Aiwa Posted July 26, 2012 Posted July 26, 2012 We have had a considerable amount of activity in this topic for being a few days old, especially if you compare it to the average other feedback thread with one or two replies and I think its unfair for you to act like you know what every paying IPboard admin wants, when you seem to be the only one disagreeing? You seem to have missed all the posts I've made then... I am also opposed to it... Making it easier to upload images gives our sites more content, Having more reliable images/content also directly benefits SEO . . . Which leads me to my next point. The direction the software is headed? I completely disagree just the other day IPS announced IPSEO is becoming integrated into IPBoard itself. Is that featurism? Or is it streamlining key important core features. They are including their own pre-made applications into the core software to enhance SEO. That's the way the internet has been moving for years, SEO... So that's a major selling point for the prduct... And, IMO, irellavant toto the current topic... Also nearly any board admin thats been running a popular IPboard install for over 3-4 years will tell you they have had thousands if not tens of thousands of images disappear over the years, because they are hosted on imagebucket, photobucket, peoples private websites,geocites(dead), ISP webservers (makes up a large chunk of missing sites in waybackmachine). Your discussion board is about 2 years old, so you haven't felt the pain many of us have yet. Our discussion board is 10 years old, and has been with IPS for its entire life! Similar to another member here we had a custom hook developed that internalizes external image URLS because of the lack of reliability of external images, ANYTHING that IPS developers can do to help us get more locally hosted images is a HUGE benefit. Allowing attachments from fast reply, is exactly that. While my board may be relatively 'young', it's been up since '98 and only IPB since '08... Prior it was PHPNuke and/or another open source board... It's evolved over the years... We've never had the inclination to upload images via the fast reply editor... There is a reason there is an 'Advanced' editor that is fully featured... I would honestly be happier if there were features REMOVED from the fast reply box to keep it what it is supposed to be, a 'fast reply'.
MGBrose Posted July 26, 2012 Author Posted July 26, 2012 They are including their own pre-made applications into the core software to enhance SEO. That's the way the internet has been moving for years, SEO... So that's a major selling point for the prduct... And, IMO, irellavant toto the current topic... Local Images is a SEO enhancement, the more images you have floating around externally on photobucket, geocites, comcast, etc, the less benefit your reaping from them, especially when they disappear from the internet FOREVER, so anything you do to improve the odds that somone uploads a file locally the better. Dead Images = No SEO benefit While my board may be relatively 'young', it's been up since '98 and only IPB since '08... Prior it was PHPNuke and/or another open source board... It's evolved over the years... We've never had the inclination to upload images via the fast reply editor... There is a reason there is an 'Advanced' editor that is fully featured... I would honestly be happier if there were features REMOVED from the fast reply box to keep it what it is supposed to be, a 'fast reply'. I really don't think a functioning upload button via the editor is going to make anyone's site explode. Nor do I think a optional attach/upload button in fast reply will kill anyones server performance, especially when the uploaded is run clientside. Kinda goes to everyone here: If you don't want this feature that's fine, I respect your opinion and the needs of your community. But I'd say also if 50% support it, and 50% are against it. It might be a perfectly viable feature for IPS to implement(with a little radio button that has enable/disable). We could argue all day over additional parts of the IPBoard suite that aren't really necessary. A calendar? Probably 50% of forums don't use them, and yet they are integrated as a core feature. IPS isn't building this software for just one community, which is why they offer so many ACP options.
Dmacleo Posted July 26, 2012 Posted July 26, 2012 most of the time the ONLY reason I open full editor is JUST to attach something. and really, its about the only real difference in usability/posting between fast reply and full editor. would be handy to have the option.
Aiwa Posted July 26, 2012 Posted July 26, 2012 Kinda goes to everyone here: If you don't want this feature that's fine, I respect your opinion and the needs of your community. But I'd say also if 50% support it, and 50% are against it. It might be a perfectly viable feature for IPS to implement(with a little radio button that has enable/disable). We could argue all day over additional parts of the IPBoard suite that aren't really necessary. A calendar? Probably 50% of forums don't use them, and yet they are integrated as a core feature. IPS isn't building this software for just one community, which is why they offer so many ACP options. You realize that IP.Calendar is a separate download right? It's FREE, but it's not included in the core download... Settings here, settings there, settings everwhere... Michael makes a valid point... At some point, too many settings CAN be added such that setting up a new board is an extreme learning curve.... Yes, this is just one... But will it be per usergroup? will it be global? We can't turn off fast reply anymore, so at some point I would see IPS removing the setting and then the 50% that didn't want it are now stuck with it... The ideal solution for this is a hook. Get it if you want it, don't if you don't.
