Are we finally going to get a "Contact Us" tab in 3.2? Many have asked for this for a LONG time now :whistle: and before anyone says a "mod" can do the same thing many times an author does make a mod then when IPB versions change the author no longer supports it so you are stuck again. Come on IPS it is 2011 integrate a "Contact Us" form and make it settable in the ACP as "Active" or "In-Active" so those that want it can use it and those that don't can turn it off. :thumbsup:

Would be nice.

+1 :)

Probably will have:

It's a good idea and all... but IP.Content can do this.

Why would it need to be integrated into the core? If you want to contact the staff, just PM an administrator.

I do this in IP.Content, and would still like to see it added. :)

 

It's a good idea and all... but IP.Content can do this.

Why would it need to be integrated into the core? If you want to contact the staff, just PM an administrator.

And why wouldn't it, if it is something you can turn on/off? Not all of have or us want to use IP.Content, so it has my vote too.

 

And why wouldn't it, if it is something you can turn on/off? Not all of have or us want to use IP.Content, so it has my vote too.

because not everything needs to be part of a core product..

 

Why would it need to be integrated into the core? If you want to contact the staff, just PM an administrator.

You can't do that if you are not a member or you are trying to register and something went wrong and you need to ask for help. My current 3.1.4 contact form gets used a lot :thumbsup: Matt said long ago (even prior to the above referenced link) he would consider adding this and the time has come.

I use a custom one made for me and would like to see a similar one standard.

Important part of a forum,should be available.

 

It's a good idea and all... but IP.Content can do this.

Why would it need to be integrated into the core? If you want to contact the staff, just PM an administrator.

What happens if you don't have IPC or not a member? Making a person sign up just to PM some one is not a good way to keep a member base.

 

What happens if you don't have IPC or not a member? Making a person sign up just to PM some one is not a good way to keep a member base.

They aren't your member base in that case then, are they?

I'm not against the idea - I just don't see it's worth in the core product, especially when something useful like the Calendar is getting moved out into it's own separate download.

Non-members contact sites all the time. To advertise, registration questions, etc.

The features are frozen now anyway. We'll have to wait for the official listing to see if it's included.

I totally agree. Weird that it was not even added to 3.0.0.

Like the idea of having a contact us page, hate the idea of adding another tab...

 

They aren't your member base in that case then, are they?

I'm not against the idea - I just don't see it's worth in the core product, especially when something useful like the Calendar is getting moved out into it's own separate download.

Remember it not just download but everything. Their using modules which make it easy(er) to update products. So it more then Calendar, and is something that should be in the core product if a guest wants to contact a staff.

IPB Devs?

A contact form would be very useful, especially for guests or visitors who want to notify an admin of an issue, but don't want to register.

I too would love to see a built-in Contact form. :)

Yep, contact form is much easier than having the user send an email.

Another vote for a contact form - seems strange not to have on in this day and age. My old one for 3.1 will no longer work in 3.2.

+1 would love this also

 

Like the idea of having a contact us page, hate the idea of adding another tab...

I don't mind the extra tab. I'd just make it visible to guests. Members should use PM.

Have they even removed the option to add a shonky mailto link in the footer? Mine's gone and I can't see the option anywhere. I know it's only a minor template edit, but was even that not core enough to be retained? Surely I'm just failing to see it . . .