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?

[Feneroin]

well, now again this is my time to write my opinion. Yes, this is annoying but...

I want to EDIT TOPIC TITLE feature on forums(topic listing) section. This is very easy and useful.

But now, for editing title we must enter in topic, then "edit", editing title and re-submitting the post. Seeing if it's ok. If we have forgot or writing badly a word or letter, then making these steps again. This is really annoying.

Please come back feature "EDIT TOPIC TITLE" without entering in topics as like in v3.4 !

[opentype]

​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.

Your anger and such polemic exaggerations wont get you anywhere. 

Please explain to us what limiting the character numbers in fields to deal with hard count limits has to do with responsive design? 

​I could, but why should I? I am just a customer as you and I have voiced my opinion, that I don’t need such a limit for the reasons which were already explained. That’s it. 

You can voice your own opinion; you can ask for a character limit back in 4.1 or leave IPS. Whatever. Fine by me. But I don’t own you explanations. Especially since you seem to be in such a state of rage, where fruitful discussions don’t seem very likely. 

[We are Borg]

​

​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?

​It should be an option in the AdminCP the reason is very simple different themes/styles will have different lengths and should be controlled per style/theme. If you are going to put this in the CSS not many people will alter this one would like short titles others longer. When you look at making it an option its not something that would take very long.

[esquire]

Your anger and such polemic exaggerations wont get you anywhere. 

​I could, but why should I? I am just a customer as you and I have voiced my opinion, that I don’t need such a limit for the reasons which were already explained. That’s it. 

You can voice your own opinion; you can ask for a character limit back in 4.1 or leave IPS. Whatever. Fine by me. But I don’t own you explanations. Especially since you seem to be in such a state of rage, where fruitful discussions don’t seem very likely. 

1. You're the one who descended here lecturing us on IPS' approach and repeatedly demanded a convincing case from me why something should be included and work a certain way. After I provided and you're asked for same as to why they shouldn't be included as an option, you insist you don't owe anyone an explanation!! <It's OK. Most knew an answer wasn't coming..>

2. The issue has been about things being included as an option in the admin CP (field limits, post numbers). It was never about whether any of us thought you were justified for not using them on your forum and for your needs. 

3. You're the only one so emotional so as to resort to disrespectfully referring to others as screaming children in a candy store. It would seem the only one really excited and exaggerating is you. I'm not angry at all. I'm just a very concerned customer with a very nice sized investment. I have played along quietly for a long time. But I now see IPS 4 at a critical breaking point of where that investment is becoming an endlessly delayed and mega expensive project which may well never get finished properly. So I've lost patience with the endless euphemisms here. It's either have an honest talk out in the open or a painful write off that at least allows me to make decisions.

Your ad hominem attacks aren't getting you anywhere. I suggest we dispense with the personal comments. 

[Lindy]

As has been said many times now - IPS4 is starting with a blank slate from the ground up. Some things have been deemed obsolete. Some things benefit so few users they're better left as modifications. Some things are just frankly overlooked. There's pages and pages of examples of things that have already been added back in based on customer feedback. Other things customers have said "you know, this could be done better" and we say "you're right." Naturally, there's also going to be things we simply don't agree on -- not that we don't appreciate and understand the feedback, but rather, you do not have access to the big picture - the incredibly diverse client base we work with and the requirement to represent the best interests of all, not just one small segment. 

That said, the door isn't necessarily closed on things like this. We have both this and an internal tracker for enhancements. I'll add this for consideration. 

In the meantime - please stop with the little personal jabs at each other or the topic will be closed for further comment. 

[gerard001]

 

Totally agree

first, let's see what it is all

[esquire]

I greatly appreciate the response and thank you.  You're right -- we don't have access to the "big picture." IPS 4 is a new product. But please allow me one very gentle but strong reminder. It's over 2 years since that process began and IPB 3 was phasing out. I think that any user - existing or considering - really needs to understand what that picture even begins to look like. For example, what is Pages supposed to be and will we ever see the type of custom field and profile functionality that was envisioned and part of IP.C?  Will Best Answers ever return to a "by post" rather than the very limited "by forum" which probably won't work unless you're running a strictly QA forum?  And if so.... when do you expect we may actually see this?  Without these answers, I think a good number of forum owners will not be able to upgrade their sites for quite some time and many more will lose even more patience.

