[quote name='AtariAge' date='06 July 2009 - 08:36 AM' timestamp='1246883812' post='1821069']IPS has been very slow to move on the issues that have been brought up repeatedly, which says to me they don't find them very important.

Just because we haven't agreed with all your suggestions, doesn't mean that we think the search and view new content system is not important. These systems are not perfect and we will continue to improve them, but there won't be any dramatic changes in the near future. However, it is likely that we will add a setting to choose between using last post or unread posts in the near future. If there were larger changes to be made, that would happen in 3.1, but I wouldn't expect to see a dramatic change to the presentation of these features. I can't tell you for sure what will happen in 3.1 with these features, because we are still discussing this internally and evaluating feedback.

[quote name='Rοb' date='06 July 2009 - 09:18 AM' timestamp='1246886308' post='1821084']
What else would you like, your feet rubbed whilst he does it?

I wouldn't mind that. Could I get a back massage too while we're at it?

[quote name='AtariAge' date='05 July 2009 - 11:32 PM' timestamp='1246833176' post='1820856']
Working on that now, first an Admin CP setting and then a User setting:



..Al



[quote name='Josh' date='06 July 2009 - 02:26 PM' timestamp='1246886764' post='1821089']
Just because we haven't agreed with all your suggestions, doesn't mean that we think the search and view new content system is not important. These systems are not perfect and we will continue to improve them, but there won't be any dramatic changes in the near future. However, it is likely that we will add a setting to choose between using last post or unread posts in the near future. If there were larger changes to be made, that would happen in 3.1, but I wouldn't expect to see a dramatic change to the presentation of these features. I can't tell you for sure what will happen in 3.1 with these features, because we are still discussing this internally and evaluating feedback.

[quote name='Rοb' date='06 July 2009 - 09:18 AM' timestamp='1246886308' post='1821084']He has also said that you can easily revert it back to the old functionality should you wish, and has even offered to do it for you.

Changing from all unread back to since last visit is just one part of it. The lack of a coherent display/output and missing information still exists.

I offered to write up the template changes necessary to get it (more or less) looking like 2.3, but was effectively told by members here that if it wouldn't be included in the main release it was a waste of time.

[quote name='bfarber' date='06 July 2009 - 06:27 PM' timestamp='1246922821' post='1821378']
I offered to write up the template changes necessary to get it (more or less) looking like 2.3, but was effectively told by members here that if it wouldn't be included in the main release it was a waste of time.

Don't make me hunt down my response to your offer to write that saying I would definitely take advantage of it! Yes, I would prefer it be included with IP.Board 3.0 since I visit many Invision sites and it would be nice if they were consistent in this fashion. I don't remember anyone telling you don't bother with it, though! Please, save me the time of doing it myself as you are much better versed in these files than I am (I've only just started looking at them).

..Al

[quote name='bfarber' date='06 July 2009 - 07:27 PM' timestamp='1246922821' post='1821378']
I offered to write up the template changes necessary to get it (more or less) looking like 2.3, but was effectively told by members here that if it wouldn't be included in the main release it was a waste of time.

I'd be interesting in knowing who those members were as that certainly isn't the case, at least not in my mind. Obviously it would have been nice for it to have been included in 3.0, but it would be equally appreciated in a future (soon) version.

No, that's the thing. Rikki has control over the skinning with IPB. I wouldn't be including these changes in a future version - I'd be posting them as an article on the resource site (or something like that) for those that would prefer the 2.3 traditional layout. I think that's why the vibe I got from my reply was "thanks for the offer, but don't bother if it's not included in IPB itself".

What about the members list? I like the old 2.3.x rather then the new one, anyway to revert this? Already searched the articles.

I was still hoping someone could answer this question for me. If we are trying to follow the instructions in the article on how to make the 3.0 view new contents work more like 2.3.x, it does seem to have different text. Here's my earlier post on the subject.

In the article it says

take...

public function setUnreadConditions()
{
// All code in this function included
}

And change to

public function setUnreadConditions()
{
$this->setDateRange( intval( $this->memberData['last_visit'] ), time() );
}


But in the searchPlugin.php file on my server this is what I see in the public function setUnreadConditions{} line. It's different than the one listed in the article. What exactly should we be replacing?

public function setUnreadConditions()
{
$forum_conditions = array();

foreach( ipsRegistry::getClass('class_forums')->forum_by_id as $forumId => $forumData )
{
$lastMarked = ipsRegistry::getClass('classItemMarking')->fetchTimeLastMarked( array( 'forumID' => $forumId ), 'forums' );

$readItems = ipsRegistry::getClass('classItemMarking')->fetchReadIds( array( 'forumID' => $forumId ), 'forums' );
$readItems = ( is_array( $readItems ) AND count( $readItems ) ) ? $readItems : array();

if( count($readItems) )
{
$this->whereConditions['OR'][] = "(t.forum_id={$forumId} AND t.tid NOT IN(" . implode( ",", $readItems ) . ") AND t.last_post > " . intval($lastMarked) . ")";
}
else
{
$this->whereConditions['OR'][] = "(t.forum_id={$forumId} AND t.last_post > " . intval($lastMarked) . ")";
}
}
}

/**
* Builds the where portion of a search string
*
* @access private
* @param string $search_term The string to use in the search
* @param bool $content_title_only Search only title records
* @return string
**/

Please use the resource forums for that kind of help. :)

I've made some changes to the system for 3.0.1 which can be seen on this board now. We'll continue to refine and work on the search as the product matures.

Have a look also there before releasing 3.0.1 Matt :P

• http://forums.invisionpower.com/topic/286795-add-a-notice-in-cached-lang-files/
• http://forums.invisionpower.com/topic/287428-four-suggestions-for-3-1/

There needs to be a easy way to change the furl. This should be within the admin panel.