True multiple attachments yet?

[TCWT]

I like eBay's attachment system.

[EDAInsight]

I do want a "multiple attachment", select multiple files, then click 'upload', then wait ...

[David_B]

I think the future for a lot of forums is digital entertainment. As time goes on, it is difficult to maintain interest in a lot of subjects. My community is over 4 years old, we have all been there, done that, bought the t-shirt. But I started a demotivational poster thread and it has gotten nearly 12,000 hits in 4 months. That's the kind of activity I like to see on my board. We have several other threads dedicated to pictures and videos and they are the most visited on the site. Someone in this thread suggested that IPB must look to the future, and I agree. Just because this feature has not been heavily requested, does not mean it won't be well received. Innovation is all about being first, you shouldn't wait until everyone already decides they want something before implementing it. The best ideas are the ones where everyone smacks their foreheads and say "Why didn't I think of that...............

[Josh]

The attachment system will receive an update in IPB 3, we just haven't announced any details yet :)

[skysober]

hehe, well if pattern continues, will there even BE an attachment system - lol... It has degraded and become even more limited with each new 'version'. It would have to be an awesome update.

Right now I can attach up to 10 files and press upload and it uploads just fine. Of course the programmer set it in the aCP so I can change it from 1 to 99 attachments at a time, just in case it times out, but I have it set for 20 attachments and the average uploads are 20 photos at 1.5 meg size each... and it has never times out on anyone, (against the theories that were explained above that this wouldn't work...)

Will it catagories and group videos like the basic ttVideo module does?

As we know, Photos and Videos are now the MOST important part of any forum in todays world. We can only hope that IPB catches up soon...

[TrixieTang]

hehe, well if pattern continues, will there even BE an attachment system - lol... It has degraded and become even more limited with each new 'version'. It would have to be an awesome update.

Right now I can attach up to 10 files and press upload and it uploads just fine. Of course the programmer set it in the aCP so I can change it from 1 to 99 attachments at a time, just in case it times out, but I have it set for 20 attachments and the average uploads are 20 photos at 1.5 meg size each... and it has never times out on anyone, (against the theories that were explained above that this wouldn't work...)

Will it catagories and group videos like the basic ttVideo module does?

[b]As we know, Photos and Videos are now the MOST important part of any forum in todays world.[/b] We can only hope that IPB catches up soon...

That's completely untrue, as is a lot of what you just said.

[bfarber]

hehe, well if pattern continues, will there even BE an attachment system - lol... It has degraded and become even more limited with each new 'version'. It would have to be an awesome update.

Right now I can attach up to 10 files and press upload and it uploads just fine. Of course the programmer set it in the aCP so I can change it from 1 to 99 attachments at a time, just in case it times out, but I have it set for 20 attachments and the average uploads are 20 photos at 1.5 meg size each... and it has never times out on anyone, (against the theories that were explained above that this wouldn't work...)

Will it catagories and group videos like the basic ttVideo module does?

As we know, Photos and Videos are now the MOST important part of any forum in todays world. We can only hope that IPB catches up soon...

I'm not sure how else I can explain this.....

You may have a dedicated server where you can quite reliably set server timeouts and memory limits. Great! Many of our customers do. But then again, the VAST MAJORITY do not - they have simple shared hosting accounts, but want to make use of all available features. It is those users, not you, who are going to experience issues with such capabilities.

That said, we never said no to the feature. :rolleyes: You kind of interpreted it as no, but we've never really stated what our intentions are or will be in the future. ;)

[David_B]

I have to admit, I really would like to see this feature, but I can easily do without skysober's snarky attitude. :P

That said, everyone has different needs and experience using forum software. It is unreasonable to expect IPB to cater to one group of people without concern for another. I totally see bfarbers point. All software must balance features with usability. It can't be too spartan nor can it suffer from too much bloat. This would be an awesome feature for those of us with bigger boards who can afford the bandwidth digital media requires. If it can be implemented without forcing additional resource requirements from those who may not have them to spare or wish to expend them, I have every confidence that IPB will consider this feature in future releases. As much as I would like this feature, I feel it would be unfair to expect those with more modest needs/ resources to take a hit for those of us who may want this feature.

I would be interested in an expanded upload system as either a standard feature of the board software, or as an add-on. I think it is a future forward feature. As the web evolves into a more media rich environment, forum communities must keep pace or be lost in the shuffle. I have already noticed a large shift towards blogs for content and social networking sites for community. I think the future of forums is to offer the same things those other types of sites offer.......... ;)

[Guest]

Excuse my laziness, I couldn't be bothered to read the whole topic... but could this problem not be solved by replicating similar functionality to the Gmail attachment system?