[opentype]

…  and repeatedly demanded a convincing case 

That’s a misunderstanding then. I don’t demand anything from you. I simply suggested that in order to be heard by IPS, you give calm and factual explanations instead of repeating the untrue statement that IPS won’t listen (“a wall which all the customers can speak to” — your words). We had a staff member explaining the current situation regarding this feature. And we just had the CEO chime in. What more can you expect? 

 

You're the only one so emotional so as to resort to disrespectfully referring to others as screaming children in a candy store.

That was a general comment using a metaphor(!) (not an ad hominem attack) describing a certain way of arguing which I see often in this forum. It’s my opinion and I think I am allowed to voice my opinion. If you don’t think the shoe fits you, you don’t have to put it on. 

I challenge comments which I consider questionable in one way or another. That’s a natural part of online discussions. But that doesn’t make me your enemy. If you make a good case for bringing a character limit as admin option back, it’s fine by me. I don’t argue against it. Why would I?

[esquire]

You can voice your opinion, of course. Some metaphors are different than others. I see some people aren't able to distinguish impact. I'd rather not use the metaphors that came to mind just trying to get some people to concede that an option in an admin panel for features that existed in IPB 3 might be a good idea. Far too much effort.

And as you've said, I've learned that my extensive posts are useful and heard here. Things may be considered. They may not be considered. They may be obsolete. They may still be on the drawing board. The big picture isn't clear but it will be. And since I'm not getting any subscriptions from the forum and notifications aren't working for me either, perhaps this is a good time to be productive elsewhere and eventually, all of these answers will be made available. In time. Thanks for the enlightening conversation.

[We are Borg]

As has been said many times now - IPS4 is starting with a blank slate from the ground up. Some things have been deemed obsolete. Some things benefit so few users they're better left as modifications. Some things are just frankly overlooked. There's pages and pages of examples of things that have already been added back in based on customer feedback. Other things customers have said "you know, this could be done better" and we say "you're right." Naturally, there's also going to be things we simply don't agree on -- not that we don't appreciate and understand the feedback, but rather, you do not have access to the big picture - the incredibly diverse client base we work with and the requirement to represent the best interests of all, not just one small segment. 

That said, the door isn't necessarily closed on things like this. We have both this and an internal tracker for enhancements. I'll add this for consideration. 

In the meantime - please stop with the little personal jabs at each other or the topic will be closed for further comment. 

​Thank you Lindy for at least taking part in the discussion.

While IPB4 is a blank slate people do expect certain things like abilities that makes life easier or at least a few mouse clicks less. IPB can deem some things obsolete but in the end the customer is the one that needs to solve issues with this like limited access to profile pages schools need this because else its deemed unsafe for children's use. So by making profile pages open to all for example you just alienated all schools that use IPB and want version 4 (i presume everyone wants IPB4 would not make sense to let everyone stay on IPB3.x.x). 

You can always overlook something that happens but the pages and pages that needed to be put back in is still long in my eyes even as the bugs in the software. Your now on RC3 so adding back in missing features should wait till the next beta hits that can be many months from now and many more beta's and RC's later and we talk about a year lost to us.

As company you failed to give access to the big picture only a few glimpses where granted and now that the software can be accessed it becomes clear that people do not get the big picture and are not content what they see. If you had an open discussion with all layers that make up the customers of IPB you would have been much further then what you have now. The layers could have been small sites, medium, big and very large and a segment where i fall in normal users that have only got a few members.

[CheersnGears]

As has been said many times now - IPS4 is starting with a blank slate from the ground up. Some things have been deemed obsolete. Some things benefit so few users they're better left as modifications. Some things are just frankly overlooked. There's pages and pages of examples of things that have already been added back in based on customer feedback. Other things customers have said "you know, this could be done better" and we say "you're right." Naturally, there's also going to be things we simply don't agree on -- not that we don't appreciate and understand the feedback, but rather, you do not have access to the big picture - the incredibly diverse client base we work with and the requirement to represent the best interests of all, not just one small segment. 

That said, the door isn't necessarily closed on things like this. We have both this and an internal tracker for enhancements. I'll add this for consideration. 

In the meantime - please stop with the little personal jabs at each other or the topic will be closed for further comment. 

