a hundred. Or when a large membership base is expected, the restricted hassle of uploading actually saves money for a site owner, due to reduces bandwidth and storage space because the member gives up on attachments out of exaustion. No one is quite sure why they only allow one attachment at a time, especially since all of their competitors do offer this. Each time a reason is given, that reason is shown to be invalid... like they only use javascript and not java. Yet that 'reasoning' is nulled each time, as others are shown able to do it even in that restricted environment.


Now a member today did have a thought. Since IPB decision has been to not upgrade their attachment mode at this time... is it possible that a intermediate bit of coding could determine if a zipped file is uploaded, like PhotoPost Gallery software does, could it not auto unzip and build the thumbnails, and auto insert that into the post? We use PhotoPost and a member can upload a 200 meg zipped file of 50-100 photos and it will auto make an album for it. (amazingly it never times out, as I was told once that was a 'reason' why IPB chose not to use true multiple attachements...)

What I truly do not comprehend is why IPB does not embrace the suggestion to offer 'enhancements' at an additonal price. They could mimic phpBBS who give the basic core forum software and then has a plug-ins page. Except IPB could do this and offer plug-ins like true multiple attachments at a nominal cost. This would give them even greater capital gains and also show exactly how many use such a feature. (Macromedia, Photoshop, etc... are more examples of many software providers that do it this way...)

Of course the easiest thing to do is for IPB to simply add this feature that members and many site owners want, and allow it to be an option to turn on or off in the aCP, satisfying both those whom want the restricted single at a time upload and those whom want true multiple attachments...
  • 2 weeks later...
Posted

Holy Carp,

I'm beat up from reading!! :lol:

Please give us multi upload when you get a chance. Please. 6-7 years ago we didn't really need it. How about we start thinking ahead? As the digital camera's have become cheaper, more people bought them and more people want to post multiple pics. NOW we have camera phones.. and even MORE pictures.



B

  • 2 weeks later...
Posted

I think two functions are important hee

1. multiple folder of images enabled

2. allow to attach files into completely different server

IPB claims itself for LARGE firm use, but tries to SATIN all images under one folder for what reasons?

we have 60K members and if we start allowing them to upload images, can you imagine that?

please

post-123375-1210844142.gif

Posted

@ Grant,
Yes, Flash would work quite easily as well. Every excuse given to not implement this is just that, an excuse. I've shown data in this thread here that it can be done in java, javascript, flash, etc.

With your concept of if you let members upload photos? Doing of a quick check, one of my sites has 794,387 photos. Albeit all under one folder, I have never had one problem with the attachments. And don't think that is due to not having multiple attachments. Before IPB disabled Deans multiple attachment mod, we were averaging 500 to 1000 new photos a day. Now of course members get so frustrated trying to upload, that many give up or just don't wish to take the time to babysit doing multiple single uploads.

It is because of my site having so many attachments and posts, that I can not simply restart from scratch or convert to any of the other forum software out there. Our only survival is where we use PhotoPost which allows a member to upload a zip file of photos, and it auto uncompresses and places it in the album, with the average zipped file over 100 meg. Yet then they must create a topic in the forum, add in the link where it is posted, etc.

On a side note about attaching do a different server, we simply mounted a second server as a folder on the first, and use it for the attachments. This only works if one has full root, and not via the forum software. IPB wants compatability and they seem to focus on those who want a forum on a shared $3 a month host. Of course they could offer this as an option, but we know how that goes... ;)

Posted

IPB is not likely to implement other tech (flash, java, etc) as they've said. They know it can be done "better" with those, but from a development standpoint I totally agree with them not wanting to bring in yet another tech.

Regarding javascript, you've only shown a single form+post option (please don't confuse your examples and drag me along for 4 pages again) which is demonized because it will cause issues with a majority of people. If you want to implement this for yourself YOU CAN! In fact, the topic post functionality still contains checks to see if a single file has been uploaded. All you need to do is disable the javascript for IPS's implementation and re-skin the area. Then, find a way to implement Dean's mod's idea, which would just be a matter of setting up a loop within the post files to check for multiple rather than single attachments. Have fun. IPS doesn't like that method, which is why they didn't use it and will never implement it... ;)

If you would like to see improvements on the attachment system (aka mirroring uploads to a file server), why not provide feedback to the usability+feature aspect (which seems to be your biggest issue), here.

Posted

@ Grant,


Yes, Flash would work quite easily as well. Every excuse given to not implement this is just that, an excuse. I've shown data in this thread here that it can be done in java, javascript, flash, etc.



