Lost Sale - Constructive Criticism

[connorhawke]

I understand the rebuttals against overriding user email preferences, but occasionally it might be helpful (in emergency situations or if there is a particularly huge board update). Overall though, I suppose the possibility of being blacklisted due to users abusing the system wouldn't make it worthwhile.

Global ignore of what exactly? If you are talking about globally ignoring a user, why not just ban them or delete them?

Sometimes there are reasons for permitting them to continue posting, including the possibility of receiving potentially useful information contained within their subsequent posts.

Welcome email / pm / topic is available as free application in the Marketplace [url="

[/url] for those who require it.

I realize that some of the features mentioned are available as mods, but the thing about something being a mod vs. built-in is that mods are generally more cumbersome since they have to be downloaded, installed, etc., and an up-to-date version is not guaranteed.

We have this - we call them help files.

I know, but is it possible to edit/add contents within the help files directly via the Admin CP by default, such that it's easy for Admins to cater the help files to their board? My bad if it is; I just haven't found it.

[edwardjiang7]

I just wanted to say your not buying the software for support, it's for your own good. And btw, people are moving from vBulletin to IP Board because vBulletin just truly sucks. Everything about it sucks. :P

[• Jay •]

Threaded/Hybrid Mode

Used to have - it's an antiquated concept that has almost no use today. Very few people used it in reality. Having an option that no one uses is rather pointless.

I have to respectfully disagree about IPB's hybrid mode. Having the OP visible on every page was great for keeping threads (somewhat) on topic.

[• Jay •]

Global Ignore

Global ignore of what exactly? If you are talking about globally ignoring a user, why not just ban them or delete them? Surely if every single user on a site is ignoring a particular member, that member has no business continuing to visit the site?

Currently, the only way to deal with members that are disrespectful to the point of disruptive is to ban that member.

The only problem is, if such a member wishes to do so, it is quite simple to dodge a ban and carry on. This of course spurs admins to take additional measures to counter those counter-measures, ad nauseum. All because an offensive person was offended by an error message saying they weren't welcome.

An option to simply shun a member, so that nothing they do on the board is visible to anyone but themselves, would be a useful tool for preventing some trolls from simply reregistering and carrying on with their disruptive behavior in plain sight. While some trolls would eventually pick up on what happened (especially once the feature became widely known/used), not everybody is technically savvy. Some folks are complete idiots at using computers and just plain mean.

This wouldn't work well as an add-on due to the integration of other scripts that would have to be accounted for (ie, shunned comments in blogs and galleries, shunned submissions in downloads, shunned votes in public polls, shunned calendar events, shunned in chat). It would be far too cumbersome for an add-on to be made that was thorough enough to effectively do the job.

[Clickfinity]

I read "Global ignore" to mean ignoring more of someone's content; extending the current "post" ignore facility to perhaps include status updates, comments in blogs, etc.

Not for EVERYONE to globally ignore that person (in the style of the vBulletin 'Tachy gone to Coventry' feature!!) - but to globally ignore that person's content?

I could, of course, have it wrong ... :rofl:

[connorhawke]

Currently, the only way to deal with members that are disrespectful to the point of disruptive is to ban that member.

The only problem is, if such a member wishes to do so, it is quite simple to dodge a ban and carry on. This of course spurs admins to take additional measures to counter those counter-measures, ad nauseum. All because an offensive person was offended by an error message saying they weren't welcome.

An option to simply shun a member, so that nothing they do on the board is visible to anyone but themselves, would be a useful tool for preventing some trolls from simply reregistering and carrying on with their disruptive behavior in plain sight. While some trolls would eventually pick up on what happened (especially once the feature became widely known/used), not everybody is technically savvy. Some folks are complete idiots at using computers and just plain mean.

This wouldn't work well as an add-on due to the integration of other scripts that would have to be accounted for (ie, shunned comments in blogs and galleries, shunned submissions in downloads, shunned votes in public polls, shunned calendar events, shunned in chat). It would be far too cumbersome for an add-on to be made that was thorough enough to effectively do the job.

Ah yes, that was the main reason I had in mind for it. Thanks for reminding me.