​

At the very least, topic title length should be limited in characters to prevent abuse.   The "just moderate it away" solution just means lots of potential cleanup by forum admins once some user figures out this angle of attack.   It's a vulnerability being left in the software.

[ram108]

Great! Now we have to try post message content in its title

[Adriano Faria]

Great! Now we have to try post message content in its title

​Yeap:

Topic title (250 chars limit - text: 247):

I want to know how to ban users and don't let them post on forum, because this is annoying and I don't want other users to view this kind of post. Do you know how can I disallow users to post certain words or how can I ban them in register screen?

Post content:

As per title.

How lovely it sounds ?

[ram108]

a test with message in the title is here (250 chars long only)

[Ricw]

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. 

​And, I am one of the tens of thousands who like's it.  Another great job by IPS

[Lindy]

​Thank you Lindy for at least taking part in the discussion.

While IPB4 is a blank slate people do expect certain things like abilities that makes life easier or at least a few mouse clicks less. IPB can deem some things obsolete but in the end the customer is the one that needs to solve issues with this like limited access to profile pages schools need this because else its deemed unsafe for children's use. So by making profile pages open to all for example you just alienated all schools that use IPB and want version 4 (i presume everyone wants IPB4 would not make sense to let everyone stay on IPB3.x.x). 

You can always overlook something that happens but the pages and pages that needed to be put back in is still long in my eyes even as the bugs in the software. Your now on RC3 so adding back in missing features should wait till the next beta hits that can be many months from now and many more beta's and RC's later and we talk about a year lost to us.

I should have been more clear -- "pages and pages" also consist of clearing misunderstanding. Many (if not most) cases are where someone things something has gone missing when in reality, it's still there - maybe it just works differently, or it's been relocated. We have definitely added back a good number of little tweaks and things that people have established solid use cases for. 

Remember, IP.Board was the end-result of 13 years of adding and adding. There was A LOT that simply was no longer relevant, things that browsers handle on their own now, things that we've found over the years that confuse users and things that frankly, we just didn't feel fit with the direction of the product line moving forward. 

As company you failed to give access to the big picture only a few glimpses where granted and now that the software can be accessed it becomes clear that people do not get the big picture and are not content what they see. If you had an open discussion with all layers that make up the customers of IPB you would have been much further then what you have now. The layers could have been small sites, medium, big and very large and a segment where i fall in normal users that have only got a few members.

​See, now these types of comments are a little frustrating. Firstly, it is not feasible nor frankly our obligation to give you access to the "big picture." Our job, as a software company, is to parse what our customers, on all levels, are saying and doing and then shape the software in a direction that fits within the needs of as many customers as possible while adhering to our vision of the product as well. 

We are much different than other companies in that we are very hands on and proactive from a support standpoint. The vast majority of our support comes from our client area, not the support forums - and in many ways, we like and prefer this method. It gives us not only a more personal interaction with our client base, but also allows us the unique opportunity to see how our customers are using the software first-hand. It's not at all unusual for a technician to share with the company an example of a cool thing a customer did with their community -- or a struggle in a support ticket that could be solved with an improvement to the software. 

We take that, our sales interactions with potential customers, our interaction with our enterprise/managed client base, the feedback from this community and we parse through it, often line item by line item. IPS4 was largely shaped on that very premise. As with anything, there's always room for improvement and while you state there was no open discussion, to the contrary, there's been an immense amount of discussion - one might even argue too much. We had an extensive preview where everyone chimed in. We had private groups of people from all segments representing their respective needs. No, we don't do everything publicly and we won't - what company does?

As a consumer, you have to evaluate your own needs, express those needs to the company that you are using or considering using and then determine whether those needs will be met. If not, the beauty of free enterprise is, there's likely other solutions available. We've never claimed to be something for everyone - nor do we desire to be and in fact, one of our goals with IPS4 was to make it less overwhelming for non-power users. All of these "it would only take 5 minutes" settings add up to an overwhelming and confusing experience for novices and the everyday admin. That's not to shut out power-users, of course -- many of the settings only few need have been moved to our constants structure -- so with one simple file edit, you can enable something -- but others who would never use that never have to get confused or overwhelmed by it. 

