Srinath Posted August 14, 2011 Share Posted August 14, 2011 After testing the entire product and it's additional modules for more than 6 months, I finally decided to go back to old CMS that I'm still using now. Well, let's come to the conclusion directly: # Lack of default permission settings on first installation ... need to manually configure each and every area to put it in live # Admin Control Panel - Unnecessary widgets ... Ugly theme ... Totally confusing ... # Lack of JQuery tools like Light-box 2 etc., Still using Ancient Thick-box style in Gallery ... # Entire Product didn't even meet minimum types of features implementation unlike in XxxxXxxxxx. ( name hidden don't be alarmed on this!) # Admin Control Panel - Still using old way of authentication in URL. # There is no proper KB section at all. Incorrect and old information in some KB articles. # Inappropriate usage of AJAX! Didn't implemented in most of the prime areas in Front-end! # Lack of proper Modules/Plug-ins # # # . . . ....... and so on ....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sunzeal Posted August 14, 2011 Share Posted August 14, 2011 the only reason which is preventing me from going to IPB 3.2 right now is lot of problems in this Editor, sometimes it gives lot of spacing sometimes it does't at all, copy pasting things messes up the format and things. So that's the only thing for now, other than that everything seems fine to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robulosity2 Posted August 15, 2011 Share Posted August 15, 2011 If your going to provide feedback, say in which areas exactly and how.. You've provided exceptionally generic information.. Your personal taste is not relevant in this either so there's not really a point in going " The ACP Is ugly!", if its ugly and needs to be changed what about it needs to get those changes As far as the Knowledge base goes, it's been discussed multiple times and it's getting updated but that takes time I also have no idea what you mean by "Entire Product didn't even meet minimum types of features implementation" are features missing in 3.2 that they said are there? or are you just thinking there should be more features, again in which areas IP.Content, Blog, Gallery what? I completely disagree with the Mods/Plugins, there are A LOT both here and hosted on other sites Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mat206 Posted August 15, 2011 Share Posted August 15, 2011 Sounds like your experience can be summed up as: 1. No clue how to integrate jQuery or change a skin and can't find it in the kb 2. and so on.. I can certainly rant from time to time, but I've been 95% pleased with a lot of the stuff this company has done with their product and the support they offer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3DKiwi Posted August 15, 2011 Share Posted August 15, 2011 Just wondering what this mystical forum software is that is superior to IPB? Despite it faults and it has a few, if there was a superior forum suite I would change in an instant. There isn't as far as I know so I'm sticking with IPB. 3DKiwi Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rhett Posted August 15, 2011 Share Posted August 15, 2011 Sounds like he is trying to compare a forum suite to a cms..... two different ball games! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
• Jay • Posted August 15, 2011 Share Posted August 15, 2011 Sounds like he is trying to compare a forum suite to a cms..... two different ball games! Sounds to me like he's comparing IP.Content to his old CMS, which would be a lot more logical as far as that goes. It's posted in the wrong forum if I'm right, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rhett Posted August 15, 2011 Share Posted August 15, 2011 Sounds to me like he's comparing IP.Content to his old CMS, which would be a lot more logical as far as that goes. It's posted in the wrong forum if I'm right, though. That could be.... and ipcontent is in now way something to compare to a stand alone cms though... still apples and oranges imo. :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Srinath Posted August 15, 2011 Author Share Posted August 15, 2011 Sorry guys if you misunderstand my thoughts! All I'm trying to say is: (I'm comparing here only to provide you with clear details) 1.) ACP: Ugly Pink UI - it should be in professional standard like phpBB. 2.) ACP: Unnecessary Default Widgets like Graph, IPB News etc. I know some users may like it, but I don't! 3.) Gallery - which is the main attraction of IPB fails to provide users with rich internet experience ... again no default or at least Light-box styles. Still users need to click each image to enlarge or see. 4.) ACP: Why IPB is using old age URL based session handling? 5.) KB Position: Prior to release of IPB 3.2, I'm able to surf KB articles freely through Client Area. Now they are moved to forums, but finding the relevant content is little bit difficult. Since it's KB articles, they should be in static area. 6.) AJAX: In both Front-end and Back-end (who cares by the way!), AJAX is not fully implemented. 7.) Extensions: Lack of proper Modules/Plug-ins - may be I'm wrong - I may need to try few other modules or consider experiences from other users ... 8.) Content: Of course, it's still under early stages of development ... I personally decided to go back to previous CMS with Forum extensions ...Regardless of up and downs, I'm satisfied with customer support. I'm able to get quick reply from IPB staff on critical issues. However it would be nice if IPB can provide users with either quick Chat support or expected response time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryan H. Posted August 15, 2011 Share Posted August 15, 2011 4.) ACP: Why IPB is using old age URL based session handling? Security. URL-based sessions mean absolutely no chance of session cookies being hijacked, because there are none.6.) AJAX: In both Front-end and Back-end (who cares by the way!), AJAX is not fully implemented. AJAX support was increased by a wide amount in 3.2. Quick replying, 'load more topics', user hovercards, pm/notification/user menus, rating, liking, and other things I'm probably missing are all AJAX-powered. ACP has AJAX searching, and many enable/disable buttons use AJAX. What more are you hoping to see? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Srinath Posted August 15, 2011 Author Share Posted August 15, 2011 SEO: URLs length is still long. I'm using mod_rewrite .htaccess for both IP Content and IP Board (and all it's modules.) It only reduces the length a little bit - For example, consider Registration Page (http://community.inv...ection=register), Advanced Search Page (http://community.inv...earch_in=forums) and View All Content (http://community.inv...arch_app=forums)AJAX: I think implementation of AJAX is highly desired. As a site administrator, I primarily consider user experience than administration. I agree with you on implementation of AJAX on ACP. Particularly in Search field, it saves me a lot of time.ACP Session Handling: Well it's related to security. However managing the session with cookies is also secure and most of the browsers and users are intended to accept cookies by the way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stoo2000 Posted August 15, 2011 Share Posted August 15, 2011 AJAX support was increased by a wide amount in 3.2. Quick replying, 'load more topics', user hovercards, pm/notification/user menus, rating, liking, and other things I'm probably missing are all AJAX-powered. ACP has AJAX searching, and many enable/disable buttons use AJAX. What more are you hoping to see? AJAX Coffee Maker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
• Jay • Posted September 16, 2011 Share Posted September 16, 2011 [font=lucida sans unicode,lucida grande,sans-serif]SEO: URLs length is still long. I'm using mod_rewrite .htaccess for both IP Content and IP Board (and all it's modules.) It only reduces the length a little bit - For example, consider Registration Page (http://community.inv...ection=register), Advanced Search Page (http://community.inv...earch_in=forums) and View All Content (http://community.inv...arch_app=forums)[/font] I have search engines set to ignore those parts of the board in my robots.txt file. What is the purpose to having registration and search functions listed on google? There's no content to speak of on a registration page, and god help you when google starts crawling search. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Srinath Posted September 16, 2011 Author Share Posted September 16, 2011 I have search engines set to ignore those parts of the board in my robots.txt file. What is the purpose to having registration and search functions listed on google? There's no content to speak of on a registration page, and god help you when google starts crawling search. Well, I don't want to index my site by any search engine at all. I would like to see short links like WordPress. For Advanced Search, why do we need this big link in address bar? http://community.invisionpower.com/index.php?app=core&module=search&search_in=forums Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marcher Technologies Posted September 16, 2011 Share Posted September 16, 2011 Well, I don't want to index my site by any search engine at all. I would like to see short links like WordPress. For Advanced Search, why do we need this big link in address bar? http://community.inv...earch_in=forums because FURL's kill request vars and a search is a request... that... and why exactly does the core, a module google and such have no right to see, need FURL's? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Srinath Posted September 16, 2011 Author Share Posted September 16, 2011 because FURL's [u]kill[/u] request vars and a search is a request... that... and why exactly does the core, a module google and such have no right to see, need FURL's? I didn't quite understand! :no: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marcher Technologies Posted September 16, 2011 Share Posted September 16, 2011 I didn't quite understand! :no: ok... when you have that nice purty wordy seo-friendly FURL, something the advanced search engine(or any for that matter) NEEDS is the value as a request in the url(in most places... how theyve got the mainsearch rolled confounds me...i think they are stripping it out and using fromMainBar to do so and the legwork ) example &search_term=forum eg... all the stuff in the url that lets the search system know what app it is searching, and the term goes (!) ... as a note... i never thought id see a complaint that we can actually link search results now.... thats... fresh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Posted September 16, 2011 Share Posted September 16, 2011 4.) ACP: Why IPB is using old age URL based session handling? To prevent CSRF. You could of course add a key as a hidden field on any forms which perform action (like we do on the front end) but since most of the Admin CP is forms that perform action, requiring this at a high level is more efficient. It also ensures that every form (for example, even forms added by third party applications) has the check. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Srinath Posted September 16, 2011 Author Share Posted September 16, 2011 Mark, I understand that. Is there any possibility to code a hook or application to do the search by disabling default IPB FURL based search? If there is any possibility, I can place paid request in forums. Thanks to everyone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Srinath Posted July 13, 2012 Author Share Posted July 13, 2012 Feedback as of today:Lot of bugs in editor (I'm typing in notepad and pasting into editor) - most of the times it didn't work well with IE. Configuration options are messed up i.e., settings for apps, hooks are misplaced. For example to configure IP.Content .htaccess settings, you can configure it in IP.Content settings. But it won't give you the option to download the .htaccess file. You need to go to IP.Content Advanced Settings to download that even though both sections are same! There is no way to move or edit widgets in ACP like WordPress; sorry don't ask me why I'm comparing with WP! The ability to setup new forums and configure most of the tasks from front-end, instead of going to ACP for each and every task! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.