That allows you to keep adding upload boxes, and as you select files, it starts uploading them in the background (presumably via JS using iframes or something). If it hasn't finished by the time you submit, it uploads the remainder when the POST happens for sending the email.

Seems like a simple enough solution to me, and covers both sides of this (not hitting POST/Memory limits, and also allowing multi-upload).

[CynicalFrost]

Excuse my laziness, I couldn't be bothered to read the whole topic... but could this problem not be solved by replicating similar functionality to the Gmail attachment system?

That allows you to keep adding upload boxes, and as you select files, it starts uploading them in the background (presumably via JS using iframes or something). If it hasn't finished by the time you submit, it uploads the remainder when the POST happens for sending the email.

Seems like a simple enough solution to me, and covers both sides of this (not hitting POST/Memory limits, and also allowing multi-upload).

Hate to say it, but that does nothing to get around the problem. What Gmail has is javascript adding additional textboxes... BUT, when you submit it, it STILL has to be processed and checks made, restrictions, etc... In this case, Google is using it's own custom code rather than using PHP. Maybe they use PERL, or C++, or who knows... I wouldn't. Only the Gmail developers would.

The above solution would still use the POST method to upload files and you would still have to deal with the limitations of PHP. You would not get around the upload file limit.

Oh, and as far as I know, JavaScript can't really upload files. It's just client-sides scripting that enhances the functionality of HTML. In the end, it still has to go through the restrictions of PHP.

[Guest]

Hate to say it, but that does nothing to get around the problem. What Gmail has is javascript adding additional textboxes... BUT, when you submit it, it STILL has to be processed and checks made, restrictions, etc... In this case, Google is using it's own custom code rather than using PHP. Maybe they use PERL, or C++, or who knows... I wouldn't. Only the Gmail developers would.

The above solution would still use the POST method to upload files and you would still have to deal with the limitations of PHP. You would not get around the upload file limit.

Actually that's not quite correct. It would be correct if the user doesn't wait for the files to upload before pressing submit... but as I said in the previous post, if you select a file and leave it, GMail automatically uploads the files one by one in the background whilst you continue writing your email.

As I said, I assume this is done using some hidden iframe/Javascript technique.

[CynicalFrost]

Actually that's not quite correct. It [i]would[/i] be correct if the user doesn't wait for the files to upload before pressing submit... but as I said in the previous post, if you select a file and leave it, GMail automatically uploads the files one by one in the background whilst you continue writing your email.

As I said, I assume this is done using some hidden iframe/Javascript technique.

It's like IP. Board attachment system, except for a few differences. One is that javascript is used to detect if any user input is made after it gets attached, then the iframe sends the form automatically, uploading a file.

The second is the backend. Google most likely does not use PHP to handle file attachments. Google can change the size and limitations of file uploads at will. Changing the file size limitations can be done in PHP. The question is if the customer has the technical know-how to accomplish this.

[skysober]

agreed... and yes I have had a 'snarky' attitude every since IPB crippled the attachment portion of the software ;) But that has only been about 2 years of many customers and members complaining about this... that is old news.

The point about a dedicated server is moot, as I own more than one version of IPB and yes, I have this also on a shared server even, (albiet the video mod is only on the dedicated...)
The whole original point was rather than limit and cripple the software to make it compatible with all customers, it is so simple to add OPTIONS in the aCP that one can turn features on if the servers can handle it...

In reality... if one can afford to purchase forum software, instead of using free open source, is it also not logical the person who can shell out bucks for a commercial program would host it on more than a tiny $16 a month shared server? If one wants a cheap way to have a forum, odds are they also would be too frugal to buy IPB software, as we can all admit it is not free or cheap anymore...
...and it is frustrating as IPB could be the best forum software out there if they listened to their customers constant pleading and asking for features that are used on almost every other forum software out there.

[CynicalFrost]

agreed... and yes I have had a 'snarky' attitude every since IPB crippled the attachment portion of the software ;) But that has only been about 2 years of many customers and members complaining about this... that is old news.

The point about a dedicated server is moot, as I own more than one version of IPB and yes, I have this also on a shared server even, (albiet the video mod is only on the dedicated...)

The whole original point was rather than limit and cripple the software to make it compatible with all customers, it is so simple to add OPTIONS in the aCP that one can turn features on if the servers can handle it...

