Youtube video allowed in signature!!! YUCK

[SJ77]

This is really annoying! I think we need a way to prevent youtube videos from showing in signature.

It's really annoying because it will show up in the same thread every time I post

[kar3n2]

11 minutes ago, superj707 said:

This is really annoying! I think we need a way to prevent youtube videos from showing in signature.

It's really annoying because it will show up in the same thread every time I post

Do you mean people are putting YouTube links in signatures?

[chilihead]

Embedding should be off in sigs. You can embed a post too. All we needs is URLs.

To clarify, we should still be able to allow images that follow the restrictions as always, since that may be considered embedding.

[kar3n2]

2 minutes ago, chilihead said:

Embedding should be off in sigs. You can embed a post too. All we needs is URLs.

Yeah it can all get very messy if we have all those embeds ?

[SJ77]

38 minutes ago, kar3n2 said:

Do you mean people are putting YouTube links in signatures?

I mean people are doing this.. look at my signature. This is awful.

33 minutes ago, chilihead said:

Embedding should be off in sigs. You can embed a post too. All we needs is URLs.

To clarify, we should still be able to allow images that follow the restrictions as always, since that may be considered embedding.

PLEASE GODS OF IPS MAKE THIS HAPPEN

[kar3n2]

Is it because I'm on my iPhone that I can't see any signatures at all.  Including my own ?

[kar3n2]

oh dear    I just got back on line on my laptop and now I can see the signatures ... not good

[Lindy]

Ok - this previously got way off topic here so let's reboot a bit - you're missing the point of what I was getting at... we just cannot add a setting for every thing anyone can dream of. That is what a few want and I completely understand and empathize with that desire, but it's not what the tens of thousands of others want. We know what most of our clients generally want -- we've done this all day, every day for the past 14 years. So please, trust me and yes - we do have a pretty good idea about what people want from communities... at least the core user base that keep the lights on for us all.

I don't personally agree that this should be a software thing. Moderators exist for a reason, as I see it. That said, there's several things I don't personally think should be in the software and conversely there's things I think should be. The software isn't built for any one individual, including myself - so that is the beauty of how we do things at IPS; everything is vetted based on the interest of the product and the majority of our client-base. If this is a 20 minute thing and it makes sense to do it, we'll certainly consider it. My point was and is -- you really need to understand our position in that the majority of clients do not want and are quite open about not wanting pages and pages of options, toggles and tweaks. We (and you) should be selective with setting requests - as I previously said; people come up with dozens of wanted settings every couple of days... can you imagine what the software would be like if we added them all? 

I mentioned I'll check into it next week and I promise that I will. Let's please keep this on point - not everything needs to be a grand debate when we don't agree. I love interacting with you guys - truly, that's what drives us, but trying to fit a square peg in a round hole just leads to frustration for all. 

I'll follow up on this after speaking to development.

[SJ77]

1 hour ago, Lindy said:

Ok - this previously got way off topic here so let's reboot a bit - you're missing the point of what I was getting at... we just cannot add a setting for every thing anyone can dream of. That is what a few want and I completely understand and empathize with that desire, but it's not what the tens of thousands of others want. We know what most of our clients generally want -- we've done this all day, every day for the past 14 years. So please, trust me and yes - we do have a pretty good idea about what people want from communities... at least the core user base that keep the lights on for us all.

I don't personally agree that this should be a software thing. Moderators exist for a reason, as I see it. That said, there's several things I don't personally think should be in the software and conversely there's things I think should be. The software isn't built for any one individual, including myself - so that is the beauty of how we do things at IPS; everything is vetted based on the interest of the product and the majority of our client-base. If this is a 20 minute thing and it makes sense to do it, we'll certainly consider it. My point was and is -- you really need to understand our position in that the majority of clients do not want and are quite open about not wanting pages and pages of options, toggles and tweaks. We (and you) should be selective with setting requests - as I previously said; people come up with dozens of wanted settings every couple of days... can you imagine what the software would be like if we added them all? 

I mentioned I'll check into it next week and I promise that I will. Let's please keep this on point - not everything needs to be a grand debate when we don't agree. I love interacting with you guys - truly, that's what drives us, but trying to fit a square peg in a round hole just leads to frustration for all. 

I'll follow up on this after speaking to development.