Do not confuse not agreeing or not being able to immediately act on a suggestion with not listening. That's all we do -- all day, every day. It's a difficult line between moving forward and keeping things similar and even the big guys struggle with this. Look at the deep division within the user base for something like Windows 8. I like to think we've at least surpassed those expectations.

[rich@fordstoc.com]

Is it only me that thinks this may occur probably once a year and you can edit it yourself if it bothers you?

[CheersnGears]

Do not confuse not agreeing or not being able to immediately act on a suggestion with not listening. That's all we do -- all day, every day. It's a difficult line between moving forward and keeping things similar and even the big guys struggle with this. Look at the deep division within the user base for something like Windows 8. I like to think we've at least surpassed those expectations.

​Perhaps, as way to improve customer interaction and satisfaction, another tracker or forum could be added.  Make it specific to features that were in 3.4.x that we can submit entries to and have a discussion there as to the justification for needing it or for its removal. 

I know that I feel, as a customer who has been on the software since before 2005, 4.0 is potentially leaving a lot of us old timers behind. Having to rebuilt all of my pages and blocks is struggle enough, but there are features and items that our boards have used for near on a decade that suddenly aren't there in the new version with no viable work around for it.  Sure a new feature may have been added to replace it, but it doesn't take into account the structure of our current setups.

[We are Borg]

I should have been more clear -- "pages and pages" also consist of clearing misunderstanding. Many (if not most) cases are where someone things something has gone missing when in reality, it's still there - maybe it just works differently, or it's been relocated. We have definitely added back a good number of little tweaks and things that people have established solid use cases for.

You will always have misunderstandings. I am still missing functions in the editor for example is it removed or relocated. Tweaks are good if there is a need for it and that it is why its beta or RC.

​See, now these types of comments are a little frustrating.

Firstly, it is not feasible nor frankly our obligation to give you access to the "big picture." Our job, as a software company, is to parse what our customers, on all levels, are saying and doing and then shape the software in a direction that fits within the needs of as many customers as possible while adhering to our vision of the product as well. 

Well if you cant share or don't feel like giving access to the bigger picture you also need to understand that people feel frustrated or vent their disappointment. Its not in our (read customers) interest to wait and see what we will get if we do not talk discuss or take action against something it would remain the same.

 

We take that, our sales interactions with potential customers, our interaction with our enterprise/managed client base, the feedback from this community and we parse through it, often line item by line item. IPS4 was largely shaped on that very premise. As with anything, there's always room for improvement and while you state there was no open discussion, to the contrary, there's been an immense amount of discussion - one might even argue too much. We had an extensive preview where everyone chimed in. We had private groups of people from all segments representing their respective needs. No, we don't do everything publicly and we won't - what company does?

​The major issue with doing everything t of sight is becoming clear i think for most people, as normal customer you have no idea whats going on and how the private groups that you used dealt with how development is going and if they had any say in matters. After that did the private group pursue their own agenda or did they keep in mind that they where a selection to represent a larger group. By allowing people to read the private groups and talk in another section you could have prevented a lot of mistakes more data is always better. What company does this well Microsoft for Windows 10 everyone could be part of it if you applied.

 

To be honest the sear amount of posts in the IPB4 forum is just to much you have a forum that can have multiple categories but its not used a smart person would have split up the forums so you can discus and read more then you can now. You have so many topics that go over ACP, Commerce, Pages, Download, Gallery, Blog etc etc etc and its cramped in one section.

[Charles]

@We are Borg We had a public preview of IPS4 posted months ago that anyone was able to participate in. We made dozens of changes based on that preview. While we did not implement every change and you personally may not have participated we certainly didn't deal only with a private group. As your example with Windows 10, we did in fact have a totally public preview. If you missed it I am very sorry but it did happen.

[We are Borg]

@We are Borg We had a public preview of IPS4 posted months ago that anyone was able to participate in. We made dozens of changes based on that preview. While we did not implement every change and you personally may not have participated we certainly didn't deal only with a private group. As your example with Windows 10, we did in fact have a totally public preview. If you missed it I am very sorry but it did happen.

​I did the beta on the zend server a few times but that's nothing compared of running it on our own server where errors are easily seen then on an external site.

As for Windows 10 everyone could ask access into a private group later there was an release that was for everyone to download read public release. So people could have access to both if they wanted, here at IPS i could only have access to the public beta the private group i could never access or read.