In reality... if one can afford to purchase forum software, instead of using free open source, is it also not logical the person who can shell out bucks for a commercial program would host it on more than a tiny $16 a month shared server? If one wants a cheap way to have a forum, odds are they also would be too frugal to buy IPB software, as we can all admit it is not free or cheap anymore...

...and it is frustrating as IPB could be the best forum software out there if they listened to their customers constant pleading and asking for features that are used on almost every other forum software out there.

I disagree with you there. The attachment system in IP. Board is fine in my opinion. If people really were whining and complaining about the attachment system, don't you think it would be way different? IPS is not losing clients just because of a "crappy" attachment system. I find it perfectly suits my needs and I think most clients would agree too.

Another thing, I'm one of those people who shells out $185 for forum software, but spends $10 a month for a shared server. I don't give a damn. A server is a server. How much more quality of a server can you really see, feel, and experience over the web? (I'm not taking about hardware.) I see little point in shelling out $220 a month for a dedicated server when I just don't get that amount of traffic. But for forum software, entirely different. It's the ease of use, flexibility, and simplicity of IP. Board that I like and am willing to pay money for.

Besides, there is a reason that IPS has chosen to keep IP. Board unencoded unlike Nexus or Converge. It's so you can modify it to fit your needs... I have modified my board to suit my needs,

No offense intended, but I see little reason to keep whining to IPS to get a better attachment system in place using Flash or Java. I would disapprove of such a move because it just makes it more complicated than it needs to be.

[skysober]

@ magicalbob. I am glad you are content using a shared server that can handle BBS forum software just fine. You state "How much more quality of a server can you really see, feel, and experience over the web?".

Well a shared computer is like a commodore Vic20. Just fine perhaps for your needs and the 10 or 20 members you have that want a glorified BBS. Right now on just two servers we have a bit over 20,000 hits per hour. Approximately 1.5 terabytes are transferred each month in photos and videos. IPB is professional commercial software. I had to chuckle when you said IPB isn't loosing customers due to its limited and archaic allowances. I know of over 50 site owners who HAVE left IPB and have gone to 'the other guys'. I also know of about 200 who chose to never upgrade again because each 'upgrade' left them off even worse. Yes, one can pay a programmer to attempt and bring IPB software into the 20th century, but the second one 'upgrades', they loose all that investment and have to spend weeks having it all modded yet again.

...and no I do NOT use flash OR java in my true multiple attachments. It is entirely in javascript, (as stated it could be done, way at the beginning of this post, or the many hundreds of posts elsewhere. )

[Chozo Sanctuary]

I know of over 50 site owners... I also know of about 200...

Am I the only one who stopped reading after those two phrases, because my bs meter went sky high? Honestly, I find it hard to believe that you even know 200 site owners, and even harder to believe that you would actually know you know that many (when something like that gets to amounts that high, I can't see someone knowing an accurate amount unless they actually counted), but I'll let you have that. But I find it near impossible to believe that not only do know 200 site owners, you actually know 200 site owners who also happen to own a license for a specific piece of software, and then not only that but that you know 200 site owners who have licenses for one specific piece of software who are also behind on that specific peice of software in terms of updates because they all share the same feelings on what they lose from updating. Plus, you've already made up people in the form of alternate accounts to back you up.

But whatever. This post doesn't really have much to do with the real topic at hand, so I'll just leave this be.

[TrixieTang]

@ magicalbob. I am glad you are content using a shared server that can handle BBS forum software just fine. You state "How much more quality of a server can you really see, feel, and experience over the web?".

Well a shared computer is like a commodore Vic20. Just fine perhaps for your needs and the 10 or 20 members you have that want a glorified BBS. Right now on just two servers we have a bit over 20,000 hits per hour. Approximately 1.5 terabytes are transferred each month in photos and videos. IPB is professional commercial software. I had to chuckle when you said IPB isn't loosing customers due to its limited and archaic allowances. I know of over 50 site owners who HAVE left IPB and have gone to 'the other guys'. I also know of about 200 who chose to never upgrade again because each 'upgrade' left them off even worse. Yes, one can pay a programmer to attempt and bring IPB software into the 20th century, but the second one 'upgrades', they loose all that investment and have to spend weeks having it all modded yet again.

...and no I do NOT use flash OR java in my true multiple attachments. It is entirely in javascript, (as stated it could be done, way at the beginning of this post, or the many hundreds of posts elsewhere. )

If your site is really so big then why are you using IPB for pics and vids? Does that make sense? I don't think it does at all, you should be using IP.Gallery which is MADE for pics if that's such a big thing for you to have pics, but either way, as far as I'm concerned the current system is good enough for your "needs".

