Shoutbox - Official Support

[Dmacleo]

good comeback :P :)

[Bethanyrayne]

Could do! I might start with IP.Nexus. It would be a shame to screw up the sacred shoutbox.

It is worth saying that if IPS hadn't lacked any sort of vision with Chat that the Shoutbox would be irrelevant.

[AndyF]

It is worth saying that if IPS hadn't lacked any sort of vision with Chat that the Shoutbox would be irrelevant.

They are separate applications though completely. It was not really feasible (at least from what I recall) to have Chat try to 100% emulate the way Shoutbox worked.

[Lindy]

It is worth saying that if IPS hadn't lacked any sort of vision with Chat that the Shoutbox would be irrelevant.

Shoutbox isn't supposed to be a chat -- therein lies the problem with it from a resource usage standpoint. They are two different applications. :)

[Hexsplosions]

Shoutbox isn't supposed to be a chat -- therein lies the problem with it from a resource usage standpoint. They are two different applications. :smile:

The problem with chat is you have to wait to connect to it and, depending on your timezone, there is a downtime of the service at a really inconvenient time. The Shoutbox, by constrast, doesn't force users to wait to connect as it's not hosted remotely, nor does it suffer any downtime. It allows users to have a conversation which means it will be used as a chat service.

I must confess to being confused why resource usage is such as issue with it. Whilst I am not a developer, surely it can be coded to reduce impacts on resources? (e.g. enforced minimum refresh time, as is already the case?) I'm only on shared hosting and we have no issues with it whatsoever, and never have had.

Could chat be an alternative?

[Lindy]

Just to note, the chat should only be restarting once a week now. If that's not the case, please let us know.

The problem is not the out of box configuration, but when unknowing admins start tinkering with settings, configuring very low refresh rates, displaying it on every page, etc. There are improvements that could be made (and Michael did make a couple when he had it) such as the fact that it does an entire IPB init on every latest shouts refresh, which is nuts. If you have a 1 second refresh, 40 users, plus your other community traffic - the effects can be life ruining for your shared host.

As a user, you shouldn't be expected to understand the nuts and bolts of it, only that it's just not intended to be a live chat solution. Perhaps with some serious improvements such as caching, it could be a makeshift quick chat box for your site. In its current form? Not so much. :)

[autumnwalker]

I love the shoutbox mod as do our users. I have not used the IP.Chat feature yet as I don't like the idea of having to pay for +5 users. If IP.Chat was free for unlimited users (or a higher number) I'd be making the switch.

[Hexsplosions]

I have no issues paying, I will happily pay for quality.

I know what Lindy is saying about the problems that can be caused and I agree that admins can cause a great pain, not only themselves and their hosts but also for IPS. I also believe the Shoutbox is a great addition for the software, so would love to see this developed, admin manipulation limited (to prevent problems) and the software supported.

As long as we have a supported Shoutbox I am not too fussed, but I would hate to see another community developer burned out by it. :)

[Wolfie]

The problem with chat is you have to wait to connect to it and, depending on your timezone, there is a downtime of the service at a really inconvenient time. The Shoutbox, by constrast, doesn't force users to wait to connect as it's not hosted remotely, nor does it suffer any downtime. It allows users to have a conversation which means it will be used as a chat service.

What some people don't realize or aren't thinking about is the fact that the shoutbox is meant for people to basically give "shout outs" on a visit. It's not meant to be a full fledged live chat solution by any stretch of the imagination. Have you ever called someone's cell phone and hear something like, "You have reached the voice mailbox of 'HiThisIsMartinICantAnswerYourCallRightNowPleaseLeaveAMessage'..." They're supposed to say their name, not try to squeeze in an entire greeting by talking at Kryptonian speed. It's the same thing, where the ShoutBox is meant for a simple message or two, which is low resource usage, not meant to host a trillion messages in a matter of minutes.

Just to note, the chat should only be restarting once a week now. If that's not the case, please let us know.

Any clue as to which day?

I love the shoutbox mod as do our users. I have not used the IP.Chat feature yet as I don't like the idea of having to pay for +5 users. If IP.Chat was free for unlimited users (or a higher number) I'd be making the switch.

IP.Chat is free for up to 5 users so long as your license is active.