Rimi Posted July 26, 2012 Posted July 26, 2012 You realize that IP.Calendar is a separate download right? It's FREE, but it's not included in the core download... Settings here, settings there, settings everwhere... Michael makes a valid point... At some point, too many settings CAN be added such that setting up a new board is an extreme learning curve.... Yes, this is just one... But will it be per usergroup? will it be global? We can't turn off fast reply anymore, so at some point I would see IPS removing the setting and then the 50% that didn't want it are now stuck with it... The ideal solution for this is a hook. Get it if you want it, don't if you don't.That's a slippery slope and you know it. We're talking about a setting for attachments. The ACP already has 6 settings for attachments plus another 2 which are on a per usergroup basis. So the structure and organization for attachment based settings are already there. And you know as well as I do that the code to maintain a yes or no setting for attachments in fast reply is just an addition to the templates. Besides, the subject of additional settings has little to do with the advantages of having attachments in fast reply. Developers are in favor of less settings. Casual end users are in favor of more settings. It's a pointless discussion and rather than focusing on that never ending debate of simplification vs. customization I think the more beneficial discussion lies in the improved usability by adding attachments to the fast reply. And that is namely this: most of the time the ONLY reason I open full editor is JUST to attach something. and really, its about the only real difference in usability/posting between fast reply and full editor. would be handy to have the option. Putting attachments in the fast reply makes the user experience smoother and that was one of the goals of 3.2 when the fast reply was made to slide into the topic rather than refresh the page. It also means less clicks for the user and it makes for an advanced interface. Is there an argument for attachments in fast reply actually hindering the front end user experience? I don't see one. I only see benefits. The only argument I see here is related to server resources, and frankly I'm still not convinced of that. Threads already load the ckeditor, lightbox, hovercard, prettify, ratings, likes, quick pm, and a connection to facebook. I'm sorry, but I just don't understand what is in attachments that significantly increases the load already on threads and furthermore, why that load cannot be delayed until the attachments system is actually clicked on. Forgive my ignorance. EDIT: And another thing. I have a hard time believing that a high end software like Xenforo would implement this if it causes load problems. One of Xenforo's benefits is how light and quick it is. Supposedly. I don't use it.
Heyhoe Posted July 26, 2012 Posted July 26, 2012 Either remove the many CK editor options from fast reply or get rid of the full editor. Currently the user is seeing so many options, they would not think to look for anywhere else to add images. They assume all the options are already on their screen. If you made the full editor load as the fast reply does now, there would be no issue. ps. I changed the "More Reply Options" to "Compose Message" and then edited the template to state that the user is using Fast Reply and to attach images they need to click "Compose Message" but I keep forgetting to edit my template after an upgrade so it's not ideal.
Makoto Posted July 26, 2012 Posted July 26, 2012 Honestly, I fully support implementing CKEditor's image upload feature to the fast reply box. I just got a basic preview of it here,http://ckeditor.com/demo/ And I see no reason it shouldn't be integrated in. It's an extra tab in the already existing "image" button, right? What I didn't want to see as this crammed down bellow the fast reply box on every thread,
Marcher Technologies Posted July 26, 2012 Posted July 26, 2012 Honestly, I fully support implementing CKEditor's image upload feature to the fast reply box. I just got a basic preview of it here,http://ckeditor.com/demo/ And I see no reason it shouldn't be integrated in. It's an extra tab in the already existing "image" button, right? What I didn't want to see as this crammed down bellow the fast reply box on every thread, sigh... thanks everyone for proving Michael's point. That is exactly what half the people in this topic are explicitly asking for, attachments underneath fast reply.
Rimi Posted July 26, 2012 Posted July 26, 2012 I think its a given that Rikki wouldn't allow that whole chunk beneath the editor. I thought it was assumed it would be like xenforo or a pop-up of some sort.