Frankly I think you're lying about practically everything you just posted, the attachment system is and has NOT been getting worse, you do NOT know "200" people who think the exact same BS you do and run IPB, and I doubt a jerk like you could even get 10 members much less "20,000" visitors an hour, also stop acting like you're so much better than everyone else because you have 2 imaginary dedicated servers in dreamland's datacenter.

Am I the only one who stopped reading after those two phrases, because my bs meter went sky high? Honestly, I find it hard to believe that you even know 200 site owners, and even harder to believe that you would actually [i]know[/i] you know that many (when something like that gets to amounts that high, I can't see someone knowing an accurate amount unless they actually counted), but I'll let you have that. But I find it near impossible to believe that not only do know 200 site owners, you actually know 200 site owners who also happen to own a license for a specific piece of software, and then not only [b]that[/b] but that you know 200 site owners who have licenses for one specific piece of software who are also behind on that specific peice of software in terms of updates because they all share the same feelings on what they lose from updating. Plus, you've already made up people in the form of alternate accounts to back you up.

But whatever. This post doesn't really have much to do with the real topic at hand, so I'll just leave this be.

I agree, this guy is talking BS, he's just a troll who likes spewing crap...

[Loz - Hardtuned.net]

As stated in another post, my programmer & i built a java multi-upload tool, however it doesn't have full drag drop (simply multi-file selection)

The main issue we found with the Upload tool is it's integration with invision's current Ajax system... it would have been alot easier to completely remove the Ajax system, as the integration is a bit clunky, but i wanted to keep the standard upload accessible just in case people cant use the java version.

I personally saw the need to pay to develop it, given some competitor sites were already running multi-upload tools successfully on their forums.

I 100% think this is the #1 feature invision should be building it in to their standard software..

Attached is a screenshot of the java multi-upload solution we are currently using on my forum, it's fairly decent, but the drag drop tool we are building is going to leave it for dead.....

If your site is really so big then why are you using IPB for pics and vids? Does that make sense? I don't think it does at all, you should be using IP.Gallery which is MADE for pics if that's such a big thing for you to have pics, but either way, as far as I'm concerned the current system is good enough for your "needs".

As for IP Gallery... It's great... but i also felt it wasn't integrated with the forum enough... (and why can't i embed YouTube Videos standard>? this was a big thing we needed for video sharing)

Will share our solution to this in a couple of months when we finish it ;)

[David_B]

Very nice, glenl!

I just finally upgraded my board from 2.1.7 to 2.3.5. I am generally happy with the upgrade, but I have to say that the new upload is not as user friendly as the old. If you think otherwise, you most likely don't use it much. The one thing that absolutely drives me crazy is the default highlighting of the just added attachment. If you forget to click and de-highlight it, it will be overwritten by the next added attachment or text. At the least this is an extra click in an already labor intensive process. Like I say, if you don't post a lot of pics, no big deal. If you regularly post large numbers of pics, then this becomes tedious.

Will I quit using IPB over this? No. I love this software and am very excited about the team that produces it. No idle threats from me. I have every confidence that they strive to have the best product out there and will take the necessary measure of salt to extract the good from this discussion. :lol:

[skysober]

haha.. use IP gallery???? LOL.... now THAT is funny. We use PhotoPost which can actually handle large number of photos correctly into alubms, member areas with private, password,, AND uses actual member levels for access (regular member can view only member level photos in the gallery, VIP can see down to member, etc...) I am not suprized that Chozo feels the way he does... perhaps he does not get around on the internet and go onto the IPB forums that are not the official IPB sites. Ironically I was one of the those who pushed IPB as the best forum software for years, and tried to convince them to go commercial, and add more features that the customers wanted. Chozo, how many languages do you speak? I speak french, spanish, and german as well. Thus I know of many in other countries whom use, or used to use, IPB. You say large sites should not use IPB??? Wow, maybe you are right... I mean Skype used to use it... and they had over 1 million members, but they chose to drop it. Hmm. Wonder why. And if you like the present attachment system, that is fine for you. I am not saying the simple system that is present is bad for everyone... I have always simply stated they could add an OPTION in the aCP to give true multiple attachments.

