Michael Posted June 14, 2011 Share Posted June 14, 2011 More options is exactly the opposite of what they want to do with this release. Too many options confuse people more often than they help. The idea is, make the core as easy as possible to use, and then make the software expandable for power admins who want to do more than the basics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haku2 Posted June 14, 2011 Share Posted June 14, 2011 More options is exactly the opposite of what they want to do with this release. Too many options confuse people more often than they help. The idea is, make the core as easy as possible to use, and then make the software expandable for power admins who want to do more than the basics. I honestly don't find anything confusing about those options. If someone really does find it confusing, maybe they shouldn't be running a website. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
♥ Adam ♠ Posted June 14, 2011 Share Posted June 14, 2011 More options is exactly the opposite of what they want to do with this release. Too many options confuse people more often than they help. The idea is, make the core as easy as possible to use, and then make the software expandable for power admins who want to do more than the basics. They're going about it all wrong then. People want options and customization. But they want those options to be easily understandable and well documented too. A lot of people I know (including myself) are leaving XenForo (for example) because it's so limited and the vast majority are either not power admins who know how to code things manually and / or simply want options pre-built into the core.The key is balance. Removing and limiting things will not help Invision's growth overall. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
♥ Adam ♠ Posted June 14, 2011 Share Posted June 14, 2011 I honestly don't find anything confusing about those options. If someone really does find it confusing, maybe they shouldn't be running a website.^^ THIS I thought they were simple options too. Nothing complicated or hard to understand about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nimdock Posted June 14, 2011 Share Posted June 14, 2011 More options is exactly the opposite of what they want to do with this release. Too many options confuse people more often than they help. The idea is, make the core as easy as possible to use, and then make the software expandable for power admins who want to do more than the basics. I also understand that but I would not want to get to the point where I have to spend lots of time searching for hooks or writing my own hacks, etc just to get the board the way my community likes it and has grown accustomed to using it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darksbane0 Posted June 14, 2011 Share Posted June 14, 2011 You guys are being ridiculous.... hosting an avatar for each user is not going to do anything to your bandwidth or server..... WOW some people are just clueless on how things work I guess. :rolleyes: ... anyway I never said I was concerned about bandwidth usage or server problems, although it can be an issue for some boards. I said I didn't want to allow my users to upload avatars. I don't allow my users to upload anything and I'd prefer not to start. Without a remote hosting option or the ability to let them choose from a list they will be stuck with gravatar which if you aren't inclined to use it is a poor solution. Avatars were removed because people do NOT want to have to set two images for a single account. We're not even talking about this. Nobody that I have seen in this thread has a problem with the avatar and photo being combined, what we have a problem with is that the avatar solutions of remote hosted image or choosing from a local version has been removed in addition to the lack of animatin in some areas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haku2 Posted June 14, 2011 Share Posted June 14, 2011 I also understand that but I would not want to get to the point where I have to spend lots of time searching for hooks or writing my own hacks, etc just to get the board the way my community likes it and has grown accustomed to using it. Exactly, why should I be looking for or paying for mods that implement features which have been a part of bulletin boards for years? According to someone else in another topic, I'd have to pay for IP.Gallery just so I can get the damn avatar galleries back. All the work has been done already in IP.Board 3.1.4! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chito Posted June 14, 2011 Share Posted June 14, 2011 ....I think I'll unfollow this topic now... :whistle: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sammy Nicole Posted June 14, 2011 Share Posted June 14, 2011 All I want is the return of allowing us to host my avatar externally (without the system saving it like it does with Facebook photos I noticed) and avatar galleries and I'll be happy. That's all I want. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
