Jump to content



  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


 Content Type 



IPS4 Providers

Release Notes

IPS4 Guides

IPS4 Developer Documentation

Invision Community Blog



Everything posted by Morrigan

  1. 1) plenty of themes are available. 2) I believe just an average of your users which includes guests, bots and logged in members but you should probably submit a ticket to clarify this. 3) IPS has some big sites listed on their main page that uses their software. 4) Yes. It’s in a clients only section of the site.
  2. While interesting this interferes with the default browser behaviors on Apple phones.
  3. Okay. Which at face value, to me, is a database record from the pages app to a forum topic since this is an IPS support forum. 😉
  4. I mean I don’t care about the true amount. Short form is sufficient for probably most end users. Once you hit 1K posts does it really matter if you know it’s 1,060 or 1,003?
  5. To be clear I believe they are talking about a pages database to a topic which is not natively possible.
  6. @niKee at this time there is not. No.
  7. How so? The first one is at the top of my profile where you said it didn’t exist anymore. It’s still a prominent feature of a profile.
  8. If you re-read @Daniel F's post the end of that is more important "excluding inconsequential cosmetic changes that require no backend changes." Basically if you are providing a theme hook that if "Profile field is filled in, replace achievement title with custom title" I doubt that's going to be a big thing. There is a limited impact to the front end, which is why there is this provisional term. You're not re-implementing next and previous titles for the topic pagination that causes EXTREME lag on large communities because the functionality itself was just massive. I've seen it take down sites with millions of posts.
  9. So I assume this is an Seo thing but since you’re moving it... it actually doesn’t matter.
  10. The first one is an issue with required fields. Not all databases are created equal. So not really possible. The second, sounds like a permissions issue:
  11. The achievements system doesn't exclusively rely on reputation for ranks @Luuuk
  12. Its a good thing your opinion doesn't matter in this case.
  13. Agreed but not all up in the business: A users Avatar is their identity. I don't think we should all @Jordan Invision and have +1's all over it.
  14. Custom Notifications is amazing!!! I use Group mention only for my staff to mention other staff teams because I recommend my staff follow staff relevant forums so my users don't need the ability to do that. I know custom notifications will never be implemented as core, its been said before but I can't recall the post. Its basically seen as intrusive to a users experience. For me I use it to remind people of stuff.
  15. I think the badges are rather massive compared to the actual avatar personally. But I also have thought that the avatar is rather small for years, could just be me though. It just covers a lot: It's almost like @SeNioR- has a badge beauty mark on that handsome face.
  16. Again, I don't think this is a feature that needs to be added to forums. This is a feature that needs to be added to pages. Pages has its own thing and I think that Topics need to be unique to the users and SHOULD NOT be shared by multiple people. Pages articles/records, on the other hand, should have this capability especially on large sites where you want content submitters but not necessarily a million moderators. Its like "group blog" adjacent but at the article/record level of pages where you can add those that are permitted to make changes to the article that are non-staff members. So: I own an article but I need you @Jordan Invision to be able to edit the article because you're a person that knows about the subject/article/company/listing/thing that the article is about. I add you as "additional editors" or whatever you want to call it. Now, even though you're not a mod/admin you have the "can edit" functionality on my article, you can click edit and make changes as needed but I still own the article. Then, lets say you are no longer the business on this article and or no longer interested in updating it. I can remove you and add someone else to edit said article. That mod only works if you are also using the "account switcher" mod and you allow people to create accounts that multiple people can log into. Which is technically the only solution for what I'm asking for at the moment but the account security there makes me cringe.
  17. No because there is no “current forum” as fluid view is basically displaying all forums once.
  18. I don’t want this suggestion to get diluted! Please!! I am looking for the ability to say “this is my article but I trust person1, person23 and person 1007 to make changes” and from there they have the same rights as the owner to make changes to the article. I’m not exclusively talking about wiki editing in which doesn’t have a real owner and all members can edit. Wiki editing has a mess of its own that needs to be solved first before this feature is permissible.
  19. This is because you're using fluid view. Fluid View doesn't have a true "container" so it won't be able to display that information.
  20. I’ve complained before that wiki editing shouldn’t have an original author, or owner, at all. While the authors/editors should be in the editing history the listing itself should never truly have a single author. It should be possible, especially in pages, to set multiple owners. You see this behavior on major websites such as Microsoft where the people that have contributed/have ownership of the listing are listed as “contributors”. I would like to empower my users to allow secondary editors to some of the contributions so those people also have the ability to edit their content. Sort of like adding a moderator to a forum, do it at the listing level in pages.
  21. Now I know what you’re already thinking!! Now bear with me a little to explain. I want a sort of moderation forum (instead of PMs and warnings) to notify members of issues. Not all of my moderation actions require penalization and well.... it’s double the work for a moderator to PM someone and then notify the rest of the staff that they did it. And what if two people jumped on it? It can become a nightmare. I would personally love it both on the forums and pages level to where you can basically assign a topic as someone(‘s) and only those that it’s assigned to can see it in that category/forum/etc. it would cut down on double moderation in some places and allows for a conversation when it’s not a penalized action. “Hey you didn’t follow the rules for submission for this section, please review” is not a “warning level” action but it is an actionable item for a moderator who then must bring it into a private (unseen) venue to discuss and conclude it. What this invite forum/category would allow for is, a way to communicate with more than one person regarding a sensitive topic in a means that all moderation staff could see it. Think of it kind of like a moderation category. This leads into another idea but I’ll post it separately.
  22. You could also just change it to show it under the first post. It looks better overall IMHO.
  23. Its the way discord handles share images. If you want something smaller you will affect your other sites (like facebook and whatnot). What I recommend is actually uploading an image in the first post. Or if this is pages, actually using the "Record Image" as it will replace your logo because if you look at the OG image, that is IPS's sharer image: https://dne4i5cb88590.cloudfront.net/invisionpower-com/monthly_2019_09/og.jpg.5e6c57e8dfa140ce4ac18f1e757d3b45.jpg
  • Create New...

Important Information

We use technologies, such as cookies, to customise content and advertising, to provide social media features and to analyse traffic to the site. We also share information about your use of our site with our trusted social media, advertising and analytics partners. See more about cookies and our Privacy Policy