[Lindy]

@We are Borg - what constitutes a "normal" customer? Only 5-10% of our overall user base visit this community, much less participate in feature suggestions and feedback. What you often find here is a vocal minority that lobby for certain things and there's frustration if it doesn't get implemented as if the entire force of the IPS customer base is pushing for it. In reality, the feedback here is absolutely essential, but it's not always the be-all and sometimes represents a specific segment. As mentioned, we then take feedback garnered through other methods -- support, interactions with customers in sales looking for more, our managed clients, etc. It's then our job to put all of that together for the greater good of the masses. Sometimes things don't work out for all users and concessions need to be made. Sometimes a feature for an enterprise site is not akin to what a small site desires and vice-versa.  

To be clear, I don't expect you to understand or empathize with the sheer amount of angles we have to cover - that's not your concern to deal with. I'm simply illustrating that some oversimplify the process here -- a public discussion only involves a very small percentage of users. We can't always act on that. Historically, when someone would request something in IP.Board on the feedback forum, it would often just get added without all of these other sides being represented. What we'd get left with is further inflexibility in the platform the more we chocked in, less stability / more chasing down issues with random additions, confusion from users (more support requests) and on and on. IPS4 has brought a specific process for additions and the new platform allows that to happen in a rapid, yet controlled fashion. 

We're not opposed to adding things - we have many, many things planned after the initial IPS4 release, but gone are the days of adding things just because and there must be a wide benefit to more than just a specific niche, otherwise, it's better left as a modification. 

 

With all of that said, one of our upcoming projects is more community engagement. I think we can improve on communication as it relates to feature requests, etc. I would love to be able to share that a feedback request has already been internally vetted and approved for the next release and we're going to do xyz. We just need to devise a system where we can communicate and have customers trust that the process has been followed and endless debate and disdain will only distract from the bigger goal.  

To get back on point - this particular issue is being discussed internally. 

[esquire]

Lindy - thank you for giving such extended responses here, especially on a Sunday. I think everyone appreciates your level of dedication to the product, one of the reasons I came and stayed here. I can imagine what an immense challenge it is to try to design one product to make thousands of customers happy - and not everyone will be with the changes. 

While the customers here represent a fraction of the total, you do have quite a number of them who are very sophisticated, highly experienced webmasters and developers. They could have given you invaluable feedback over the past 2+ years on the impact of your changes and actual usage and design concerns over a wide area of coverage of customer concern. (Many more than myself.) Some departures from IPB 3 are very significant and easily spotted as show stoppers. And being very honest, when I hear several times that the team doesn't know what Page Title Length has to do with SEO, I become extremely concerned about the design decisions. Some of these are well established best practices that are almost impossible to not see - especially when they were already in IPB 3.

I'm not sure if I'm hearing that IPS is saying that some of these decisions may have been aggressive and you want to ensure you're heading in the right direction. If so, I highly urge you to figure out how to make this happen ASAP. There is also a need to share very concretely on what type of customer you're focusing and details of what this vision is supposed to be. While I really appreciate your enthusiasm, after 2+ years customers are impatient about having things they can use now, not that they might get something amazing in 2016 that they will eventually hear about. "Where's the beef?" There is no putting off any longer how you're going to deal with changes to things such as the decision to change "Best Answers" to "by forum only" rather than "by post" as was implemented in IPB 3 and in other discussion forum software. We need to know all of the things you plan not to support in "Pages" and develop imminently, whether it will always be a shell of IP.C. Without them, even more customers and community contributors will probably look at places where there are concrete details and solutions, not just great unknown expectations. Thank you for listening and consideration.

[Charles]

And being very honest, when I hear several times that the team doesn't know what Page Title Length has to do with SEO, I become extremely concerned about the design decisions. Some of these are well established best practices that are almost impossible to not see - especially when they were already in IPB 3.

​I thought I would reply to that since you are referring to me.

I said that the topic at hand was dealing with the feature suggestion about giving the admin the option to limit characters in topic titles. We were not talking about SEO at all so I was confused why you were bringing it up. I realize things like that interact with SEO but the topic was not about that and the setting one way or another had no reference to SEO.

[DesignzShop]

CSS? Aren't we talking about truncating a field? It's s small tag of code  am I mis-understanding something here?