No, Flash wouldn't. With the proliferation of Firefox addons such as NoScript and FlashBlock, a Flash uploader would never be seen by such users. Me, I have Flash disabled. Why? Advertisers. As usual, ruining potentially decent solutions for everyone.
Posted

No, Flash wouldn't. With the proliferation of Firefox addons such as NoScript and FlashBlock, a Flash uploader would never be seen by such users. Me, I have Flash disabled. Why? Advertisers. As usual, ruining potentially decent solutions for everyone.




Yes flash WOULD work as well as any... remember this is a plea to get IPB to add true multiple attachments AS AN OPTION in the aCP. Those still back in the archaic bbs text mode only, can still use a simple

I can understand your dislike for advertisers. You must also not like to use youtube. Or that 14% of all professional website do use flash in one form or another. I don't have ads on any of my sites. But there is quite a bit of flash added to it, as well as java, perl, and even some c+ calls. There is also an option in fizzlefox to turn off images. Then one can truly be back to almost the fido-net era.
Remember a member can choose to turn on flash when they enter a 'safe' site. Pretty simple to make one change in their browser, compared to hours sitting around trying to upload hundreds of files after files manually.

But this is not about focusing on one solution. It is about actually getting a solution. Even the ttVideo Mod uses a simple flash uploader that works outstanding, but it of course has an html option for those whom choose to not use it!
Yet, as in this thread... Java works fine, Javascript works fine... everything works fine, except for the members whom actually want this feature... for them it is simply a matter of waiting until another Dean type comes along and adds in whatever format works instead constantly hearing what IPB is unable and unwilling to do for its paying customers and n'th power of members.
Posted

Correction - you can NOT get a multi-uploader using javascript. That was explained a few pages back. You'd need Java or Flash (or ActiveX, but that would be restricted to IE) basically.

Posted

I really like the Flash multiuploader that Imageshack uses, not a fan of multiple upload boxes. Take it one step further and display the files in the queue.

  • 4 weeks later...
Posted

You can close this thread now. Yes I paid a programmer and we now have true multiple attachments. Yes, it works in explorer, firefox, and opera, so I can assume it works in most any of the browsers.

I simply showed the programmer this thread and the suggestions I had made, and the 16 year old kid had it completed in less than 10 minutes. We can now keep clicking the 'add' button to open up to 10 browse boxes, browse the files, and sit back and watch it do it all by its own little self. Tested it with 10 different files averaging 100 meg apiece and amazingly this timout theory was moot as mentioned, as they all uploaded just fine. Though I did not test it on dial up....

Now if IPB ever catches up to the rest of the forum software out there, and has this option and the ttVideo mod (which I now have customized and completed by the same kid,) incorporated, I and many others might consider someday repurchasing, but I learned the last 5 upgrades I paid for, that the features the customers and members want, are usually beyond the ability of IPB and what they actually get in the 'upgrades'.
Photos and Videos are the MOST important thing members want. As a site owner, I have to listen to my 'customers'. IPB should also. If IPB can't handle it, they should contract out to programmers who can. If IPB were still free, I could understand their limitations. But when someone pays for something, they expect more than what can be gotten in freeware.


To the others whom might accidentally stumble upon this thread, I, whom was probably one of the largest mouths touting how great Invision is as the best forum software, (when it was 2.0 and even 2.1...) I apoligize if I lead you to believe this and you are now locked into the software as I am myself. But then I used to say how great DOS was over linux...

Posted

I think your comments are a bit out of line. Nevertheless I'm glad you were able to get what you wanted. ;)

Please remember ONE suggestion is not EVERY suggestion. We have thousands of suggestions in this forum, many of which have been implemented. Just because someone posts something doesn't mean the majority of our customers want it.

And just because we discuss the benefits and cons of implementing any given suggestion doesn't mean any sort of decision has been made either. I think you're jumping the gun bashing us, given that a major release hasn't been out since you posted this topic, so there would have been no release made in which we "ignored" the "MOST important thing members want".

Posted

I don't believe venting and frustration constitutes 'bashing', but I can see the point here. As to every 'major' release, and I do seem to remember the same situation prior to 2.2 (which was announced as a major release,) and was it not also with 2.3 ?
There were many topics and threads discussing then as well, within invision and outside forums. (IPB should do google searches to view other forum discussions, at least occasionally, to gain a broader viewpoint as to what members need and/or want.)

