Mark

Even the Business license does not offer the level of support the OP is requesting.
Tickets business license holders are highlighted for us, they get phone support, and we guarantee them a shorter response time - but we have never offered 24/7 support - the ticket system is constantly staffed, but you're ticket is not always first in the queue (there are times when we have no tickets, it fluctuates very much depending on the time of day, and the day of the week).

Although, in this particular case, the OP posted that the issue was resolved just over 2 hours after posting the topic, and it was 2.30am, so it would seem we're not doing too badly ;)

If of course, you have very particular needs and would like to discuss a custom license agreement you are welcome to contact sales :)

Do not submit a support ticket - it's a beta - we won't be able to assist.

If you are experiencing a problem and you're sure you [url=" everything correctly, please file a bug report so a developer can look into it.
It sounds like Depotoir you didn't uninstall the original chat application first, which the instructions says to do (in bold, prefixed by the word "Important")

I just thought about something. How can IPS get feedback from IP.Chat during this beta testing if the chat is broke by these errors?

:rolleyes:

Actually, you're incorrect. IP.Shoutbox is an official IPS release and it's released by IPS Resources. Check out the information at IPS Resources. I'm just not bothering with either of these releases because of the problems I'm having with their installs. It's really bothersome that I've had these problems with installing these addons.

No it's not.
IP.Shoutbox is developed by members of the community who very admirably give up their time to provide it for other members of the community.
IP.Chat is developed and will be supported by IPS much like Blog or Gallery.

Incidentally, if you don't want to use IP.Chat, don't - it's an addon that will at it's most basic level be provided for free - you never paid for it, we never mentioned it before, and if you don't use it, it doesn't really affect anyone here.
Although, it is frustrating how you've based your opinion that IP.Chat has "installation problems" that deem it unusable on a beta - it's this sort of thing that makes me wonder if it's worth releasing public betas at all if people clearly don't understand the concept.

Ha Ha! It was a joke.

But, seriously. What's the deal with installing it? There are no help or instruction files and IP.Chat does not appear in my ACP so that I can install it or change the settings.

Charles, just what else are you supposed to do after uploading the files, which I have already done?!

Note the "Installation" header.



No help or instruction indeed... :rolleyes:

http://community.invisionpower.com/blog/1174/entry-3625-International-Partner-Program/

Thanks for the business lesson, but it's important to remember that IP.Board isn't trying to be vBulletin.

That said, some features on my personal wish-list include improvements to the moderation tools. I'm interested though Gabriel what you think a "moderator control panel" should include - besides possibly a central location for viewing approved/unapproved content - there aren't any tools I can think of that would be suitable for a moderator control panel since they can already do everything (i.e. manage forums and edit members) inline.

Glad to hear it's been fixed :) Between the US and European staff, we do have technicians working the majority of the day during the week.

I have fixed the problem for you and your site is now back online.

I'm a little confused as to what's gone on so far though - you say that you called in, but there is nobody in the office right now, so I don't see how that could be possible.
You seem to have been able to submit tickets in the past, so I'm not sure why you're unable to submit one now... I can log in as you and the client area functions correctly. You can submit a ticket under "Your Purchases" rather than "Your Tickets" if you have any joy that way.
I would encourage you to call into the offices tomorrow if you're still unable to submit tickets so that this problem doesn't occur again - it's free to call.



I would ask other customers to please remember to report these threads in future so a member of staff is alerted. Also, please refrain from posting things you're not sure about as to avoid further confusion (for example, hosting customers do have phone support).
Thanks :)

I apologise for the problems you're experiencing.

I am looking into the problem now.

Thank you for the kind words :)

Particularly as I see you've been a customer for a little while (normally these topics only come from new customers) - it's great to know that we're providing a level of service you're pleased with.
If you do have any suggestions for improvement, do let us know :)

It's just a number guys, don't let it get to you ;)

Ajax quick reply would be nice, this has been a requested feature since the IPB 2.x days but is ignored or disregarded every time it is mention. I shouldn't have to pay for a modification to give me functionality that should technically be included in the default package for IPB.

Other forum software has this feature including the free Mybb forum package, so why not IPB as well?

Do you mean when you reply with the fast reply box, it submits the reply via AJAX rather than loading the page, or...?

If that is what you mean, the problem is, if someone submits a reply while you are typing, that won't show... unless there's an additional AJAX call to fetch new posts, but then that totally defeats the point of using AJAX, since you now have 2 page calls... you might as well just reload the topic.