[bfarber]

I know, but is it possible to edit/add contents within the help files directly via the Admin CP by default, such that it's easy for Admins to cater the help files to their board? My bad if it is; I just haven't found it.

Yes. System tab -> Tools & Settings -> Manage Help Files

Currently, the only way to deal with members that are disrespectful to the point of disruptive is to ban that member.

The only problem is, if such a member wishes to do so, it is quite simple to dodge a ban and carry on. This of course spurs admins to take additional measures to counter those counter-measures, ad nauseum. All because an offensive person was offended by an error message saying they weren't welcome.

An option to simply shun a member, so that nothing they do on the board is visible to anyone but themselves, would be a useful tool for preventing some trolls from simply reregistering and carrying on with their disruptive behavior in plain sight. While some trolls would eventually pick up on what happened (especially once the feature became widely known/used), not everybody is technically savvy. Some folks are complete idiots at using computers and just plain mean.

This wouldn't work well as an add-on due to the integration of other scripts that would have to be accounted for (ie, shunned comments in blogs and galleries, shunned submissions in downloads, shunned votes in public polls, shunned calendar events, shunned in chat). It would be far too cumbersome for an add-on to be made that was thorough enough to effectively do the job.

I've always considered this sort of thing modification-territory. It does not seem like a feature in a professional piece of software to me, even if perhaps someone might have a random use for it.

To me - if someone is disruptive to the site, ban them. I can't see any need to allow them to continue accessing the site for their good - they caused the trouble in the first place. A user could circumvent some sort of ignore functionality by re-registering just as easy as they can circumvent a ban (in fact, much easier, since ban is done by IP so they'd have to refresh DHCP IP address or use a proxy).

I read "Global ignore" to mean ignoring more of someone's content; extending the current "post" ignore facility to perhaps include status updates, comments in blogs, etc.

Not for EVERYONE to globally ignore that person (in the style of the vBulletin 'Tachy gone to Coventry' feature!!) - but to globally ignore that person's content?

I could, of course, have it wrong ... :rofl:

If so, I can agree that this would be useful. Tis why I was asking for clarification.

[connorhawke]

Lol, not sure how I missed that. Cheerio!

We have announcements too, they're just accessed from the front end instead of the ACP.

Yeah, just remembered. That actually makes more sense than vB's system.

[Joshua Hina]

I really fail to understand how someone can base actual support response times on things in the presales forums. I may have had issues with changes that IPS has done to how it has offered support (in order to offer better ticket response times {I still question that but again my company pays 10 dollars a month for an answering service and phone number so I guess that phone based options were just too costly for IPS}) but all in all its response to tickets has stayed consistent (24 hoursish for business clients or urgent issues (usually within the hour for urgent issues but up to 24) and 48 hours generally for standard licenses). While I may have issues with the elimination of being able to actually speak to someone in some fashion (live chat and phone) ticket response times are still acceptable and these forums should in no way effect how people see IPS; its a COMMUNITY for IPS not their OFFICIAL SUPPORT SYSTEM. Might I suggest IPS put an average support response resolution time ticker somewhere in the site so people can see the normal issue response time for tickets; that might give the image people as customers see by getting fast responses as opposed to having to search for some way to verify that IPS has fast response times (by going to third party sites that may bash IPS, searching the presales forum, calling the phone number and getting that nice recording that tells you to file a support request, ect)

[Mat Barrie]

I understand the rebuttals against overriding user email preferences, but occasionally it might be helpful (in emergency situations or if there is a particularly huge board update). Overall though, I suppose the possibility of being blacklisted due to users abusing the system wouldn't make it worthwhile.

There's no "emergency" so important that overriding the user's preference not to receive contact from you is justified. And for what it's worth, most countries have laws reflecting this fact. If the user has told you they do not receive email from you, then it is illegal in at least the following countries to email them: United States of America, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, United Kingdom, Germany, Korea, Norway, Singapore, Vietnam, Israel, Argentina, Russia, Ukraine, Japan, Malaysia, Hong Kong, China, France, Netherlands, Belgium, Poland, Denmark, Finland, Austria, Italy, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Luxembourg, Slovenia, and Malta. The penalties for sending email to someone who has told you they don't want it range up to $50,000 per email. I think you can see why the software no longer gives you the option.