U2 Fan Posted June 14, 2011 Share Posted June 14, 2011 What would be sweet is if IPS put in an option.... one for leaving it like it is... and one for having them work in topic view. I agree. Even though I'm dead-set against allowing animated avatars on the main forum index, I've never had a problem with seeing them in topic view. I'd also like to see an option like you suggest, R1Lover. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Posted June 14, 2011 Share Posted June 14, 2011 I honestly don't find anything confusing about those options. If someone really does find it confusing, maybe they shouldn't be running a website. They're going about it all wrong then. People want options and customization. But they want those options to be easily understandable and well documented too. A lot of people I know (including myself) are leaving XenForo (for example) because it's so limited and the vast majority are either not power admins who know how to code things manually and [color=#ff0000]/[/color] or simply want options pre-built into the core. The key is balance. Removing and limiting things will not help Invision's growth overall. Now, hold on to your seats guys, because this may be shocking, but you are just two out of thousands of customers IPS has to cater to. The fact of the matter is, the presence of so many options in the software is, and has been, one of the chief complaints new users have in trying to run an IP.Board site. IP.Board is robust, and feature packed, and there's a lot in it for new admins to understand. The key is balance, you're just not getting where you fall in the spectrum of the customer base. People who want more options are not the norm, they are the exception. This is really the one thing I think most people who post here don't realize. Just by posting here on the forums you're in the minority of IPS's customer base, they get far more user interaction through their client center and email. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rheddy Posted June 14, 2011 Share Posted June 14, 2011 When I purchased a license to IPB back in 2005, the one reason I purchased a license was how easy IPS made it to easily customize IPB to better suit my community. I don't appreciate the idea of IPS taking away certain features that are heavily used just because IPS thinks they're redundant. By removing the ability of clients/Admin being able to use customized avatar galaries, IPS seems to have stuck it to their clients. Don't get me wrong, I like the IPB software but replacing avatars with photos, not allowing admin/clients to be able to choose customized "width/height" of those avatars and not allowing for hosting avatars offsite ... it defeats the purpose of buying the license in the first place. IPB was always attractive for its customized features but I think that IPS has made the IPB experience a far too complicated software. Square profile 'photos' that cannot have customized sizes, I don't like the idea of square photo-avatars. It's really not customizable. If I wanted this type of thing, I would have originially gone with vBulletin. With so many clients here expressing some deep concern over this, I would say that this "avatar" issue isn't simply concentrated to one or two clients, as Michael said. It seems that there are a lot of clients who don't like the removal of avatars and the customizable options that went along with it. I just don't like the idea of 'forced' photo-avatar cropping either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haku2 Posted June 14, 2011 Share Posted June 14, 2011 I also don't like how the Gravatar isn't a per-group option. I don't want validating users having an avatar at all! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Posted June 14, 2011 Share Posted June 14, 2011 With so many clients here expressing some deep concern over this, I would say that this "avatar" issue isn't simply concentrated to one or two clients, as Michael said. Don't put words into my mouth, I did not say this issue was concentrated to one or two clients. What I have said all along is that even if a handful of people in this topic think this is a bad move, that that represents a very small portion of the entire user base. I don't know how I can better state this, so I'll probably just give up after this post: what you see on the forums is not the primary means of feedback that IPS receives. Yes, every customer's input is valued, but just because some people think this is a travesty does not mean it is the way the entire customer base feels. IPS cannot please everyone, they made the changes in 3.2 based on what people told them. It's not some "we're out to screw you over" thing directed at you personally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XiuzSu Posted June 14, 2011 Share Posted June 14, 2011 I've failed to find the topic where people told IPB to remove animated avatars before, so if you could please give me a link so I can read over it would be great. If you cannot then I would obviously assume that IPB took that decision all by yourselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Telemacus2 Posted June 14, 2011 Share Posted June 14, 2011 I'm completely against removing features from a product to make it more attractive for the "general public". My Android is a lot more complex than my old Nokia, but I don't want to go back to Nokia, thanks! Constructive Alternatives: - Add "advanced features" buttons to the acp. - Provide better documentation (an index of all features in ipb? why not!) - Offer customers more real life examples of what those features