GoAncestry Posted March 12, 2016 Posted March 12, 2016 I created a few custom DBs and am now populating them for inclusion into some pages on my site. I thought that specifying the number of entries to display would be part of a single page and that if there were more DB entries beyond say the number 25 a second page indicator would be displayed so you can see the remaining DB items. Well, it doesn't seem to work that way. Maybe I am missing a checkbox or configuration step, maybe I need a custom template? Anyway, I need to know if there is a way to present all of the entries, but only say 25 on a single page, much the way the forums work I guess.
Jirinex Posted March 12, 2016 Posted March 12, 2016 If you edit the database and go to option, you 'll see this setting: Is that what you mean?
opentype Posted March 12, 2016 Posted March 12, 2016 As addition: for articles there is another, separate set of options in the first tab of the database settings:
GoAncestry Posted March 12, 2016 Author Posted March 12, 2016 opentype - Ok, so I see it where Articles has this configuration capability, but the DB I created does not have this setting. Is this something that does not exist unless you use the Articles DB, or did I miss this when I created the DB as a setting? For my custom DB, no pagination. jirinex - I have attempted to modify that field and it just cuts off the display at that number of records, no pagination. Actually I just modified this field again and it seems to not even cut off the display at all. Maybe I will check cache or give it a minute.
opentype Posted March 12, 2016 Posted March 12, 2016 1 hour ago, GoAncestry said: opentype - Ok, so I see it where Articles has this configuration capability, but the DB I created does not have this setting. The articles settings are of course only there when you set the database frontpage to article mode. If that’s not the case the record listing view will have a table layout by default and that will show a pagination automatically, once you got more records than what you put in the field Jirinex showed.
GoAncestry Posted March 13, 2016 Author Posted March 13, 2016 I may just have to submit a support ticket then. I have it configured as Jirinex states, but it never truncates the display into multiple pages. I have it set for 10 as a test, but it displays well past ten items. it is here to view: http://www.goancestry.com/forums/Northeast/Vermont/windsorvt.html Maybe I can check how the article mode looks and see if I can get it to work that way.
GoAncestry Posted March 13, 2016 Author Posted March 13, 2016 I adjusted one of my DBs and set the Database Index to Article mode. All that changes is the specific DB page for entry, it seems to have nothing at all to due with the display through a block on another page. Since the DB items entered are to be displayed on multiple pages, this feature or setting has no value to those presentation pages. When put into a non-article display on the DB entry screen, pagination works fine. This is also true using the setting Jirinex has identified. Again. what I am trying to do is to access records from the DB, and display them on multiple pages throughout the site. When displayed around the site, I want the display block to allow Pagination. Since it seems none of these two settings have any impact on the displaying of DB content when presented through a custom block I believe this is only configured in the custom block admin workflow. and in the final tab of the block through the selection of a Template. The only template available is the default, so I assume any modification to the display will require coding. In the Custom Block area when creating an ability to access and view the data there is an area under the "feed configuration tab" but the problem with that setting is that it does not perform any type of Pagination, it just Truncates the display and allows output to only those number of records selected. So if I have 35 items I either have to have a very long page or choose to not display data. I was going to use this DB feature, but now it seems so constrained that when included on any Pages, through Blocks, it is not useful. I had really hope that those two settings would have some useful effect on the presentation of content: the Article setting only modifies the single page the DB is employed on which is the DB entry page and cannot be used more than on a single page throughout the site. the display records area of the DB, under the option tab seems to only have truncation or pagination outcomes again on the single db page. Thank you to you both for attempting to help me. Is there a Template that is used for the forum sections that I can copy and use in the custom block to do this?
opentype Posted March 13, 2016 Posted March 13, 2016 You can’t have pagination in blocks. The pagination only works on the actual page you put the database on. And a database can only be placed on one page. If you want show entries from this database in different places, you need blocks for that. They have their own settings for number of items, ordering and things like that – but no pagination. That’s not what they are meant for. They are more like links to your database, e.g. showing the latest 5 articles as links on the forum homepage, so your forum users see them too, if they just access the forum index page.
GoAncestry Posted March 13, 2016 Author Posted March 13, 2016 Yeah, I see that now. Thanks for your confirmation. Seems my concept of using the DB for displaying dynamic and yet robust data is not feasible. So it seems that Pages is not really intended to display robust data sets and having many pages. Since I don't want to create individual DBs for the many content types that we use and only have them displayed on a single page in a meaningful way, I may just have to resign myself back to manual page creation as a primary road ahead and leave the easy lifting and minor data inclusion to something like Pages. Even with that said, Pages lacks diversity in block creation without a lot of customization to it so I may have to restrict it to just menial tasks. I was thinking "PAGES" would mean that I could have these types of data sets, diversity of display features that included something more than a Facebook or Twitter type of message, and some modularity to customize that display. The pre-packaged filtering blocks that are available are severely limited so that was a reason to try to custom DB, in creating blocks for the custom DB you can filter on tags and other content fields, whereas in the forum feeds you can't even do that with a block. I guess I will have to rethink my concept of the site pages and determine if I want just a site with snippets of content; as you state, that seems all it was intended to provide.
GoAncestry Posted March 13, 2016 Author Posted March 13, 2016 So, my site intends to present information of a historical and genealogical nature. Much of this data needs to be sorted into regional and other filtered constructs (religions, nations, migration periods, and historical associations such as (war, transportation,etc.)) I was trying to create PAGES that would allow me to coalesce these various data types into a regional structure that would allow present focused information for the user. I wanted to use the Forums: as a collaborative workspace in which people could provide individual input on a topical basis, but then construct a final presentation for the Pages areas as appropriate. (this is how I used the former "promote to article" feature in the past, but now that no longer functions. I wanted to use the Galleries to provide stimulating visual displays of localities or records, but expand those with information that could be provided by the person uploading (say a church) and again users to add more constructive data such as historical aspects, data and times, founding, location, etc. Then using these additional data fields and BLOCKS filter on those fields to PRESENT it on PAGES along those regional concepts explained above. Same goes for BLOGS, ARTICLES, CALENDAR. Maybe all of my concepts are not workable in IPB, but I had most of this working in 3.4 so maybe I am mentally challenged and have yet to move on knowing that this concept is no longer feasible in PAGES and BLOCKS. The Strategic perspective to me is this: I wanted to create a community where the applications functioned together and provided a workspace for members to interact, but the interaction is NOT solely the goal, the PRODUCT of that interaction would be those PAGES that were created out of this process. They would remain as the presentation of the knowledge discovery we had worked through as a community. There would be a logical and easy to understand way to bring those work sessions together on a PAGE. Maybe one could think of this as WIKIPEDIA in a way. I think not, this is a much more interactive model that promotes participation of the users and THEN the ability to present information in a meaningful and concise way, almost a PUBLISHING way. Another way to explain might be this. Why don't we create this kind of interactive process here on IPB? Have the various products coalesce around a "PROJECT" so to speak, then as the users worked through the project a concise document might form and one of the Moderators or Admins could then PROMOTE the discussion into a PAGE. I can think of an easy application of this construct, DOCUMENTATION, TEMPLATES, BLOCKS, CSS. Those would be the projects and then PAGES would display the publishable information along those topical lines when ready for more permanent viewing. If IPB were to do this, the users would be a major part of creating substantive documentation and fill an information void (my term) at IPB. Does any of this make sense to you? I really think there is SO MUCH potential with IPB to do what I have described. It is so close to being able to do these things. There are user groups all over Facebook and nobody can find information once it passes from the current conversation, this would fill that gap or void that I feel is missing on the internet with current applications.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.