Jump to content

Where is the members list ?


Flo44

Recommended Posts

I don't understand the thinking behind removing options entirely, including post numbers. To me it feels like thinking in a small box that is in a much larger box. If you want to remove a stock user's landing page that doesn't have all this jazz, easy enough. I just wouldn't remove it and consider it not useful. Thank you for any consideration.

​According to Rikki the memberlist isn't something that most people here care about. So the box really isn't that small. As it appears not to affect the vast majority of us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 214
  • Created
  • Last Reply

there is something i don t understand : some want,this list and some don t. So WHY don t You want to add a tab to toggle on or,off this feature. Then after if You want to improve it later why not but You Just need to add a little tab in member setting to switch this list on or off. What is the problem seriously. If You dont want it toggle it off otherwise toggle it on. It is Just so simple. Why we need to write 100 post to understand that ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

there is something i don t understand : some want,this list and some don t. So WHY don t You want to add a tab to toggle on or,off this feature. Then after if You want to improve it later why not but You Just need to add a little tab in member setting to switch this list on or off. What is the problem seriously. If You dont want it toggle it off otherwise toggle it on. It is Just so simple. Why we need to write 100 post to understand that ?

​According to Rikki the memberlist isn't something that most people here care about. So the box really isn't that small. As it appears not to affect the vast majority of us.

​Looks like quoting is backwards, unless you want to type responses above quotes and read up instead of down. There is also no button to easily edit quoted posts here (e.g. view source) and rearrange them or break up one quote into multiple quotes...  My users will hate this as is.

@Philosophie-fr and @We are Borg nailed the issue entirely - there isn't any reason that a very small group of people decided, without any discussion, to remove features available for years -- and it will just serve to tick off users if it's virtually effortless to just add it in. It's very short-sighted for anyone to say "well I don't use it and most of the people I know don't use it so it's gone because it doesn't affect me." The other stuff that has been omitted from IPS4 or very rigidly constructed because of this type of thinking isn't nearly so simple to fix. 

Another solution: you include the php file that generates the same stock "members page", leave the menu entry and users who don't use it can just delete the menu item. Problem solved. If you want to actually do something useful, make the stock members page able to be sorted by default, e.g. by most active members, and then you've got a "top members" type page. Not rocket science.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The members list is by no means effortless to add in. You are basically talking about listing the largest table in the suite in most cases, and the most accessed table in all cases. This in itself is resource intensive. Even the ACP does not generate a paginated list of all of them in one go(is tabbed by status), and with good reason. Additionally, the ACP is not something thousands of users can hit at once.

The reason most sites disabled it when it was available was for such resource reasons, and maintaining that kind of resource hog, attempting to keep it from being too much of one, is no easy task.

Apologies if that came out offensive, but you make it sound so easy, when it truly has implications you are not considering.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The members list is by no means effortless to add in. You are basically talking about listing the largest table in the suite in most cases, and this in itself is resource intensive. Even the ACP does not generate a paginated list of all of them in one go, and with good reason. The reason most sites disabled it when it was available was such, and maintaining that kind of resource hog, attempting to keep it from being too much of one, is no easy task.

Apologies if that came out offensive, but you make it sound so easy, when it truly has implications you are not considering.

​I was wondering about how much resources the member app uses and how much time IPS can allocate to fit everything in time/budget wise for 4.0?

I don't know the logistics of creating a members table, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I must note I do not work for IPS anymore, this was a personal opinion based on what I know of the issue and should not be construed as anything but that.

Personally, I feel sympathy for whatever modder decides to actually make this, I'm not sure it can be done in a way that active sites could use it without issues in the first place, the base idea itself of a member list.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The members list is by no means effortless to add in. You are basically talking about listing the largest table in the suite in most cases, and this in itself is resource intensive. Even the ACP does not generate a paginated list of all of them in one go(is tabbed by status), and with good reason. The reason most sites disabled it when it was available was such, and maintaining that kind of resource hog, attempting to keep it from being too much of one, is no easy task.

Apologies if that came out offensive, but you make it sound so easy, when it truly has implications you are not considering.

​Understood and appreciated. I think we are saying different things. If the members list was already in IPS3 then we aren't reinventing the wheel by replicating what has already been done. Now if you're saying that the implementation in IPS 3 was so resource intensive so as to render it more of a problem for any version than a benefit, I completely appreciate the statement. Agreed, better not to have than to have - as is. But in removing the members page entirely, many sites are now left with no "community page" at all. That's not a good solution for sites who are trying to promote their community. And imagine the surprise to those who upgrade without being forewarned.

