test split

[Midnight Modding]

Well I would maybe make it as a paid mod because I'm busy with other things and don't have time to make much of anything free. I have never done anything using ajax whatsoever though so if people must have ajax functionality then it would be a waste of time for me to even start on it. I usually love making apps. I haven't read this thoroughly enough to know what everyone uses it for. I temporarily used one long ago.

[Zhana]

No thank you mmmodding, no one asked you. We're asking IPS to include this feature.

[Midnight Modding]

It's not something I would be looking forward to doing anyway. I only offered because I know IPS will never do this particular feature. Of course they could always change like they did with the Rep System, but generally this type of feature never gets added due to only a small percentage of admins wanting it. Probably around 1%.

[rtschutter]

I would like a system that allows my members to join a group based on their location so that they can receive news specific to their area. For instance (we are an art forum) in San Diego we regularly make trips to the zoo to draw the animals, and I like to post it on the front page of the forum. But there is little reason that the people on the other side of the country or world for that matter should see the San Diego events. It would be neat if I could create a hook that the leader of each social (local) group could change as often as they like to make the members in that area aware of events that pertain to them.

[Wolfie]

No thank you mmmodding, no one asked you. We're asking IPS to include this feature.

No need to be rude dude. Also keep in mind that there are many things that we ask IPS to add as features that IPS feels isn't necessary nor beneficial to most of its customers and others make them either as free or paid add-ons. So just because it's being asked of IPS to do it, doesn't mean that others can't offer to make it instead.

[genocadew]

Cosnseteza deve funcionar mais eu gostaria muito =D_

[Jυra]

No thank you mmmodding, no one asked you. We're asking IPS to include this feature.

Someone offers you the ability to have what you want and that's how you treat them?

[Zhana]

Jura that because 2 modders are already developing it.


Regards,

[Wolfie]

Nothing says "Thanks!" more than a rude response. :whistle:

[SCS]

I may be completely lost here, but how would this differ from having a set of joinable user groups? It is wiser to use the IPB permissions system rather than creating a new one from scratch, and the groups feature built-in allows one to group one or more set of permissions at their wish. Why not simply make user groups joinable by members? And perhaps add some special ranks or profile fields for each group? This seems to be the best approach, in my opinion.

[Pfeiffer]

The potential uses are vast, but it is important to steer away from thinking of it as a 'social' function and try to think in the idea of groups, teams, communities, etc.

With the above mentions, if it's set so that people only see the groups they are members of, then it could be a very useful way of customizing your membership. For a business, if someone is a member of say three work groups, then in a particular category they would see the forum(s) for those three groups. So they would see some content/forums that everyone can see and then they would see some content that would be only for them based on the work groups they are a member of.

In some ways, that might be seen as overkill, using IPB for helping a business to organize tasks. But considering that IPB is geared towards discussions, the tasks part would be the small part of the job while allowing team members a powerful way to communicate with one another.

I do believe that it's best as a separate/add-on type function and not pre-installed/integrated with IPB. I can see it being something that some sites would never use, just like Tracker, but for those that would use it, they could easily add it.

Very good description and real life community scenario. And also agree on the add-on type function.

[bfarber]

I may be completely lost here, but how would this differ from having a set of joinable user groups? It is wiser to use the IPB permissions system rather than creating a new one from scratch, and the groups feature built-in allows one to group one or more set of permissions at their wish. Why not simply make user groups joinable by members? And perhaps add some special ranks or profile fields for each group? This seems to be the best approach, in my opinion.

I can't comment on whether we will or won't fulfill this request, but in my eyes if we did, I agree with your sentiments. I would envision the ability to join a list of groups, which would add those as secondary user groups. If you were kicked out or left a group, it would remove that group as a secondary user group. That makes the most sense to me, and allows us to leverage our group and permission mask capabilities which are already developed, stable, tested, etc.

[SCS]

I can't comment on whether we will or won't fulfill this request, but in my eyes if we did, I agree with your sentiments. I would envision the ability to join a list of groups, which would add those as secondary user groups. If you were kicked out or left a group, it would remove that group as a secondary user group. That makes the most sense to me, and allows us to leverage our group and permission mask capabilities which are already developed, stable, tested, etc.

I completely agree. :)

BTW, I was not requesting it, just asking those who did if that wouldn't be a better approach ;)
I know I wrote it as if I were :blush:

[iozay]

In my opinion a "Group Leader(s)" system would work better as the administrator will have complete control over the configuration of the access the group has.

It is only risky to apply something like this also to primary group members as you can't simply "remove" someones primary group, So if something like this will be implemented it should be a one-way promotion.

I see the potention in social groups however the control should be in the hands of the administrator who will be able to "Deligate" permissions to prevent cluttering of a forum(If everyone is able to create groups/add forums the same thing may result in multiple groups of the same thing).

[.Peter]

I see the potention in social groups however the control should be in the hands of the administrator who will be able to "Deligate" permissions to prevent cluttering of a forum(If everyone is able to create groups/add forums the same thing may result in multiple groups of the same thing).

Agreed. There was a groups app for IPB 2.3 and I was a member of a community that had about 150,000 members that had this app.. it got to the point that there were HUNDREDS of groups and you couldn't find the group you really wanted and when you did there were only a few members in it because the member population was strewn through out all the other groups. It wasn't practical at all.

[Jinkler]

I can't comment on whether we will or won't fulfill this request, but in my eyes if we did, I agree with your sentiments. I would envision the ability to join a list of groups, which would add those as secondary user groups. If you were kicked out or left a group, it would remove that group as a secondary user group. That makes the most sense to me, and allows us to leverage our group and permission mask capabilities which are already developed, stable, tested, etc.

