How to promote forum submission to article in IPB 4.0?

[vpsBoard]

In IPB 3.4.X you could promote a forum post as an article in the moderator actions, however I am not seeing this feature in 4.0.X. How can I promote a forum submission as an article?

[chilihead]

Not possible in 4.

[vpsBoard]

What in the hell?

I'm so close to just completely switching platforms all together.

I upgraded to 4.0.X because staff have stopped supporting issues I bring to them about 3.4.X and tell me I should upgrade.

 

I upgrade.

 

So much stuff breaks. I'm still waiting for an update to a ticket regarding a CRITICAL issue that I submitted on Wednesday... Tier II support still hasn't responded.

 

I am so completely let down by 4.0.X that I guess it's time to spin up a new dev server to test out other platforms.

[Brian K.]

On 7/29/2015, 1:44:16, vpsBoard said:

What in the hell?

I'm so close to just completely switching platforms all together.

I upgraded to 4.0.X because staff have stopped supporting issues I bring to them about 3.4.X and tell me I should upgrade.

 

I upgrade.

 

So much stuff breaks. I'm still waiting for an update to a ticket regarding a CRITICAL issue that I submitted on Wednesday... Tier II support still hasn't responded.

 

I am so completely let down by 4.0.X that I guess it's time to spin up a new dev server to test out other platforms.

See this thread: 

 

[chilihead]

Is this coming back in 4.x?

[Brian K.]

IPS Staff stopped responding to queries about this. There isn't even a good reason why they removed this feature in the first place.

[eGullet]

It's probably not high on the list of features since there's an inexpensive mod that adds it:

My recollection is that 4.2 is going to focus on "Member Engagement" so maybe this counts as that, though?

[sound]

3 hours ago, eGullet said:

It's probably not high on the list of features since there's an inexpensive mod that adds it:

My recollection is that 4.2 is going to focus on "Member Engagement" so maybe this counts as that, though?

 

that plugin doesn't really solve the issue for me as when you 'promote' the 'article' both the 'article' and  the 'comments'  author are posted/changed to the admin of the site 

which is quite a big issue imo

invison should really bring it back as it used to be and which was discussed by matt!

 

 

 

[chilihead]

Also the mod doesn't let you select which database you want to promote to when you promote (it's admin defined with one setting), but neither did 3.4. If it does make a return I would like to see that, as a site may have a recipe database, a tutorial database, etc.

The mod does come close though, as you can switch the database in the acp, you'd just have to do it each time.

[FZ]

On 29 July 2015 at 10:44 AM, vpsBoard said:

What in the hell?

I'm so close to just completely switching platforms all together.

I upgraded to 4.0.X because staff have stopped supporting issues I bring to them about 3.4.X and tell me I should upgrade.

 

I upgrade.

 

So much stuff breaks. I'm still waiting for an update to a ticket regarding a CRITICAL issue that I submitted on Wednesday... Tier II support still hasn't responded.

 

I am so completely let down by 4.0.X that I guess it's time to spin up a new dev server to test out other platforms.

You and me both, man. 

I am so disgusted with the blatant money-grab IPS is forcing on us with v4 that I am probably never going to renew my license. Screw these guys. 

[MADMAN32395]

4 minutes ago, FZ said:

You and me both, man. 

I am so disgusted with the blatant money-grab IPS is forcing on us with v4 that I am probably never going to renew my license. Screw these guys. 

smh.... believe what you wish to believe. But this topic was from late 2015,  A LOT has changed since then. honestly, a majority of my tickets are T2 or higher, and have had issues resolved relatively quickly ( and that me being the oddball with a windows apache server, with php7). As for promoting a forum submission to article, instead of asking how and being told it's not in 4.x, why not suggest why you used it how it's beneficial to a majority of communities and suggest its re-incorporation into the suite, or if it only benefits a smaller amount of communities, suggest it to a contributor and have them make a plugin for you. Honestly I am sick and tired of reading these topics of "oh ips is just wanting more money" "oh ips can't test stuff because they don't have QA). If you run into a issue or something appears missing, don't cry about it. Do something, submit tickets (critical if applicable), suggest it into product suggestions, etc.

[FZ]

So is it not permitted to be critical of the software developers we have come to rely on now? Is that also a new addition to the Invision ethos these days? Don't complain or we will ignore you?

I want all the features that I had in 3.4.x plus new stuff, otherwise why on earth would I upgrade? This is not rocket science. It's customer care. Don't p*ss your customers off and you won't get complaints. 

Simple really. 

[MADMAN32395]

Just now, FZ said:

So is it not permitted to be critical of the software developers we have come to rely on now? Is that also a new addition to the Invision ethos these days? Don't complain or we will ignore you?

I want all the features that I had in 3.4.x plus new stuff, otherwise why on earth would I upgrade? This is not rocket science. It's customer care. Don't p*ss your customers off and you won't get complaints. 

Simple really. 

if you follow development messages you would see that 4.2 will have more member targeted features and new implementations. but now both you and I are driving the topic off course. but threatening ips by saying "i'm just gonna jump ship". well that's your choice and well bye... but seriously if there's an issue bring it up is what my last post was trying to get across.