I think some suitable replacement landing page should have been made. This could be as simple as an advanced search interface on top with a short list of top X most active members below, which gets cached every X minutes with no need for pagination beyond the toplist. It could also be a random list of X users based upon having a photo (and perhaps one attribute, e.g. most posts, at least one post, most likes, etc.), refreshed once per hour/day. Any type of "community" page would be acceptable that is within reasonable resource limits, even just a basic toplist that is cached.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

​Looks like quoting is backwards, unless you want to type responses above quotes and read up instead of down. There is also no button to easily edit quoted posts here (e.g. view source) and rearrange them or break up one quote into multiple quotes...  My users will hate this as is.

@Philosophie-fr and @We are Borg nailed the issue entirely - there isn't any reason that a very small group of people decided, without any discussion, to remove features available for years -- and it will just serve to tick off users if it's virtually effortless to just add it in. It's very short-sighted for anyone to say "well I don't use it and most of the people I know don't use it so it's gone because it doesn't affect me." The other stuff that has been omitted from IPS4 or very rigidly constructed because of this type of thinking isn't nearly so simple to fix. 

Another solution: you include the php file that generates the same stock "members page", leave the menu entry and users who don't use it can just delete the menu item. Problem solved. If you want to actually do something useful, make the stock members page able to be sorted by default, e.g. by most active members, and then you've got a "top members" type page. Not rocket science.

​Well this is what you get if people are not being involved with the software and a company is trying to know everything better what customers need. You get a mess and one that will hunt a community for a long time. The wurst is even if you give lets say by example a very good reason not to continue with release candidates but make sure the foundation is 100% they will always find a way that it is untrue and not needed.

Why would you remove features that are present in the version before that it does not make sense, as company you never know who or why they make use of a feature. So removing it can have impact on many people, let me say this i have no clue why a forum needs to have a members list. That said some use it for games or extra information you will never know what creativity they thought up. Now with removing it people need add-ons or even hacks to make it work as it did before, what could have been done is make it an option that is now turned off so no member list but can be enabled a bit more work but you keep everyone happy.

IPB could also do something like calendar add-on make such features an add-on easy to maintain and if you do not want it you do not install it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why would you remove … So removing it …Now with removing it …

​Seriously, guys, stop saying that. IT WAS NOT REMOVED. It was just moved from a single page (and default navigation entry linking there) to be a part of the search function. That’s it. 

You can discuss all day long how this function could be improved in the future, but stop saying the memberlist was removed. It is untrue and this has been pointed out many times now. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

​Well this is what you get if people are not being involved with the software and a company is trying to know everything better what customers need. You get a mess and one that will hunt a community for a long time. The wurst is even if you give lets say by example a very good reason not to continue with release candidates but make sure the foundation is 100% they will always find a way that it is untrue and not needed.

Why would you remove features that are present in the version before that it does not make sense, as company you never know who or why they make use of a feature. So removing it can have impact on many people, let me say this i have no clue why a forum needs to have a members list. That said some use it for games or extra information you will never know what creativity they thought up. Now with removing it people need add-ons or even hacks to make it work as it did before, what could have been done is make it an option that is now turned off so no member list but can be enabled a bit more work but you keep everyone happy.

IPB could also do something like calendar add-on make such features an add-on easy to maintain and if you do not want it you do not install it.

Agreed, as usual. FYI I don't use a general membership list because my forums are far too large. In general, the way the members page is constructed here and vBulletin is mostly useless. I think it's supposed to be what I've mentioned - a conspicuous place where people can browse and view members. The importance of a membership page and search comes into play when the membership is the draw, e.g. professional forums. In addition, some like to see who the most active members are and most member pages usually allow you to sort. By doing so you can see who posted the most articles and can be the largest influencer, etc. What always surprised me was that for "community" software the forum community pages were terrible. If you go to the "social networking" type scripts you see better iterations.

​Seriously, guys, stop saying that. IT WAS NOT REMOVED. It was just moved from a single page (and default navigation entry linking there) to be a part of the search function. That’s it. 

You can discuss all day long how this function could be improved in the future, but stop saying the memberlist was removed. It is untrue and this has been pointed out many times now. 

​We are talking about the single page, not the search function. Many sites want to have a conspicuous place that shows their community, e.g. here are our 10,000 members, check them out, you'll want to join, find interesting people etc. Many places exhibit this page, fwiw. If you place a function to find members only in search, you will have a small fraction of users even being aware it's actually there.  