[Davy]

Honestly, change your attitude if you want people to start taking you seriously. I can't believe the tone and sarcasm you are using to try and get your point across. We get it. You're upset with the current attachment system. Sure, improvements can be made, and Brandon and the other developers are well aware of this, as indicated by their replies. They're not ignoring you, but if I were them I would start. I'm sick of reading your messages.

Learn how to get your point across in a constructive manner and stop whining - people may start listening.

And this whole use of the word "true" doesn't even make sense to me. I could upload multiple attachments to this post... truly.

[TrixieTang]

haha.. use IP gallery???? LOL.... now THAT is funny. We use PhotoPost which can actually handle large number of photos correctly into alubms, member areas with private, password,, AND uses actual member levels for access (regular member can view only member level photos in the gallery, VIP can see down to member, etc...) I am not suprized that Chozo feels the way he does... perhaps he does not get around on the internet and go onto the IPB forums that are not the official IPB sites. Ironically I was one of the those who pushed IPB as the best forum software for years, and tried to convince them to go commercial, and add more features that the customers wanted. Chozo, how many languages do you speak? I speak french, spanish, and german as well. Thus I know of many in other countries whom use, or used to use, IPB. You say large sites should not use IPB??? Wow, maybe you are right... I mean Skype used to use it... and they had over 1 million members, but they chose to drop it. Hmm. Wonder why. And if you like the present attachment system, that is fine for you. I am not saying the simple system that is present is bad for everyone... I have always simply stated they could add an OPTION in the aCP to give [b]true[/b] multiple attachments.

so i herd u liek mudkips

[Chozo Sanctuary]

haha.. use IP gallery???? LOL.... now THAT is funny. We use PhotoPost which can actually handle large number of photos correctly into alubms, member areas with private, password,, AND uses actual member levels for access (regular member can view only member level photos in the gallery, VIP can see down to member, etc...) I am not suprized that Chozo feels the way he does... perhaps he does not get around on the internet and go onto the IPB forums that are not the official IPB sites. Ironically I was one of the those who pushed IPB as the best forum software for years, and tried to convince them to go commercial, and add more features that the customers wanted. Chozo, how many languages do you speak? I speak french, spanish, and german as well. Thus I know of many in other countries whom use, or used to use, IPB. You say large sites should not use IPB??? Wow, maybe you are right... I mean Skype used to use it... and they had over 1 million members, but they chose to drop it. Hmm. Wonder why. And if you like the present attachment system, that is fine for you. I am not saying the simple system that is present is bad for everyone... I have always simply stated they could add an OPTION in the aCP to give [b]true[/b] multiple attachments.

You know, if you trying to impress people, you're just coming off as a jerk spewing BS all over. I know I can't know whether or not you tell the truth, but I do know your tone and previous doings have shattered your believability (and respectability) for me.

Now, as for what you say after you're little international schpeel... Oy, it's hard to even reply really. I'm not even sure how your comments about whether or not large sites should use IPB fit into this. I will say this though: Personally, I would like the ability to have "true" bulk attachment uploading. Almost every time I add attachments to a post, I add at least 3 or 4. But is not having the option the end of the world for me? No, it's just a small inconvenience. In fact, of the IPB owners I've "met" you are really the only one I know that feels so strongly about it. That doesn't mean that I think you are the only owner to want it (that would be foolish), or that I don't believe that you personally know people who do. I do think that are greatly over-stating the number of people who feel it’s mission critical though. If you were trying to insinuate that Skype left IPB over stuff like its attachment system (which it seemed like to me), then honestly… I've never seen company as large as Skype have a forum with that much of an emphasis on attachments, so that seems highly improbable to me. In fact, most forums I've been to that are run by large companies have either no uploading of any kind, or intentionally limited systems (I've even been to many that don't even allow custom avatars, much less post attachments).

[Josh]

I mean Skype used to use it... and they had over 1 million members, but they chose to drop it.

Unless I'm missing something, http://forum.skype.com/ is still IPB, albeit heavily skinned.

[skysober]

Ah, as I was informed a minute ago, it is true, they do still use the OLDER version like I do. My apology. It is modded, much as Idol, SciFi.com, and NBC are modded as well, to add functionability to it.

Ironically, all that in the previous was an obvious extremely frustrated customer, with voice not only for himself, but the many many many others whom also left or refused to 'upgrade'. Personally I HAVE the software corrected to work with true attachments and Video mods. Yet I still make notes ansd pleas to try and help those many others whom may be new to what IPB claims, and the reality that they falsely advertise they have multiple attachments, and while they do have the best security, they have the least in real features.