Hey Lindy,

I missed the part where this got way off topic and it looks like the posts are gone so I can't respond to that. However, with regard to the rest of your reply, I agree with everything you've said. I am actually super thankful that you and your team rely on judgement to bring the best possible product to the table as opposed to being bullied into adding every possible feature imaginable.  So thank you for that,, honestly!

I wasn't however trying to make a debate. (I was joking with you when I said so the other time). All I am saying is I really can't imagine a single situation where anyone using this software would conceivably want youtube videos in their signature. I have them popping up left and right at my site and it's just annoying everyone. My sig youtube video here was removed so clearly it's also not wanted at this site. I'd be fine with no switch and an all out hard block on that functionality.

I've got two fully loaded licenses so hopefully I am in that core group you speak of but I realize I am just one vote out of many. Thank you for hearing me.

[Marcher Technologies]

Maybe I'm missing the point entirely, but isn't a global block relatively easy with some CSS?

[data-role="memberSignature"] .ipsEmbeddedVideo { display: none; }

 

[ghinton]

On 1/3/2016 at 10:49 PM, Lindy said:

Ok - this previously got way off topic here so let's reboot a bit - you're missing the point of what I was getting at... we just cannot add a setting for every thing anyone can dream of. That is what a few want and I completely understand and empathize with that desire, but it's not what the tens of thousands of others want. We know what most of our clients generally want -- we've done this all day, every day for the past 14 years. So please, trust me and yes - we do have a pretty good idea about what people want from communities... at least the core user base that keep the lights on for us all.

I don't personally agree that this should be a software thing. Moderators exist for a reason, as I see it. That said, there's several things I don't personally think should be in the software and conversely there's things I think should be. The software isn't built for any one individual, including myself - so that is the beauty of how we do things at IPS; everything is vetted based on the interest of the product and the majority of our client-base. If this is a 20 minute thing and it makes sense to do it, we'll certainly consider it. My point was and is -- you really need to understand our position in that the majority of clients do not want and are quite open about not wanting pages and pages of options, toggles and tweaks. We (and you) should be selective with setting requests - as I previously said; people come up with dozens of wanted settings every couple of days... can you imagine what the software would be like if we added them all? 

I mentioned I'll check into it next week and I promise that I will. Let's please keep this on point - not everything needs to be a grand debate when we don't agree. I love interacting with you guys - truly, that's what drives us, but trying to fit a square peg in a round hole just leads to frustration for all. 

I'll follow up on this after speaking to development.

I have to wholeheartedly disagree with you there Lindy. If there is a function added, there should be an option to disable it. Not everyone wants everything the software has to offer, and as an admin of a site, you should have complete control over what you want and don't want. What Joe Blow, who runs a different site, shouldn't be able to dictate what my site uses and doesnt. What's good for the goose isn't always good for the gander.

[opentype]

1 hour ago, ghinton said:

I have to wholeheartedly disagree with you there Lindy. 

Your post shows that you haven’t understood the point Lindy was making. The “complete control” you mention is simply impossible and even aiming for it would lead to terrible ACP (and in turn a terrible product). And Lindy has explained why. In order to “disagree” with that, you need to make a better point that simply stating “but I want complete control”. 

[SJ77]

Why would anyone want YouTube videos in signatures? Is there even one example of this?

[Nathan Explosion]

2 minutes ago, superj707 said:

Why would anyone want YouTube videos in signatures? Is there even one example of this?

A music web-site, where members of bands can, and do, post videos of their bands playing music either live or in the studio. Or maybe a video of their current release.

[Lindy]

I checked into this as promised, but there's not an easy resolution that isn't "hacky." It's something we can revisit in the future if that particular area gets an overhaul. Sorry I couldn't be of more help on this particular request at this time. 

In the interim, while I've not tested, Marcher's tweak should ultimately accomplish what you're looking for if it is indeed an issue on your community. 

[MeMaBlue]

hello! has anyone tested this option yet and if its possible to do with that rule ? 

(and what the result will be for already existing signatures ?, or if it involves only the future ones ?  )

Maybe I'm missing the point entirely, but isn't a global block relatively easy with some CSS?

[data-role="memberSignature"] .ipsEmbeddedVideo { display: none; }

 

I recently posted a new topic on that  problem, didnt know that this topic existed previously. 

if its ok id also like to provide my feedback. 

I have been doing this job (forum owner with views from 500.000 unique users per month ) for also many years  (11+ ) and built it from scratch .