Makoto Posted July 27, 2012 Posted July 27, 2012 sigh... thanks everyone for proving Michael's point. That is exactly what half the people in this topic are explicitly asking for, attachments underneath fast reply. Proving what, exactly? I don't care what they're asking for, I'm saying the CKEditor attachments feature is a good compromise. This is actually a feature I would find useful and it doesn't add any extra clutter.
Marcher Technologies Posted July 27, 2012 Posted July 27, 2012 Proving what, exactly? I don't care what they're asking for, I'm saying the CKEditor attachments feature is a good compromise. This is actually a feature I would find useful and it doesn't add any extra clutter. That a wholesale inbuilt global solution will not satisfy everyone, or even a majority, and it should be a mod/app outside the core of IPB(note I said core, not suite... see gallery mention).... I would definitively enjoy being able to upload an attachment of ANY allowed type in fast reply, others do not want it at all, still others wish attachments NOT be used when gallery is installed for images, while better stream-lining that process to allow direct submission from here to gallery and allowing better SEO from attached images instead of being mired 'in the post', and yet others want the cke to handle solely image attachments in an easier fashion.... so... um.... who wins here?
Makoto Posted July 27, 2012 Posted July 27, 2012 That a wholesale inbuilt global solution will not satisfy everyone, or even a majority, and it should be a mod/app outside the core of IPB(note I said core, not suite... see gallery mention).... I would definitively enjoy being able to upload an attachment of ANY allowed type in fast reply, others do not want it at all, still others wish attachments NOT be used when gallery is installed for images, while better stream-lining that process to allow direct submission from here to gallery and allowing better SEO from attached images instead of being mired 'in the post', and yet others want the cke to handle solely image attachments in an easier fashion.... so... um.... who wins here? And why is enabling CKEditors already existing image uploading function a bad thing? What is there to complain about that? It's not in anyone's way. It's logical to complaint about cluttering the fast reply, but this doesn't clutter it at all.
Aiwa Posted July 27, 2012 Posted July 27, 2012 And why is enabling CKEditors already existing image uploading function a bad thing? What is there to complain about that? It's not in anyone's way. It's logical to complaint about cluttering the fast reply, but this doesn't clutter it at all. Because it is JUST an image uploader... It can't do anything other than IMAGES. That's Marcher's point...
Makoto Posted July 27, 2012 Posted July 27, 2012 Because it is JUST an image uploader... It can't do anything other than IMAGES. That's Marcher's point... And? It's still a useful extra functionality.
Aiwa Posted July 27, 2012 Posted July 27, 2012 And? It's still a useful extra functionality. If it's added, it should be done right... It shouldn't be gimp... That's the point.
MGBrose Posted July 27, 2012 Author Posted July 27, 2012 Because it is JUST an image uploader... It can't do anything other than IMAGES. That's Marcher's point... Nah, my point is I just want SOME way, CKeditor, or button below the text editor to upload images to the server via fast reply. That's all, very simple. Honestly I'd rather see it done via a button in the ckeditor. It's annoying that the image button in ckeditor only allows you to currently include links IMO. And the aftermarket hook is pretty crappy IMO, especially from looking at the support thread. I really don't care at all how its done, I would just like a way to upload images via fast reply. Thats it, thats what this topic is really about, or my intention at least when starting it.
Marcher Technologies Posted July 27, 2012 Posted July 27, 2012 And why is enabling CKEditors already existing image uploading function a bad thing? What is there to complain about that? It's not in anyone's way. And? It's still a useful extra functionality. It is not, though a global attachments extension would need be written for it(that alone is a pain, see the docs, need parent id and to know WHERE it is), and the CKE Plug-in... Considering the fact no CKE Plug-in so far as made it into the IPS CKE implementation without being customized, I doubt this would be simply 'dropped in' one day... would take work to be acceptably properly done, and a fair bit at that.