As long as we have a supported Shoutbox I am not too fussed, but I would hate to see another community developer burned out by it. :smile:

Then make sure to discourage people from requesting every feature under the sun to be added to it. For example, there's no need for it to be treated like a chatroom, so discourage people from making requests that push it in that direction.

[Hexsplosions]

What some people don't realize or aren't thinking about is the fact that the shoutbox is meant for people to basically give "shout outs" on a visit. It's not meant to be a full fledged live chat solution by any stretch of the imagination. Have you ever called someone's cell phone and hear something like, "You have reached the voice mailbox of 'HiThisIsMartinICantAnswerYourCallRightNowPleaseLeaveAMessage'..." They're supposed to say their name, not try to squeeze in an entire greeting by talking at Kryptonian speed. It's the same thing, where the ShoutBox is meant for a simple message or two, which is low resource usage, not meant to host a trillion messages in a matter of minutes.

Users of a website are not supposed to have to "think". It's presented to them in a format that is quick and easy to use, which encourages conversation and thus conversation ensues. Many forum admins have in fact welcomed this interactivity. On my forum it has helped us to gel together, providing a feature for casual conversation.

Then make sure to discourage people from requesting every feature under the sun to be added to it.

It's neither my responsibility nor in my power to do so.

Ultimately the tools are what the admin of the forum wants to make of them. I installed a Shoutbox for my users because they value casual conversation at a glance. A chat room would not provide the same functionality because you can't casually glance at it, you have to log into it. if IPS could do something smart with IP.Chat that replaces the Shoutbox completely then sure, I'd be happy to use it. Unfortunately it does not.

[Michael]

IPS has made it clear they have no intention of taking this product over. If it is a requirement for you, then it is up to you to find a developer to carry on with it.

[Wolfie]

A chat room would not provide the same functionality because you can't casually glance at it, you have to log into it. if IPS could do something smart with IP.Chat that replaces the Shoutbox completely then sure, I'd be happy to use it. Unfortunately it does not.

A resource hog such as the ShoutBox is a hog because it 'eliminates' that need to 'log into it' but the drawback is that to get more true-time results, you have to increase the refresh rate and it reaches a point where it puts an unnecessary burden on the hosting server because everyone visiting is seeing the shoutbox (or just signed in members if you have it set that way). Someone might not give a rats behind about what people are saying but it's still shown to them anyway. So for those that don't want to see it, while they read a topic, the shouts are updated for them, which is an unnecessary burden of resources being used.

If you don't like the way IP.Chat works, then try a different alternative that won't put a burden on the hosting webserver. Try something that will use an IRC service.. Oh wait, have to wait for that to load and 'log in' as well. Okay, try one of the other chat services since they.. oh wait, have to wait for that to load and 'log in' to also. Point boils down to deciding to abuse your hosting server and cause issues for others on the same server -vs- being sensible. It's an either/or with that, can't have both.

[Analogged]

I find that the shoutbox can be very stable even with a lot of traffic. You just have to do some regular maintanece such as pruning your old shouts and disabling Archinving which really seems to help. Then again im still using 1.3.3 which pulls the "total shouts" value from the amount of rows so if you prune shouts your total shouts number will go down (Don't think this is an issue with latest version). Also iv never used it on a shared host and i can definitely understand where you would run into issues from them telling you your using too much resources, but if you have the adequest resoucres it works very well.

Im just not going to upgrade yet cause im not exacvtly sure how MySQL will handle trying to sift through the shoutbox table while updating.

[elonegenio]

My community loves Shoutbox and hates chat. As previously mentioned, it is an integral feature to the look and feel of our board. It is the first thing users glance at and read when they enter our site. IMHO you are underestimating the value of SB and far overestimating the value of chat.

I would like to make a suggestion: Why doesn't IPS do a commitment poll ? I would really like for IPS to be the supporters of this feature. Why can't you guys calculate what profit you would need to make on this feature and let us know what the likely charges would be to make it worthwhile to take over shoutbox. IMHO the fees you charge for most things are very reasonable and I believe there would be enough interest from your IPS clients to make it worth your time. Personally, I am willing to pay an annual fee for this service/feature. Why not poll this to see how many others are willing to make the same monetary commitment ?