 Doing a migration, now, from an existing forum with 60.000 + members,

 of which who knows how many already have signatures with links from you tube on them,

 to find out that such a  superb software as this  (i already see this in the test phase, no doubt about it!) doesnt make it easy for me   (and many others, that migrate from other software companies , ... )  to solve this, makes me a bit sad, because this is definately  a problem everyone that migrates from another software will have - isn;t it? 

Am i wrong?

 I definitely can understand the description Lindy makes, (a forum with too many options thats unusable ) exactly because because of that, our previous software was a PITA to say the least  !!   

But if this is a thing that is definitely predictable, as it is certain that will happen (no?) to all people who migrate,  its not a feature thing, its a migration thing. 

For new users who create a new forum, of course its a moderation thing, just like as if someone would put a huge image and youd send a warning or remove it manually. 

Our previous software 10 years ago, had a limitation of x pixels x pixels where you could say how many you'd want as a limit.  as an established forum, i wouldnt care, my members know what the rules are.   of course it made it easier back then to have this limitation from the start.  but ok. 

but for migrating now, and having to solve this and spend hours with my IT associate how to disable the HUGE videos ( they embed in full size ! ),  

while it would be maybe an easy thing for the IBp to include as option, and save me this trouble, since it knows i will have this problem, 

 i dont like.      

I almost cant beleive it actually, i am astonished and i hope i have understood something wrong, and maybe this will be an easy thing to solve.

unfortunately from the support ticket i posted, the reply i got, does not give me any sollution. 

I think with such a great product,  i shouldnt be put in such a place to work around something that is predictable to happen in a migration.  

The fact that there might be xxxx forums with musicians or other people , who want signature freedom,

 shouldnt make it impossible for me to maintain the rules that i have set in my existing forum, when i migrate to this great new software. 

 thank you for listening , i will keep you posted what we did, because we must find a way. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[MeMaBlue]

my associate did this on the back end :

select member_id, name from core_members where signature like '%youtube.com%';

to see how many members have youtube in signature, so that we get an idea of how big the problem is.

then we   (on a chrome browser /view/developer/ javascript developer) 

did  what  @Marcher Technologies suggested  

[data-role="memberSignature"] .ipsEmbeddedVideo { display: none; }

but it erased ALL the signature,

 

so my associate tried this 

 

$("div[data-role='memberSignature'] .ipsEmbeddedVideo").hide()

 

and this just removes the video without touching the other links or items in the signature. 

we ll see now how this results when you add a new signature   either embedded or as a link, this will follow in the next post.

... [in my oppinion  the option should be the opposite way....when you ad a utube link, default option in a signature should be to post it as a link,

 and click extra if you really want to embed it. .. anyhow..]

 

 

 

[kar3n2]

On 3 January 2016 at 5:59 AM, Marcher Technologies said:

Maybe I'm missing the point entirely, but isn't a global block relatively easy with some CSS?

[data-role="memberSignature"] .ipsEmbeddedVideo { display: none; }

 

So I'll add that into my custom css. Is that right?  Prevention better than cure starting up thnx 

[MeMaBlue]

 @kar3n2 unfortunately as i wrote in the previous post it erased the whole signature when we tried this.  (embeded video + any other signature content and signature field)

check the second one i posted. this will hide only the embedded video but leave the rest of the signature there. 

[AtariAge]

lolz, YouTube videos in signatures!  I'd quickly nope out of a site that was letting its members do that.  I don't even allow images in signatures.  

[hxigor]

Where to put this text?

When I place this in my custom.css, it does nothing in 4.2.7, the videos are still being shown! Isn't it possible to disable displaying these huge link previews completely?

On 6/23/2016 at 10:41 PM, MeMaBlue said:

$("div[data-role='memberSignature'] .ipsEmbeddedVideo").hide()

 

[kar3n2]

On 6/23/2016 at 9:41 PM, MeMaBlue said:

 

$("div[data-role='memberSignature'] .ipsEmbeddedVideo").hide()

 

 doesnt work for me either...

 

[Nathan Explosion]

Because it's javascript, not css.

[kar3n2]

3 minutes ago, Nathan Explosion said:

Because it's javascript, not css.

cant be done then can it? just have to ask members to play nice and not add a video link in sigs

[PPlanet]

This actually worked for me on 4.2.7.

[data-role="memberSignature"] .ipsEmbeddedVideo { display: none; }

I simply added it to the Custom CSS file.