Jump to content

Community

Features removed from 3.1.4


Dreamlander
 Share

Recommended Posts



Well, according to this poll:

http://community.inv...ll-you-upgrade/

, nearly 77% of people polled plan to upgrade.




That doesn't say much, considering if you don't you are then stuck with a broken post editor.

No, they're not the same, but topic descriptions are, for the most part, worthless.



In my opinion the Like button is worthless and IPS should just offer it as a hook. See? It's all subjective.

People are panicking about features being lost, but it's no different than the feature never being there in the first place.



It's actually VERY different. The whole point of those feartures being there before is the whole problem with them being removed. For example, in my forum 99% of the threads have topic descriptions with relevant data. It will be all gone once I upgrade. We can live with it, but its a downgrade nevertheless.

Now you go and say we can rely on hooks, but no one linked me the hook to bring topic descriptions back yet.

And even so, people are focusing on one feature mentioned. How about the quick reply?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What will be done with all current avatar? Until earlier this year did not allow my members to upload profile photos. All current avatars go to space? Since users who do not access the forum at some time but have been active one day (since 2007, for example)?

Sorry my bad English.

Thanks in advance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This post doesn't have a specific feature that was removed, but I do think IPS is moving in the right direction with 3.2 by simplifying, and decreasing page load speed... I "upgraded" to 3.1.2, from 2.3.6 about one year ago today. The following graph show one year before, and one year after. The dip is where I forgot to include the Analytics code after updating, but it also serves as a good marker to the upgrade. This is not a small site, numbers are unique visitors per day, with consistent traffic.

%7Boption%7D

You'll notice an immediate 20% decrease in traffic that never recovered. Same skin, same ad layout, same content. Where's the 3.x SEO? I could show you similar graphs for time on site, pages/visit, etc. Users are not as engaged. The problem is not unique to IPS. You'll see many vB4 users unhappy with performance after updating as well. Here's a challenge. As forum owners we often frequent other forums as fans. Find a forum that has updated to IPB3, or VB4 and then check to see if it's quantcast.com verified. It's the easiest way to verify actual traffic. Then see if you can find when they upgraded (usually available in the forums). I've yet to find a site that has increased within a reasonable amount of time (not content related) by an upgrade. There are many cases of drops similar to mine. It seems that code bloat has hurt forums.

Why? I have a very similar site still on 2.3.6. It has shown 50% traffic increase this year. One reason, I suspect is that the page load time is 1/2 that of 3.x. Not to place all the blame on the devs, it could also be search algorithms that have been tuned to these forum softwares. Forum users also likely get used to a familiar format.

At this point, I would gladly pay for an conversion script from 3.1.4 to 2.3.6. That's not going to happen, but hopefully 3.2 is a step in the right direction. I was saddened to see no SEO guru replacement for Dan. Or was I? SEO obviously needs some work. Hoping there's still more to be revealed in 3.2.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BTW, I think one of the issues with IPB3 is that there is no way for search engines to discover individual posts. For example my post is #179 of a 9 page topic, the URL is: http://community.inv...ost__p__2128501
However, If you view the source of that link you'll find

" />

<link id="ipsCanonical" rel="canonical" href="http://community.inv...4/page__st__160


which means search engines should consider all links to this post as a link to the page instead. How is this good for long tail results? How are search engines supposed to index individual posts? Semantic HTML markup may have been used correctly, but unlike vB there is no other accommodation for linking to specific posts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


This is the point I want to stress. There seems to be some feeling that we've gone off at a tangent and we're forcing this on our customers who don't want it.



That's simply not the case. We've listened to what our customers have told us and 3.2 is the result of that.




I do not think customers have said they removed online / offline status.

It's for me a step back and I like ipb because of the functions and not because they have copied the look of facebook, or because they remove features. I no longer have to use many reasons IPB! I wish that existing features are retained and developed further, but do not remove easily. This development is not in order, and leads to many annoyance of my customers and my members, not only with me.
Link to comment
Share on other sites


BTW, I think one of the issues with IPB3 is that there is no way for search engines to discover individual posts. For example my post is #179 of a 9 page topic, the URL is:

http://community.inv...ost__p__2128501

However, If you view the source of that link you'll find


" />

<link id="ipsCanonical" rel="canonical" href="http://community.inv...4/page__st__160


which means search engines should consider all links to this post as a link to the page instead. How is this good for long tail results? How are search engines supposed to index individual posts? Semantic HTML markup may have been used correctly, but unlike vB there is no other accommodation for linking to specific posts.



May be post this as separate topic because I have feeling this feedback will be buried in side this topic :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites


BTW, I think one of the issues with IPB3 is that there is no way for search engines to discover individual posts. For example my post is #179 of a 9 page topic, the URL is:

http://community.inv...ost__p__2128501

However, If you view the source of that link you'll find


" />

<link id="ipsCanonical" rel="canonical" href="http://community.inv...4/page__st__160


which means search engines should consider all links to this post as a link to the page instead. How is this good for long tail results? How are search engines supposed to index individual posts? Semantic HTML markup may have been used correctly, but unlike vB there is no other accommodation for linking to specific posts.


Ding, ding, ding. We have a winner! Blair, my biggest fear is that no one at IPS has a good understanding of what long tail results actually are. (And just about now, 'long tail results' is becoming one of Google's most popular search terms. :wink: )

I don't mean to take anything away from any of the IPS coders, please understand. But coding a forum is one thing. Coding an SEO application is something quite different. I am employed by one of the fastest-growing and highest-recommended SEO companies in the business, but I wouldn't know where to start, when it comes to coding a forum or a forum app. I question what kind of SEO background Mark actually has. Does he have any SEO background, or is he merely trying to sort through the pieces of what Dan left behind and trying to make it integrate with IPB 3.2.0?

What, me worry?

That being said, I'm looking forward to seeing how well 3.2 performs in the wild. I suppose it is nigh on impossible to get a perfect 100 out of 100 score from every admin, but after using my test site for several days, I give 3.2 a solid 98. I like it and really look forward to using it. But I would sure love to get my hands on some Analytics data for this site, over the last 24 months, to see how well 3.2 is really playing with the search engines. I've already suffered one, hasty IPB upgrade, from which it took 8 months of effort to recover. And, as a teaser, I found a way to improve my long tail along the way. My long tail was at 2.21 prior to the upgrade and fell clear back to 3.74 after, which was worse than my pre-vBSEO vBulletin days. I'm pleased to say my long tail is now at 2.11. It took me a bit of head-scratching to get it there, but it shows it can be done. And I think there's more left in it. My traffic is now starting to establish new records again and, thank Heaven, my revenue is back to where it was. So I'm going to ca' canny and lay back a bit before upgrading to 3.2. As much as I admire 3.2, I don't care to fling myself off any more cliffs.
Link to comment
Share on other sites



I do not think customers have said they removed online / offline status.



It's for me a step back and I like ipb because of the functions and not because they have copied the look of facebook, or because they remove features. I no longer have to use many reasons IPB! I wish that existing features are retained and developed further, but do not remove easily. This development is not in order, and leads to many annoyance of my customers and my members, not only with me.



Actually, I had removed the online/offline status on my old board, along with a number of other things, such as topic descriptions. If you really think about it, IPB hasn't gotten rid of any substantial features. Just little things that a few people used but that mostly cluttered the forum. All of these things can easily be replaced with a few lines of code or a hook, but personally, I'm glad they're gone. They're unnecessary bloat and I would have removed/disabled them anyways.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually it does clutter and there's absolutely no reason for it. You can hover over a person's name and see if they're online. The online indicator does not need to be repeated for each post they make. It's irresponsible and cluttery.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had a lengthy email exchange with Dan, but thought I'd share a relevant portion regarding long-tail impact in 3.x ( I "upgraded" from 2.3.6 to 3.1.2):

I chose to compare June 2010 before the upgrade, versus September 2010 after the upgrade. 30 days in each month. In June Google Analytics showed 159k unique URLs in the content screen. By Sept. it had dropped to 89K. A significant drop of 44%.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

I'd like to know how people manage to remove features from your sites without having your users kick you in the nuts? I don't get it. I'd love to know how you get away with it without raising all manor of hell. I can't imagine I run the only forum with members who hate change, especially change which removes "features" of any kind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Actually it does clutter and there's absolutely no reason for it. You can hover over a person's name and see if they're online. The online indicator does not need to be repeated for each post they make. It's irresponsible and cluttery.