Perhaps it is simply when one reads the 'compare' chart it states that IPB has multiple attachments. If IPB was honest and removed this, then perhaps there would be less frustration from the customers about this. Semantics are often the key to customer relations. One can not complain or voice out against something that is not included, if it stated prior to purchasing. Then it would simply be a wish or want, instead of a request to follow through with what is advertised.

Posted

Wow.. quite the discussion here. I was thinking of purchasing invision software to add to one of our realtor sites. With a membership base of almost 1000 realtors, it would be nice if they could have a forum for their discussion. Yet the need for adding photos, as realtors do use a lot of them in discussing house and businesses for sale, would of course be a priority. To be honest, most realtors are not technically inclined. Many of us type with one finger. So ease of use is a very important function.

I am glad I took the time to research the limitations of your software here. Often times customers state the truth which can be much different than what a company promotes. I found invision when Skype was using it for their forum software, but I notice they have changed away from it. Contacting them for reference, their technical support stated only: "it no longer fullfilled their needs for the members they must encompass." Reading this thread, as I view it, it seems your upgrades remove features customers used in previous versions. I am confused. I always thought an upgrade added, not took away.

As stated also in this in which there will be a new release soon, will it be announced that IPB has fixed this on your home page, or will potential customers have to wade through the many topics to view this subject.

Posted

Reading this thread, as I view it, it seems your upgrades remove features customers used in previous versions. I am confused. I always thought an upgrade added, not took away.


The upgrade DIDN'T "take away". It actually improved the attachment system immensely. Unfortunately, this customer does not agree with that. Some share his/her sentiment, but most do not :)
Posted

Wow I'm confused. I don't know how else to explain it.

Instead of having 10 input fields, you get one at a time, but can still upload 10 files (again, one at a time). This is "multiple attachments" no matter what your definition of the phrase is. You can add multiple...attachments. Thus advertising the software as supporting multiple attachments by far is not a lie or misleading customers.

Allowing one file to be attached to a given post would not be multiple attachments. That is NOT a limitation of our software.

Posted

ROFL

Ok, not going to post the IP....but just thought I'd point out that "Blondboy", "mgalyen", and "skysober" are all posting from the same IP address.

That would indicate it's not 3 separate people stating "we want this feature" but one person logging in under multiple names to try to make it APPEAR there is mass customer support for this feature. I'd appreciate it if we could get back down to who actually wants something like this without inflating the numbers. Thanks.

Posted

I know my software team modified our uploads system a little. We have a transload URL (hotlinking images is a no-no on our site) and 5 browse boxes. It does those in one batch. Of course, we're using the forums as a gallery system (don't ask me why ... I bought Gallery too).

A solution I can think of would be to have the ability click a + box to add additional upload boxes as the user needs ... up to a number defined in the ACP. Keeping in mind server size limitations I would have the system upload the files one-by-one using a linear batch of HTTP POSTs. If one upload were to fail the system would keep going (depending on the error ... file error keep going, server error stop in place).

Keith

P.S. I gave up reading this whole thing ;)

Posted

I, for one, WOULD like true multiple attachments. And there HAS been more than me and (whoever that really is above; ROFL with bfarber) that have expressed a desire for it. But with multiple upload boxes, I can live with it. Perhaps in the future....

Posted

If you would like to see improvements on the attachment system (aka mirroring uploads to a file server), please help me push realistic change by providing feedback to the usability+feature aspect, here.

This topic is about having multiple inline uploads which, as requested, is doubtful to return. However, in the topic above, I've outlined changes that will be similar too the request (plus a ton more) without the bad sides noted in this topic. :)

Posted

haha - took you long enough BF - lol

Couldn't resist, especially since if one types "multiple attachments" in google, this topic ranks highest. Actually I mentioned it was me way back in a PM as the frustrating way it required email address to log in in some places on IPB, instead of a normal username that a person can actually remember, since emails change all the time. I had to make a new account to do that if you remem... so thus the first two accounts...

You guys aren't the only ones who can have fun - hehe I could have used the proxy changer, but this was so tempting to see if I could bait you.

I can joke now that I have a functioning forum for the members that cost a whole $40 and ten minutes for the kid to have the code changed to get it to work. ;) and I DID mention to close the thread... especially since I am the only person in the world who wanted true multiple attachments and you guys have already stated quite clearly it will never be added. :)

After what... almost three years of waiting, I can simply sit back and chuckle.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...