Side point - considering the way search seems to work right now, I'm not sure how useful it is. Are profile fields available to be toggled on and off for advanced search? If it isn't, then you might as well consider the membership search functionality to be well below average and of marginal utility. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then show me a page with members in alphabetical order on this site and where you can select ascending and descending views and/or where you can select A to Z and numbers for browsing.

Also i think there is something wrong with the quote system.

http://community.invisionpower.com/search/?type=core_members&group[__EMPTY]=__EMPTY&group[43]=1

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 If you place a function to find members only in search, you will have a small fraction of users even being aware it's actually there.  

​So add the link to the member search result page to your navigation then. It takes 10 seconds and your “memberlist page” is back. This also has been explained in this topic already. 

Saying a function has been removed, because the link to it is just not by default in the navigation after install is just silly. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A search is not the same as pressing a button that say's members list period. Like this http://vendetta-rs.com/community/index.php?/members/ you can try mimic this with other options in IPB with search but its not what is meant by us and you know this very will but you still act is your well sorry to say ... and can't understand where saying.

Also your sorting only counts for the page you are on while the normal members list sorted all pages, again its a search function nothing more nothing less. This is sorted seems there is something wrong with my browser.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

No one said that the memberlist works IDENTICAL to 3.4 or that it couldn’t be improved. The point is, that it was NOT removed. ​

​Sorry forgot to comment on this.

That it would not be identical would not surprise me at all, but this is not an improvement but a disaster. To get a list i need to do click on search then select members then press the search button so that is 3 clicks to get a list and wait till the search is complete, the old situation one click and done.

 

p.s. When i did a search on member it sorted the pages correctly now but not with the link i got i think i need to clean my browser since the new RC i get weird stuff.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To get a list i need to do click on search then select members then press the search button so that is 3 clicks to get a list and wait till the search is complete, the old situation one click and done.

​No. All you need to do is create a menu-tab, call it 'Members' and link to the URL to the list. One click and you are done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Work Arounds... This is a milder example, gets you somewhere although benefits of member page customizations are lost among other things. And then there will be the joy of dealing questions to come after upgrades, when things seem to just disappear, such as the inane decision to simply drop post numbers and not even make them an option. 

The real issue is the repercussions of deciding that the input of your users isn't important. I will be doing a test later this week but I already see some serious limitations, such as where modules can appear after installation. The original concept was independence and I am not seeing that. And then there are the forum types rather than post types. I won't digress further but it stems from this mentality. I am going to hope for the best but can only urge honest, transparent discussion at this late date.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Work Arounds... This is a milder example, gets you somewhere although benefits of member page customizations are lost among other things. And then there will be the joy of dealing questions to come after upgrades, when things seem to just disappear, such as the inane decision to simply drop post numbers and not even make them an option. 

The real issue is the repercussions of deciding that the input of your users isn't important. I will be doing a test later this week but I already see some serious limitations, such as where modules can appear after installation. The original concept was independence and I am not seeing that. And then there are the forum types rather than post types. I won't digress further but it stems from this mentality. I am going to hope for the best but can only urge honest, transparent discussion at this late date.

 

​You'll need to much workarounds to keep the full functions as in IPB 3.4.7 as such i have put my license for sale i have seen first hand what happens if a company does not listen what customers have to say.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A search is not the same as pressing a button that say's members list period.

​Haha, are you serious?

The old memberlist gives you a column with lines of member profiles. The new memberlist in 4.0 gives you column with lines of member profiles. What’s the difference? It’s completely irrelevant that the results appears under “search”. If you link to it from the menu you can give it any name you want. Why is that so hard to understand?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

​Haha, are you serious?

The old memberlist gives you a column with lines of member profiles. The new memberlist in 4.0 gives you column with lines of member profiles. What’s the difference? It’s completely irrelevant that the results appears under “search”. If you link to it from the menu you can give it any name you want. Why is that so hard to understand?

​If you look at the link you provide and what i provide it becomes clear what the difference is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

sigh.....this is ridiculous.

 

ips, can you just cancel ips4 and continue on with ipb 3.x

to please the minority . /sarcasm

​Why would i stay with old software when i presumed new software would be at least be as good or even better then the old. If not then its time to re-evaluate what is needed and if needed go with new software. I will be not the first or last that will do this, the sum is easy what will i gain or lose and do i want to pay top dollar. As for now what i want can be done with other software and with 60% cut in cost.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...