No it doesn't! Itw as an extremely tiny icon beside a username. And nobodo wants go through a topic hovering over everyone's name.
Link to comment
Share on other sites


No it doesn't! Itw as an extremely tiny icon beside a username. And nobodo wants go through a topic hovering over everyone's name.




The majority of users posting on a message board don't really care if another poster in a topic is online or not. I know that when I am posting on a message board I really don't care if the person I am replying to is online - they'll either get a notification about the reply, or will see it next time they login. This is, after all, the point of a message board.

And it's one tiny icon ... times however many users are in the topic.

In any event, it would be simple to skin back in to topic view if it was important to you. We felt for our default skin this data did not need to be available in the post info pane by default.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder why I have auto saved content which is my same post as above. I don't recall an issue when posting it or it takign a while. Maybe it's smart enough to know how horribly I typoed and was like "how about redoing it from this saved copy?". :)

Anyway, I have no idea if the majority want it or not, but my guess is that the majority do. A lot of staff says the vocal minority complain about these thigns, but what if the vocal minority is who wanted it gone? :P Since you say the majority don't care about it, I assume it's based on people telling you they didn't care about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Anyway, I have no idea if the majority want it or not, but my guess is that the majority do. A lot of staff says the vocal minority complain about these thigns, but what if the vocal minority is who wanted it gone? [img]

[/img] Since you say the majority don't care about it, I assume it's based on people telling you they didn't care about it.



It could just be a simple case of maths, for example the total number of IPB license holders there are minus how many people are missing a feature, then do a percentage based on that. Not saying that's how IPB calculate such things, but it's the way I'd do it and I imagine the vocal minority really is a minority based on that calculation.

Either every license holder who doesn't complain about a feature doesn't miss it or are simply not bothered enough to post about it here.

If people are happy with things, they're less likely to post that they're happy with things, but if they have an issue with something they're more likely to be vocal - it's the way of the world.

Not saying anything in this thread is right or wrong, or that it's right or wrong to complain about things or that I'm happy or upset feature X has been removed - just replying to the post above %7Boption%7D
Link to comment
Share on other sites



This is a messaging board, not IM.



If you want to go that route then this isn't facebook either, yet has many facebookish features. Forums are for social interaction. Makes no sense to imply that online status only matters on IM. I guess if someone wants to give you money you'll say "this isn't the lottery" and refuse it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites



The majority of users posting on a message board don't really care if another poster in a topic is online or not. I know that when I am posting on a message board I really don't care if the person I am replying to is online - they'll either get a notification about the reply, or will see it next time they login. This is, after all, the point of a message board.



And it's one tiny icon ... times however many users are in the topic.



In any event, it would be simple to skin back in to topic view if it was important to you. We felt for our default skin this data did not need to be available in the post info pane by default.



Well some of us care about how our site looks, it's unacceptable that you just remove features and not give us an option to turn them back on. It's a like it or lump it attitude. "Oh, but there are hooks available" no, the hook you refer to thats available doesn't look as I want it to, and I shouldn't be expected to fiddle about trying to get it to work. All those things you've took away has resulted in a horrible mess that only the most experienced web designers will be able to sort out and I prefer not to have a site that looks no different to 100's of others using your beloved default skin.

You have sort out the quick navigation it is so useless where it is and has no quick about it, using the old forum jump i'd be where I want to be already by the time i've scrolled up and loaded quick navigation. It beggers belief that some things are still as they are %7Boption%7D
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We use technologies, such as cookies, to customise content and advertising, to provide social media features and to analyse traffic to the site. We also share information about your use of our site with our trusted social media, advertising and analytics partners. See more about cookies and our Privacy Policy