Thanks for the feedback :)

For search, if you have your own server or VPS you can install Sphinx, which will probably help a lot. Unfortunately, a lot of the problems with search are MySQL limitations outside of IP.Board's control.

An interface overhaul for the client area is something on the horizon. We've also been considering changes to the ticket system (for example to support attachments).

If anyone else has ideas for the client area, now is the time to share :)

Not sure if you're on 2.3 or 3.0, but this is pretty much exactly what IP.Board 3 is ;)
In IP.Board 3, the forums application is just that, an application of a framework. You can easily change the default application to IP.Blog if you want a blog as your homepage, or to IP.Content if you want to create your own (you have to do this via an edit to the initdata.php file since it needs to be loaded before anything else, but it's just a one line edit).
You can also reorder the tabs quite easily by dragging and dropping the order of the applications in the manage applications page - true, it won't let you move non-default applications above default ones, but that's just an interface thing - if you really want any tab to be at the front, you can edit the order value in the database.

You should have a delve around in the 3.0 code - you'll notice that the bulk of the code is in /admin/applications/* and /admin/applications_addon/* which are the application code resides - one of them is forums, one is members, etc... it's pretty much exactly what you're suggesting :)

IP.Board will automatically show the date (if ever) each participant in the PM last read it.



You can see in that screenshot that Matt hasn't read the PM yet, and the dates that everyone else has.
It also indicates which members have turned off notifications for the PM (note that the bell icon for me is greyed out, this means I've opted to not get an EMail/popup when someone replies to the PM).

What you're discussing is very theoretical - the number of people who have genuinely wanted to use another forum software on our hosting I could count on one hand - and the reason is usually they want to transfer and then convert to IP.Board.

De jure, we do not allow several competing products due to various reasons - a list of the products we don't allow is in the hosting policies: http://www.invisionpower.com/legal/hosting_policies.php
De facto... well, nobody ever wants to.

It's just a multi-mod which is a out of date. New staff sometimes use it :P

I've removed it - so problem solved :)

:rolleyes: Let's not get into debates about encoding and whatnot.

Our standards of service state quite clearly that we do not offer refunds. It is of course disappointing to hear that the product is for whatever reasons not suitable for your needs, but we do not offer refunds due to the fact that we cannot stop the software working if you've already downloaded. We make this policy quite clear in the frequently asked questions section of our website.

If you're actually having a technical problem, I would encourage you to contact technical support - if you have done so and are not happy with the way it's being dealt with, please let us know.
If however, the issue is simply that you don't like the product, I'm not really sure what we can do - we offer demos of up to a week long and have plenty of avenues for asking pre-sales questions.


I'm going to close this thread since discussions about reselling licenses and such which we're getting into isn't really appropriate for these forums - if anyone has any questions about the refund or reselling policies please contact account assistance via the client area :)

If you do not have your credit card on file, then you simply have an invoice created and then you can go and pay that invoice via PayPal.

Yeah, that's the only thing that I can think would be going on. We accept PayPal for both new purchases and renewals.

If you're having issues, submit a ticket to account assistance and I'm sure they'll be able to assist :)

domain.com doesn't have to be domain.com/index.something, so no, it can't just assume they're the same page.

Well of course - but there has to be an index page, be it "index.x" or "default.x" or whatever else - it's not duplicate content though, is it? It's an index page that can be accessed either directly, or by going to the domain.

Well, we do use canonical links in IP.Board where appropriate, but for some of the examples you gave:

 http://community.invisionpower.com/index.php?/index.php?f=page-that-doesnt-exit

IP.Board wouldn't link to that.... and you could do that on any page, even Google's home page:

http://www.google.com/webhp?f=page-that-doesnt-exit

I don't think the idea is to add rel='canonical' to every dynamic page.



I'm by no means saying it's a bad idea or won't be included... I'm just thinking you underestimate Google's algorithms - I reckon it knows without the use of canonical tags that domain.com and domain.com/index.something are the same page.

While I don't claim to be an SEO expert - I wold imagine that Google knows and expects domain.com and domain.com/index.something to point to the same location...

Assuming you're talking about ticket 614042 - we definitely did reply saying it had been moved up, I'm looking at it right now :) It is our policy to always let you know when we move a ticket.

Well, you know now so I suppose that's all that matters :)

I have just looked at your ticket and it seems that the general support technician did notify you in his last reply that it was being escalated.

Someone in Tier II will look into your problem and get back to you soon :)