 

imo, not everyone used the 3.x features, so current 4.x looks like it's more core features and rest are performed by plugins/applications, and if majority is needed eventually it will be implemented in core suite. such as the member download list, it started off as a plugin IIRC, and now it's natively in the suite as of 4.1.3

[FZ]

I don't follow the development, but I do expect that features that are IMPORTANT will not be arbitrarily removed. 

[CalvinK]

8 hours ago, FZ said:

I don't follow the development, but I do expect that features that are IMPORTANT will not be arbitrarily removed. 

What's important for one community is not important for another.

[FZ]

14 hours ago, CalvinK said:

What's important for one community is not important for another.

That is the most flippant comment in defence of the decision to drop "Promote To Article" I have read yet. So if I don't use the reputation system should it be dropped from the next release because not every community finds it important? Seriously??

[CalvinK]

8 hours ago, FZ said:

That is the most flippant comment in defence of the decision to drop "Promote To Article" I have read yet. So if I don't use the reputation system should it be dropped from the next release because not every community finds it important? Seriously??

I'm not defending or supporting the decision. What I am saying is that you personally may find the the feature important but other communities may not find it that important at all. In any case, I seem to remember Lindy saying that it was overlooked but will be coming back, so you can quit being salty with me.

[FZ]

If you don't like the salt don't put your plate under the dispenser. 

[Joel R]

On 6/4/2016 at 9:24 AM, CalvinK said:

What's important for one community is not important for another.

As peppery as I think both you and FZ have become, I'd like to point out that this argument is the most shallow and unsubstantiated one to use (and yet it comes up over and over in the community ... and it's used in the most generic and baseless of ways, to which I just roll my eyes).  Just because one client doesn't think a feature is not important does not - in any way - lessen its importance to the overall scope of IPS.  If you're going to put down a feature, at least do with some depth of thought instead of the shallowest of arguments.  

I can also provide some (compelling) arguments in favor of promoting forum submissions to articles:

1. Forums (or Blogs, or Status Updates, or wherever) can all be a rich source of encouraging interesting and unique discussion, but they can easily get washed over by newer topics and discussions.  Thus, it makes sense to be able to extract and solidify useful content in a structured database of IP.Pages.   
2. It was an in-built, useful, and used feature to IPB 3, so there should be a reasonable expectation that it's available.
3. Clients buy into IPS for a full-suite solution of integrated apps, content should transcend any particular publishing module, and IPS is missing its full potential if it doesn't strive for cross-app integration.  Blah blah more words.  Lindy has heard it all before from me. 

At this point, there shouldn't even be a debate on whether cross-app integration is useful or not.  The debate should be on how much and to what extent IPS can implement these improvements. 

[FZ]

I have figured out a way to work around this, albeit somewhat clunkily. 

By copying the HTML in the original post I create a new article in ACP, paste the HTML into the content area and set the author as the original poster. I have set up the Articles database to create a new thread when an article is added (essentially a duplicate of the original post), but I put it in a board that is read only to me. The problem with this was that the comments were not sync'd between the new article and the original post, so to remedy that I merged the two threads and deleted the post with the copied content. It works. Would be wonderful if we could just click a button to do the same thing. 

I spend a lot of time curating content produced by my community for the exact reason that @Joel R stated in the post above. And because those articles can be given meta tags it makes it easier for SEO to be applied to the content. 

[CalvinK]

1 hour ago, Joel R said:

As peppery as I think both you and FZ have become, I'd like to point out that this argument is the most shallow and unsubstantiated one to use (and yet it comes up over and over in the community ... and it's used in the most generic and baseless of ways, to which I just roll my eyes).  Just because one client doesn't think a feature is not important does not - in any way - lessen its importance to the overall scope of IPS.  If you're going to put down a feature, at least do with some depth of thought instead of the shallowest of arguments.  

I can also provide some (compelling) arguments in favor of promoting forum submissions to articles:

1. Forums (or Blogs, or Status Updates, or wherever) can all be a rich source of encouraging interesting and unique discussion, but they can easily get washed over by newer topics and discussions.  Thus, it makes sense to be able to extract and solidify useful content in a structured database of IP.Pages.   
2. It was an in-built, useful, and used feature to IPB 3, so there should be a reasonable expectation that it's available.
3. Clients buy into IPS for a full-suite solution of integrated apps, content should transcend any particular publishing module, and IPS is missing its full potential if it doesn't strive for cross-app integration.  Blah blah more words.  Lindy has heard it all before from me. 

At this point, there shouldn't even be a debate on whether cross-app integration is useful or not.  The debate should be on how much and to what extent IPS can implement these improvements. 

With respect, I wasn't even arguing about whether it was a good feature or not. I actually agree that it is a good feature.

My issue is ultimately that FZ has simply stated that because he felt it was important to his community, it shouldn't be removed. That was where I took issue, as I did when people whinged about the introduction of Activity Streams. The tone of the FZ's message deserved the tone of my reply.

FZ should have perhaps posted his arguments for keeping the feature, much like you have, instead of going on a rant about how IPS are just money-grabbers. Making baseless accusations as he did contributes absolutely nothing to the thread. Hopefully we can both move from this and in future he can come to topics with a bit more of a constructive attitude.