[Wolfie]

My community loves Shoutbox and hates chat. As previously mentioned, it is an integral feature to the look and feel of our board. It is the first thing users glance at and read when they enter our site. IMHO you are underestimating the value of SB and far overestimating the value of chat.

If the shoutbox were to be used what it was intended for, then it wouldn't be getting used the way it is now. It should be renamed the 'Chat box' since that's what people are wanting to use it for, or 'Resource Hogbox' for what is really happening.

Personally, I am willing to pay an annual fee for this service/feature.

This is the most useful comment from your post. Take it a step further. Why not come up with a hook that connects to the chat server and provides it in a shoutbox form? Or maybe a chat-like server, where anything entered via the box is transmitted to the server and with the appropriate permissions, the latest chats/comments loaded and shown? But instead of IPS taking over the Shoutbox app, instead make a new app that provides a shoutbox style interface. The devs would leave out a lot of bloat and I'm sure IPS could come up with a way of doing a fair pricing scheme so that those with busier sites would pay more while less active sites would either pay less or not at all. Up to X number in a month would be free (say 10 or something else very small), over that either stop or charge per message, unless someone has a plan or has pre-paid for X number of messages or something.

[Bethanyrayne]

Shoutbox isn't supposed to be a chat -- therein lies the problem with it from a resource usage standpoint. They are two different applications. :smile:

I agree it isn't but everyone uses it for that reason because CHAT doesn't cut the mustard. People wouldn't use Shoutbox as a Chat Room if IP Chat satisfied the purpose it was made for, which brings me back to my original post.

It is worth saying that if IPS hadn't lacked any sort of vision with Chat that the Shoutbox would be irrelevant.

[Invisionary]

If the shoutbox were to be used what it was intended for, then it wouldn't be getting used the way it is now. It should be renamed the 'Chat box' since that's what people are wanting to use it for, or 'Resource Hogbox' for what is really happening.

Are you talking through personal experience or just broadly speculating? In my experience people use the Shoutbox precisely for which it was intended - to make and leave 'shouts'.

Nobody makes appointments to be present at a certain time in order to 'chat' via the Shoutbox.

My Shoutbox is regularly pruned (weekly) and the refresh rate is 90 secs.

I am on a shared server and have never been aware of any resource problems.

Used correctly, and sensibly, it is a good community tool.

[Connor T]

I found a site w/ 1.5 million shouts.

http://www.343industries.org/forum/shoutbox/

They really use it :p

[Wolfie]

Are you talking through personal experience or just broadly speculating? In my experience people use the Shoutbox precisely for which it was intended - to make and leave 'shouts'.

With all due respect, if your experience is that people use the shoutbox as a chatroom, then they aren't using it for what it was originally intended. I'm not saying that admins should suddenly put an end to using a shoutbox as a form of a chatroom, especially if it helps their community to remain active. Just that, as an example, if someone uses a toilet brush to scratch their back, it doesn't mean that it was intended to be a back scratcher. It's called a "shoutbox" not a "chatbox."

They really use it :tongue:

You mean they really abuse it. :tongue:

[Lindy]

I agree it isn't but everyone uses it for that reason because CHAT doesn't cut the mustard. People wouldn't use Shoutbox as a Chat Room if IP Chat satisfied the purpose it was made for, which brings me back to my original post.

Please feel free to provide some feedback for Chat in the appropriate section. It is on the map for an update. :)

[Hexsplosions]

A resource hog such as the ShoutBox is a hog because it 'eliminates' that need to 'log into it' but the drawback is that to get more true-time results, you have to increase the refresh rate and it reaches a point where it puts an unnecessary burden on the hosting server because everyone visiting is seeing the shoutbox (or just signed in members if you have it set that way). Someone might not give a rats behind about what people are saying but it's still shown to them anyway. So for those that don't want to see it, while they read a topic, the shouts are updated for them, which is an unnecessary burden of resources being used.

If you don't like the way IP.Chat works, then try a different alternative that won't put a burden on the hosting webserver. Try something that will use an IRC service.. Oh wait, have to wait for that to load and 'log in' as well. Okay, try one of the other chat services since they.. oh wait, have to wait for that to load and 'log in' to also. Point boils down to deciding to abuse your hosting server and cause issues for others on the same server -vs- being sensible. It's an either/or with that, can't have both.