Makoto Posted July 27, 2012 Posted July 27, 2012 Nah, my point is I just want SOME way, CKeditor, or button below the text editor to upload images to the server via fast reply. That's all, very simple. Honestly I'd rather see it done via a button in the ckeditor. It's annoying that the image button in ckeditor only allows you to currently include links IMO. And the aftermarket hook is pretty crappy IMO, especially from looking at the support thread. I really don't care at all how its done, I would just like a way to upload images via fast reply. Thats it, thats what this topic is really about, or my intention at least when starting it. I'm afraid your thread has been hijacked. Here's a picture of a kitten to cheer you up,
• Jay • Posted July 27, 2012 Posted July 27, 2012 Fast reply has pretty much evolved to the full reply screen. That's not a complaint or criticism, it's a compliment! All it needs is the attachment functionality. Everything else that can be done via the full reply screen can already be done in topic anyway. The -only- thing (that I can think of) that would be missing out would be the added in moderation action on reply. But that's not really a hit on features since adding a reply doesn't reload the page. You can still perform the moderation action as soon as you submit the post! I think it would be a boon to turn fast reply into the de facto standard reply form and do away with the clunky machination that requires a whole other page load simply to use one or two features that you just can't get otherwise.
Cyrem Posted July 27, 2012 Posted July 27, 2012 Fast reply includes too many options already and I would personally like to just make it have the most basic bbcode buttons. Adding more things to the simple editor is opposite of the way I personally want them to go. I am for this. It would be good to change it to a basic editor (not the CKE) with buttons for just Bold/Italic/Underline. This reduces load and better defines what quick reply is supposed to be. The "More Reply Options" button needs a better name, it was better when it used to be "Full Editor". I liked the idea (I forgot who mentioned it) about turning off the quick reply on the forum so people just go to the full editor straight away. It's funny that people mention their users don't know how or where to attach files, especially since the font of "Attach Files" is MUCH bigger then the 'Add reply' button at the bottom. Really, they should be having more trouble replying from the full editor then attaching files...
Rimi Posted July 27, 2012 Posted July 27, 2012 Fast reply has pretty much evolved to the full reply screen. That's not a complaint or criticism, it's a compliment! All it needs is the attachment functionality. Everything else that can be done via the full reply screen can already be done in topic anyway. The -only- thing (that I can think of) that would be missing out would be the added in moderation action on reply. But that's not really a hit on features since adding a reply doesn't reload the page. You can still perform the moderation action as soon as you submit the post! I think it would be a boon to turn fast reply into the de facto standard reply form and do away with the clunky machination that requires a whole other page load simply to use one or two features that you just can't get otherwise.Yeah, I like this a lot. The only troubles I can think of are editing the first post and wanting to edit the topic title, tags, and poll. Also before anyone tries it, saying that making a new topic would also have to use the fast reply form is also a slippery slope. Don't try it.
Rimi Posted July 27, 2012 Posted July 27, 2012 It's funny that people mention their users don't know how or where to attach files, especially since the font of "Attach Files" is MUCH bigger then the 'Add reply' button at the bottom. Really, they should be having more trouble replying from the full editor then attaching files...I don't understand what's so funny about it? Users don't know where to attach files because casual end users use the editor at the bottom of the thread most often and rarely if ever click on "More Reply Options" because it serves little to no purpose. Because they rarely click on it they don't know the attach files option is there which is why users don't know how or where to attach files. And this is exactly why attachments need to be added to the fast reply editor. So there are two options for making the attachment system more visible to casual end users here. You can either strip down the fast reply editor and force users to use the full editor if they want to format their posts with the expectation that in doing so they will find the attachment system, or you can add attachments into the fast reply form in a non obstrusive manner and make everything easier for everyone. Cue the debate on increased load vs increased usability. Though I'm still not convinced that the extra load matters whatsoever, or really that it even exists (but what do I know? I've only asked for an explanation a couple times). Really though I think it's quite obvious which option will bring about awareness of the attachment system to the broadest range of users. Psst, it's the second one.
Cyrem Posted July 27, 2012 Posted July 27, 2012 Fast reply has pretty much evolved to the full reply screen. That's not a complaint or criticism, it's a compliment! Whats the point? They might as well get rid of the full editor and just have the full editor in place of the quick reply. What extra features would the full editor give you to justify it's existence? Because all I see is 'Preview' and 'Follow this topic' if you take away attachments. (Don't mention polls because that is on topic creation).Users don't know where to attach files because casual end users use the editor at the bottom I guess one extra click is simply too much effort.
Rimi Posted July 27, 2012 Posted July 27, 2012 They might as well get rid of the full editor and just have the full editor in place of the quick reply.Yes. That's exactly what they should do. That's why his post is a compliment.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.