do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rheddy Posted June 14, 2011 Share Posted June 14, 2011 Michael, you're missing the point. There is obviously resentment from IPS Clients about removing the avatars feature, as it exists in 3.1. You;'re making the argument that only a few clients are complaining. I would like to know just how does IPS know that it's only a few clients. I don't recall any surveys being released by IPS, nor any topics, about where clients asked for avatars to be removed from IPS. Was this some phantom vote where nobody was invited to vote on what features to remove or what? Because, according to this topic, it seems that there's an overwhelming backlash of clients who did not want the avatar options for the forums to be removed from IPB. It seems to me that the IPB software is starting to become too "corporate-oriented". The IPB software seems to be turning into a facebook/twitter oriented software and I think that IPS may have forgotten that if it wasn't for loyal clients, like some of us who have supported IPS for a long time, that maybe we should have some input to what features should be added or removed. If it was because of redundancy, then why wasn't the avatar options in ACP left intact and the photos and gravatars removed instead? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rhett Posted June 14, 2011 Share Posted June 14, 2011 For anyone wondering who agrees and who doesn't with the changes... just look at this pole...http://community.invisionpower.com/topic/339553-320-will-you-upgrade/page__p__2122175__fromsearch__1#entry2122175 80% are saying they will upgrade.... that's a pretty good number imo for so many changes... I'm sure IPB is happy with the numbers. There will always be a few unhappy customers.... that's part of any business. The key here is to always keep new customers coming in to account for those leaving. I think they will do just fine with or without the people complaining and or ranting about leaving IPB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XiuzSu Posted June 14, 2011 Share Posted June 14, 2011 Yea... lets lose 20% of the customers while having the power not to. Pretty good number. Lets screw over these 20% whom already paid for IPB right? I know you probably didn't meant it that way but since I'm in that 20% tile that's the way I feel. If I knew this is what IPB was going to turn out like this in a couple of months to be honest I wouldn't had purchase it, and if I could return it then you should know that they can have their license key and their forum back and they can just refund me my money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Telemacus2 Posted June 14, 2011 Share Posted June 14, 2011 For anyone wondering who agrees and who doesn't with the changes... just look at this pole...http://community.inv..._1#entry2122175 80% are saying they will upgrade.... that's a pretty good number imo for so many changes... I'm sure IPB is happy with the numbers. There will always be a few unhappy customers.... that's part of any business. The key here is to always keep new customers coming in to account for those leaving. I think they will do just fine with or without the people complaining and or ranting about leaving IPB. I'm sorry to say this, but that's a complete missrepresentation of the facts. Imagine you were captured by an indiginous tribe and they offered you 2 options: 1) to let you live, under a series of conditions, some of which you completely disagreed with. 2) to cook you. I too would choose option 1. Please don't misslead people. If you can't come up with a better point of debate, fine, but please don't resort to this kind of manipulation: those who voted do not necessarilly agree with all the changes. They just don't want to be cooked. :wink: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christophe Posted June 14, 2011 Share Posted June 14, 2011 I know what is my next hook for 3.2. Imagine being able to mouse over someone's avatar or name then click the new IGNORE TROLL option that pops up and POOF all the comments and people quotes of and from that person are gone and its faster than the Report option :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XiuzSu Posted June 14, 2011 Share Posted June 14, 2011 I know what is my next hook for 3.2. Imagine being able to mouse over someone's avatar or name then click the new IGNORE TROLL option that pops up and POOF all the comments and people quotes of and from that person are gone and its faster than the Report option :smile: Do you really don't want people to read your posts that bad? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rhett Posted June 14, 2011 Share Posted June 14, 2011 lmao you guys are all too uptight... relax, grab a a beer and enjoy life a little... no need to get worked up over such a small thing. :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rheddy Posted June 14, 2011 Share Posted June 14, 2011 That poll is very misleading. Just because people vote that they'll upgrade has nothing to do with their dissatisfaction with the removal of Avatars from the forum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Management Matt Posted June 14, 2011 Management Share Posted June 14, 2011 Right, a bug has been filed - this topic has served its purpose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.