This would be the better option for me as well, have the members choose which groups they want to be in. I did appraoch someone to code this 3rd party for me, but they said it couldn't be done.
You can't even do it currently with Nexus or IP.Subscriptions, as they don't support free payments, and even if it did, it's not really a tidy workaround, it'd be quite messy.

[Amy T]

Because I would use it as a clans or guild type thing I would need people to create their own groups and also maybe be able to create a sub forum for their group so they can talk to their group members in private. Kind of like the clans mod I use now, which does use the groups system built into the forum.

[CallieJo]

Take a look at this social group for an example: http://www.jomsocial.com/community/groups/viewgroup/63-I+Love+Jomsocial.html

You will see:

• Category the social group is in.
• Group owner.
• Description of group.
• Announcements
• Discussions
• Wall
• Members
• Photo albums
• Videos
• Events

This is how I envision social groups.

The social groups feature list & especially the events feature is why I purchased JomSocial.

Notice how you have events? Click an event and you'll see a google map. Some groups list who is attending, how many spots left open, etc.

The options of usage are endless.

[Wolfie]

Take a look at this social group for an example: http://www.jomsocial.com/community/groups/viewgroup/63-I+Love+Jomsocial.html

You should mention this in here:
http://community.invisionpower.com/topic/333444-rsyvarth-social-groups/

I would love for his app to somehow become a community app.

[Luke]

Why not use the existing user group system? Because it would be an admin nightmare. I have a handful of groups and having to wade through hundreds of user created groups is not ideal. Making these "social groups" "sub groups" of the main ones would be "ok" and "fix" the problem I just mentioned. But what if a moderator or user, who are part of two different main groups, wanted to be part of one or more social groups?

I vote to keep social groups completely separate. They really don't need permissions beyond adding a social group as the leader (moderator) of a forum category.

Unless you can find some way of making this work. Currently secondary groups are invisible on the community sided, and it should stay that way. When being a part of one or more social groups they have to show in the profile, in posts, and each have their own group image. How would that work exactly?

[Amy T]

Why not use the existing user group system? Because it would be an admin nightmare. I have a handful of groups and having to wade through hundreds of user created groups is not ideal. Making these "social groups" "sub groups" of the main ones would be "ok" and "fix" the problem I just mentioned. But what if a moderator or user, who are part of two different main groups, wanted to be part of one or more social groups?

I vote to keep social groups completely separate. They really don't need permissions beyond adding a social group as the leader (moderator) of a forum category.

Unless you can find some way of making this work. Currently secondary groups are invisible on the community sided, and it should stay that way. When being a part of one or more social groups they have to show in the profile, in posts, and each have their own group image. How would that work exactly?

I can see your point and if I did use this as a clans or guild type thing people need to be able to make their own and it needs to be easy to remove a group if needed by admins.

[rbiss]

I vote yes for social groups. More than anything if we had a way to simply give permissions for members to switch between usergroups it would be easy to create. I use the example of cars. If a member was a Honda fan and couldn't care less if he/she read posts about Toyota or Ford then they could switch to a group that hides the other irrelevant forums. My board is a medical support community where some members find it too painful to read about certain issues. The overwhelming majority would like to hide certain forums from their board experience.

This software should grow out of the sole focus of usergroups based on how many posts members have. That mindset is obsolete in the world of networking. Admins care about how many posts people have but members couldn't care less, and unless you're making members happy the amount of posts is totally irrelevant (or non existent).

[Amy T]

This software should grow out of the sole focus of usergroups based on how many posts members have. That mindset is obsolete in the world of networking. Admins care about how many posts people have but members couldn't care less, and unless you're making members happy the amount of posts is totally irrelevant (or non existent).

I agree about the post stuff. I remember years ago when you found all kinds of sites that had post wars or post races. You do not see that any more or if you do it is rare.

[CallieJo]

I read here that some people want to extend the current user groups. I don't quite understand this concept and how it fits into members creating social groups for a specific topic, events, etc. other than the permissions to create one.

Here are some examples of social groups that could be created in JomSocial:

• School teams could have a group to post upcoming games (events with a map to get there), videos of games, pictures of the games, discussions, updates on the wall, etc.
• Chorus teacher could have a group to post upcoming concerts (events), videos of songs, pictures of concerts, hold discussions about costumes for plays & show picture updates, post chorus updates to the wall, etc.
• Businesses could have a group to post their upcoming specials/sales (events), pictures of new products & services, have discussions with customers, post updates, etc.
• Classrooms could have a group to post homework, class photos & videos, how-to videos, upcoming school events and fundraisers (events & maps), hold discussions with parents, etc.
• Bands could have a group to post upcoming schedules of where they are playing (events with maps), photos/videos of the band playing, discussions with fans, post updates, etc.

As I said before, the possibilities are really endless.

IMHO, there should be more to social groups than small forums and picture uploading. People can create that for free on their own from many places around the internet...they can even have their own style, sub-urls, or even upload phpbb/bbpress/etc to do the job. Social groups should offer more than that.

You should mention this in here:

http://community.invisionpower.com/topic/333444-rsyvarth-social-groups/

I would love for his app to somehow become a community app.

Thank you. I've seen it. As nice as that looks and as much work has obviously gone into it, I don't think it's heading in the same direction as what I envision social groups to be. It looks like it's heading toward the same direction of what vB social groups offer. Currently vB offers small forums & an album all administered by the members who created the groups. Throw in the privacy options they offer and you have a nice concept of letting members create their own private or public forum only communities within your own forum. But, my envision of social groups is much broader than what I think that app or even vB is heading toward.

[Wolfie]

Then I'm lost on what more you think should be possible. The groups concept is for a member to create a group and then allow other members to join the group. The group then has their own little niche of discussions and such. Privacy options would allow the members to be private or public or somewhere in between.