Firstly, I have the Shoutbox in one place and one place only. It's therefore not loading Shouts for everybody, only those who idle on the index page or explicitly open it in a popup. If it's opened explicitly by the user then they're using it, thus it is adding value for that user.

Secondly, I've personally respected the hard-coded minimum refresh rate of 30 seconds and I have the idle time set to 5 minutes. These are both sensible steps to reduce any impact of using it. If the idle timer doesn't kick in then this means the user is using it, thus it is adding value for that user.

Thirdly, I'm not "abusing" my hosting server. I'm using the resources that are available to me in what I consider to be the best way I can. My host would tell me if a problem were being caused on/by my service, which they have not. If there were issues, I would then consider the best solution... which could be more resources.

Fourthly (if that's even a word?!), I do not want a service that must be logged into. This doesn't add the same value. The only indicators that the chat room is in use are the hooks that show the number of users in chat or the identities of the users who are in chat. The user has no way to determine whether the conversation is of any interest to them without having to log into the chat room. That's an extra navigation step that currently they don't have to endure. The obvious argument is that "it's only one click!", but it's a click they don't currently have to perform.

I'm not saying you are wrong, but nor are you right. It's for the admin to decide how to configure and use the services they have and to do so responsibly. It's all opinion and nothing more.

If IP.Chat could replace Shoutbox, without the negative steps I've mentioned, I would switch to it in an instant. I would much prefer to use a fully supported system that one which can be abandoned so easily as a mod. Until then, the Shoutbox is better for my users. It's convenient (because it's "at a glance") and there's no delay in connecting to it. This is a testament to the devs who have made it what it is.

This is all by-the-by anyway, as it's now been handed over from what I can see. Good luck to the new developer.

[Invisionary]

With all due respect, if your experience is that people use the shoutbox as a chatroom, then they aren't using it for what it was originally intended. I'm not saying that admins should suddenly put an end to using a shoutbox as a form of a chatroom, especially if it helps their community to remain active. Just that, as an example, if someone uses a toilet brush to scratch their back, it doesn't mean that it was intended to be a back scratcher. It's called a "shoutbox" not a "chatbox."

I usually find when people say "with all due respect" they actually mean the opposite, however I digress... I didn't say people use the shoutbox as a chatroom in my experience. I did say people use it precisely for which it was intended - to make and leave 'shouts'. They do not wait for a designated meeting time to use it as a 'live' chatroom - they login, they read the forums, they make or reply to topics, they 'shout', they logout. Simple. No abuse whatsoever.

Just because you may have personal experience of a shoutbox being abused doesn't mean every shoutbox is abused in the same way. You clearly dislike the shoutbox and that is an opinion you are entitled too but you needn't bang the drum so loud because some people, some communities, like it and want to see it maintained.

[Bethanyrayne]

Please feel free to provide some feedback for Chat in the appropriate section. It is on the map for an update. :smile:

I'll take that post as an acknowledgement of your knowledge that CHAT is a bit of an embarrassment and you really don't know whether to try and bring it into the 21st century or drop it completely.

You must be aware that lots of people have asked for different features from chat which have all fallen on deaf ears over the months and years. It seems that all you're interested in as far as CHAT is concerned is maintenance, if that's the case just ditch it all together, believe me, nobody would blame you, but if you keep it expect pressure to make it all it has to be to add value to IPS and the communities IPS serves.

[Aiwa]

I'll take that post as an acknowledgement of your knowledge that CHAT is a bit of an embarrassment and you really don't know whether to try and bring it into the 21st century or drop it completely.

I take that as meaning it's one of the next apps up for an update..

You must be aware that lots of people have asked for different features from chat which have all fallen on deaf ears over the months and years. It seems that all you're interested in as far as CHAT is concerned is maintenance, if that's the case just ditch it all together, believe me, nobody would blame you, but if you keep it expect pressure to make it all it has to be to add value to IPS and the communities IPS serves.

Deaf ears? I thought he just said it was on the map for an update? You never know what features they will put in it until it's released.

[Bethanyrayne]

I take that as meaning it's one of the next apps up for an update..

Deaf ears? I thought he just said it was on the map for an update? You never know what features they will put in it until it's released.

Yes, that's what he said. :sheep: :sheep: