Did you know that you can post really, really, really long topic titles in Invision Power Services Comunnity Suite 4.0 and there is no option in the Admin Control Panel to limit that?

[Kirill N]

 

[Warzone]

hahahah  that was kinda funny  

[TSP]

So have your moderators actually do moderating to avoid this then. Having arbritary limit settings to try and prevent people from doing "bad" things will never work, as there will always be a way for someone to do these things to your community.

[Kirill N]

So have your moderators actually do moderating to avoid this then. Having arbritary limit settings to try and prevent people from doing "bad" things will never work, as there will always be a way for someone to do these things to your community.

​It worked fine in 3.x.

[Mark]

Yeah, it's awesome isn't it?  

Limiting by character length is of course a bad approach nowadays because screen sizes vary. In the old days we'd have "acceptable resolutions" which we'd target - now users can be using anything from a tiny phone at 320px wide to a something like the new 5120px wide iMac. On one, 10 characters might be the most you can display on one line, on the other it could be hundreds. That's why we have this responsive design that works at any width and can take, for example, whatever title you throw at it, and make still look great. The days of assuming a user's screen will be somewhere around 1024-1200px wide are behind us (and hurray for that)!

To be honest though, it's always been a bit of a hack. Character widths vary significantly - an "i" is much thinner than an "o" and that's before even considering that a title might include non-latin characters (even if your site deals in English only, Emojis are becoming more and more commonplace) so "number of characters" has never been a good way of determining the width of something. We're glad to finally get rid of it

[3DKiwi]

I would like a character limit. I just don't want members posting excessively long titles regardless of what screen anyone might have. I'm running a 1920 x 1080 HD monitor which at this point in time is a pretty common resolution and this long title looked awful to me.

[esquire]

I would like a character limit. I just don't want members posting excessively long titles regardless of what screen anyone might have. I'm running a 1920 x 1080 HD monitor which at this point in time is a pretty common resolution and this long title looked awful to me.

​^This. It has nothing to do with screen resolution and I think most forum admins do this. I don't want to be moderating all day and dealing with users who feel like a title must mean a desperate run-on sentence to get attention. 

[CheersnGears]

I really don't have a problem with really long topic titles

[esquire]

On QA sites like mine it becomes extremely difficult to easily see at a glance the topic of the thread, e.g. Getting Divorced, Ex Took the Kids in Custody Battle. OK, that's concise. But too many will write a whole tome in the title. Forcing them to choose a title, e.g. less than 100 characters, forces them to actually give some thought to creating a useful title. And when it comes to SEO, better to have a concise well explained title than some rambling nonsense.

[Izaya Orihara]

On QA sites like mine it becomes extremely difficult to easily see at a glance the topic of the thread, e.g. Getting Divorced, Ex Took the Kids in Custody Battle. OK, that's concise. But too many will write a whole tome in the title. Forcing them to choose a title, e.g. less than 100 characters, forces them to actually give some thought to creating a useful title. And when it comes to SEO, better to have a concise well explained title than some rambling nonsense.

​

Then that has more to do with your userbase and less about the software. Most people with common sense(adults anyway) are not going to post some extremely long topic. A limit would be nice yes but at the same time it seems to be something that isn't a feature for the majority and is better of as an add-on imo.

[Kevin Carwile]

Then that has more to do with your userbase and less about the software. Most people with common sense(adults anyway) are not going to post some extremely long topic.

​So should you attempt to modify the userbase to accomodate the software, or should you modify the software to accomodate the userbase? I believe you will have a lot more success at the latter.

[Izaya Orihara]

​So should you attempt to modify the userbase to accomodate the software, or should you modify the software to accomodate the userbase? I believe you will have a lot more success at the latter.

​That is true. I just have never in my experience seen anyone really use a super long topic title on my forum or any of the many forums I frequent. It seems to be something someone immature would do but I digress, you do have a point.

[sudo]

​That is true. I just have never in my experience seen anyone really use a super long topic title on my forum or any of the many forums I frequent. It seems to be something someone immature would do but I digress, you do have a point.

​They all have character limits possibly?

[Izaya Orihara]

​They all have character limits possibly?

​perhaps lol. Or intelligent users ::)

[Alexander V]

Yeah, it's awesome isn't it?  

Limiting by character length is of course a bad approach nowadays because screen sizes vary. In the old days we'd have "acceptable resolutions" which we'd target - now users can be using anything from a tiny phone at 320px wide to a something like the new 5120px wide iMac. On one, 10 characters might be the most you can display on one line, on the other it could be hundreds. That's why we have this responsive design that works at any width and can take, for example, whatever title you throw at it, and make still look great. The days of assuming a user's screen will be somewhere around 1024-1200px wide are behind us (and hurray for that)!

To be honest though, it's always been a bit of a hack. Character widths vary significantly - an "i" is much thinner than an "o" and that's before even considering that a title might include non-latin characters (even if your site deals in English only, Emojis are becoming more and more commonplace) so "number of characters" has never been a good way of determining the width of something. We're glad to finally get rid of it

​

I don't think this thread was meant as a compliment... 

It's starting to feel like a pattern, IPS changes something, users complain they want the old option back, the staff exclaims there's now an alternative, better way.

I don't personally think this looks good, responsive or not, I like my topic titles to be a very short identifier, not a long summary. I want to be able to glance over topics quickly, and  want my users to be able to do that too. So why can't I have the option? I am glad you are happy, but I am not, and it seems some others in this thread aren't too. 

 

I am sounding a bit harsh perhaps, I have always loved IPB and I think you guys do great work, but this pattern when it comes to IPS4 is really getting to me. 

 

Oh, and it's possible to limit topic titles by character width opposed to amount of characters by abusing divs to calculate the width.  Bet there's a PHP library for it too.

[esquire]

 

​​Then that has more to do with your userbase and less about the software. Most people with common sense(adults anyway) are not going to post some extremely long topic. A limit would be nice yes but at the same time it seems to be something that isn't a feature for the majority and is better of as an add-on imo.

​Then you need to expand your horizons a great deal, lol.   Just ribbing you.  Truth is that you don't see it on good sites because there are limits built in, of course. The answer I heard from ISP Mark had me extremely confused. Honestly not trying to be disrespectful at all - but I couldn't figure out what screen resolution had to do with title/lengths and emoji widths any more than the price of tea in China. The only thing that is a "hack" is the answer and I keep hearing stuff like this that really has me extremely concerned at this very late date. 

• How long have people been limiting title length for SEO purposes so as to fit into the practical limits set by search engines - 15 years?
• Sorry, but not every user will have your IQ. DO YOU STILL SEE SOME USERS TYPING IN ALL CAPS? Not as common but I think you get the point. Especially when you run sites that attract certain demographics, you want hard limits on what your users can/can't or they can and may do things you might think is ridiculous. Now if this had anything to do with monospaced fonts, proportional fonts and emojis, why would there be a post length limit? (Oh wait, don't tell me that doesn't exist either? Oh right, you don't need it because now we can display 100,000 emojis just as efficiently as if someone copied and pasted in the script to "Fight Club" because they all fit comfortably onto the screen.)
• Users will take liberties with the title because they (a) didn't see the "description" box; (b) didn't feel like spending more time using the description box when they can ramble in the title and/or they felt it was a waste of time; or (c) there was no description box offered so they decided to describe the entire problem in the title instead of making it short, concise and useful as you would.

Yes, when I used the word "frightened" or some other similar word in the other thread, it wasn't hyperbole. It was honest astonishment. That is because if none of this is intuitive to the development team by now, then what am I supposed to think about the rest of the software? And each time I return here it seems like I discover more things that people who hadn't run a forum for very long decided to just change. Exhibit B - post numbers. Let's not focus on how we can make the world a better place for the moment. Let's focus on what users have been doing for the past 15+ years of foruming and which IPS 4 should be built to accommodate. Many people used post number because (a) it was common practice; (b) it was there; (c) shortening URLs was not a common practice anywhere; (d) all of the above. Now unless some wizard came up with a way to convert the liberal use of post numbers that is contained in 5-15 years of content, then the removal of post numbers will make hundreds or thousands of posts on some forums completely useless. And since putting an option into the admin CP would have taken five minutes to do, why on earth would you even NOT include this in the software? All these things would not be happening if they discussed it with users -- including the "Best Answer" thing that has now evolved into "Invision Stack." And honestly, it' bothers me to discover what I hoped were "oversights" were actually intentional.

Like many, I stopped posting much because while they say they value opinions, they don't really want to have discussions at all about their conclusions. And each time I return, I find more stuff that is either not clearly thought through or the initiative was pushed forward by someone that doesn't seem to appreciate how the software has actually been used by customers. And it's why experienced admins like @We Are Borg (doesn't work) are rolling their eyes. If some of you want to dismiss what I'm writing, fine, I'll accept it. But if it doesn't register, then I too am thinking of heading towards another place where at least some of this actually makes sense. The rest of you can be happy that now emojis fit better in titles.

[Draffi]

calm down...later will be maybe (another paid) hook for this...(And you pay for slowing down your site, too - Hurra!)

[opentype]

… they don't really want to have discussions at all about their conclusions.​

You are in such a discussion. Does the staff ignore it? No, they replied and explained the issue. It the topic closed to shut down the discussion? No. 
So you don’t really have a point. 

 If some of you want to dismiss what I'm writing, fine, I'll accept it.

You are one of tens of thousands of customers and everyone has a different opinion on certain matters. You can’t expect that you make your point about a feature and then IPS must agree to that one opinion and make it exactly like you asked. Your opinion is considered. Nothing less, but also nothing more. Those constant rants like “they don’t listen to me so I threaten to leave the platform” sound like the cild rolling around screaming on the store floor unless it gets its candy …
Make a convincing and factual case, why a certain feature should work a certain way and there is a good chance you will get your wish – maybe quickly, or maybe in a future release. 

But keep in mind you are not the only user of this software. I for one agree to NOT limit topic title length for the same reasons Mark explained. 

[craigf136]

May seem like a silly question but with the moderation options available I can't actually find the edit title option, anyone know where this is and if it's a setting within ACP does it need enabling?

[opentype]

May seem like a silly question but with the moderation options available I can't actually find the edit title option, anyone know where this is and if it's a setting within ACP does it need enabling?

​You change the title by using the link to change the post itself. There is no specific “title change function” at the moment, I believe. 

[Warzone]

i think they should enable, or have the options for titles, when a spammer comes with "Buy this things here now buy now cheap pills buy now this is th best product bla bla bla bla bla", that are going to be a problem yes? and ofc, Spam Service will ban these, but sometimes they slip between  

[esquire]

You are in such a discussion. Does the staff ignore it? No, they replied and explained the issue. It the topic closed to shut down the discussion? No. 
So you don’t really have a point. 

You are one of tens of thousands of customers and everyone has a different opinion on certain matters. You can’t expect that you make your point about a feature and then IPS must agree to that one opinion and make it exactly like you asked. Your opinion is considered. Nothing less, but also nothing more. Those constant rants like “they don’t listen to me so I threaten to leave the platform” sound like the cild rolling around screaming on the store floor unless it gets its candy …
Make a convincing and factual case, why a certain feature should work a certain way and there is a good chance you will get your wish – maybe quickly, or maybe in a future release. 

But keep in mind you are not the only user of this software. I for one agree to NOT limit topic title length for the same reasons Mark explained. 

​Thanks for pointing out that there is a wall which all the customers can speak to and that IPS hasn't shut that outlet down. What Mark explained represents a colossal misunderstanding of an important purpose of field length limitations -- to which apparently you wholeheartedly agree. Please explain to us what limiting the character numbers in fields to deal with hard count limits has to do with responsive design? I don't want some quote about 10 billion customers that use IPS - I want answers. Heck, why bother having any limits at all to anything concerning length since you think Mark's response makes total sense? Since we're now responsive, all this crap can "fit" on the screen including post length, tag length, number of tags, etc. 

Now you can keep ignoring the detailed explanations I provided why field length != screen resolution or calling me a baby or other names. But ask any novice programmer, SEO or admin for yet more reasons why to limit field lengths if you really don't understand other practical implications too. Now here is more advanced math for you -- if you've got 10,000 customers and you decide to remove features that 30% found useful in prior versions and you could have easily included as an option to toggle on/off, you antagonize 30% of your user base. And if all this stuff is important enough, they will leave. And I for one don't want to watch IPS fiddle with the Forum Best Answer issue they confused too, for which you have no smart answers to provide why that happened or if/when it will ever be fixed. And in case you haven't noticed, this place is a whole lot quieter than it used to be.

[craigf136]

Seems counter intuitive, so you can't go into a forum section to see the list of the topics which have extremely long topic titles and edit them without going into the topic. So every topic that needs the title to be edited, physically needs a moderator to access the topic, then edit the topic to amend the title (several extra steps that shouldn't be required).

I understand the reasons for not limiting the topic title, I don't agree with them and think that it's a silly position to take and force upon everyone, it should have a setting within the ACP so it can left up to the site admin to decide on whether to restrict topic titles or not. Editing topic titles should be done from the topic lists just as it is in 3.4.7

So far I have come across a few things with 4.0 that are standard in 3.4.7 and part of the core service, that are now no longer available. Topic titles is just another one to add to the list and that may require 3rd party apps for, as it stands 4.0 is good but just not quite right yet (status replies, topic titles, ck editor not following page or using a scroll feature, amonst others).

I'm on a little bit of a rant but these in my view are all valid points and should be part of the core now and not in a 4.0.1 update or even a further update after this. As we get closer to release I find myself asking whether I can switch and whether my community will like the changes.

[Kirill N]

Wow. This was meant as a fun topic!

Isn't it possible to limit that by editing CSS? I don't remember exactly but there's a maximum characters value for inputs.

[esquire]

Wow. This was meant as a fun topic!

Isn't it possible to limit that by editing CSS? I don't remember exactly but there's a maximum characters value for inputs.

​

Seems counter intuitive... I understand the reasons for not limiting the topic title, I don't agree with them and think that it's a silly position to take and force upon everyone, it should have a setting with the ACP so it can left up to the site admin on whether to restrict topic titles or not. Editing topic titles should be done from the the topic lists just as it is in 3.4.7

So far I have come across a few things with 4.0 that are standard in 3.4.7 and part of the core service, that are now no longer available. Topic titles is just another one to add to the list and that may require 3rd party apps for, as it stands 4.0 is good but just not quite right yet (status replies, topic titles, ck editor not following page or using a scroll feature, amonst others).

I'm on a little bit of a rant but these in my view are all valid points and should be part of the core now and not in a 4.0.1 update or even a further update after this. As we get closer to release I find myself asking whether I can switch and whether my community will like the changes.

​No, you're not on a rant at all. You make perfect sense and the "it's our new way or the highway" mentality leading folks like @We are Borg and other experienced admins/community owners to leave the building. Unlike others here who talk about "many customers", I can name them and they aren't insignificant. These people that are forces behind a vibrant community of resource demand and supply, such as the plugins, add-ons and themes we all desire. And the fact remains, if IPS 4 isn't going to provide a good core set of features that your users demand, you've got a problem. Obvious problem to them - this thing called "Pages" doesn't have the basic features that IP.C had (such as pagination, custom fields), then you've forced all your IPS 3 customers to find another solution.

@Kirill N - True - but why would anyone want customers to fiddle with CSS (assuming they even know how) if it could easily be an option in the core settings. You can manage tag length and numbers too using custom javascript -- but don't we buy quality forum software so that settings like these are convenient and involve nothing more than entering a number in a well organized control panel?