AtariAge

One other thing--an active "Delete Report" button is visible when viewing a report even though you do not have access to delete it. Would be nice if this button was not visible in the same way that the Delete Reports option is removed from the dropdown on the main RC page. ..Al

Thanks for the explanation--looks like I was wrong about moderators being able to delete reports. I used a test account to verify this, so I must have been on crack earlier when I wrote the original post. However, I did run into a different problem. It appears that the "Moderators" group cannot view "Forum Post" reports. I gave a test account moderator access and then looked at the Report Center. The only reports I can see with that account are User and Private Message reports. Here are some screenshots: User "Testbot4" in the Moderators group: Here are the permissions setup in the Forum Plugin for the Report Center. You can see the "Moderators" group is selected: Same user visiting Report Center. There should be several post reports, but they are not showing up: After giving this user Global Moderator privileges, he can now see all the reports: Help? Thanks, ..Al

Is there any way to specify which groups can delete reports in the Report Center? I'd like to make it so that only the Admin group can actually delete reports, as I always want to see reports before they are nuked. Unfortunately, sometimes moderators delete reports before I'm able to look at them. I just asked them not to do that, but that's not infallible. If there isn't already a setting for this, could one possibly be added? Thanks, ..Al

No problem. :) ..Al

This isn't really relevant, I understand the different options. These are worded exactly the same as 2.3. My question is whether the forum should be sending more than one email for new topic replies, or just a single email for any specific topic until you visit the board again. This behavior changed between 2.3.6 and 3.0. ..Al

In IP.Board 2.3, you only received a single notification email when someone made a response to a topic you were subscribed to. You then would not receive further emails until you visited the thread. In IP.Board 3.0, you receive an email every time someone responds to a topic. You could easily have 50 emails from a single topic before you go and visit the thread to get caught up. Was this done intentionally or should I file a bug about this behavior? I much prefer just the single email, not to mention the reduced overhead in not sending out so many emails. Thanks, ..Al

Yes, please!! On my 2.3 forum I was using Adriano's "Block Forums from 'View New Posts'" modification. Apparently many of my users were taking advantage of it, because I'm being asked repeatedly why this functionality disappeared in 3.0. Adriano is going to convert this mod to 3.0, but it sure would nice to see it as a standard feature. ..Al

Obviously. :rolleyes: But that's not what I was asking, so your post isn't particularly helpful. Thanks, I'll have to dig through old forum posts to see if I can find the original discussion(s) about this. ..Al

I'm wondering if it has something to do with attachments not rendering properly on subsequent pages of a thread? That is, if you quoted an image attachment on a later page of the thread, you'd just see the bbcode tags for the attachment and not the actual image. I personally prefer to see the image when quoted, but I can also understand people not wanting to see the same image multiple times on the page. Would be nice as an option. ..Al

Link to specific post: ..Al

Added: http://forums.invisionpower.com/index.php?app=tracker&showissue=18100 ..Al

That's good to know, thanks. Looks like you can just open the link in a new tab/window (which for me in Firefox is middle-clicking the link) and it'll open up the full editor. But that is not obvious behavior at all, and really needs to be on the simple PM popup that appears. ..Al

Should I file a bug? ..Al

Would it be possible to add a button to the PM popup that takes you to the "Full Editor"? I needed to send someone a file via PM, so initially I clicked on the "Send PM" icon under their name in a topic. That brings up the popup, of course. So I cancel, go to the user's profile and then click that same button. Same thing. Arrgh! So I then had to go into the messenger, copy their username and then start a message that way. It would have been much easier if there was a "Use Full Editor" or some similar button on the PM popup (similar to what you see when editing a post). Thanks, ..Al

I had to add this to 2.3.6 and I added the same thing to my 3.0.2 forum two days ago. I have a "My Posts" link on my forum index that returns all threads (well, it's limited to 1,000) that you have participated in. I still have to tweak it a bit, but it works. I converted to IPB from phpBB, so my users were pretty unhappy that IP.Board was missing this feature. When I upgraded to 3.0.2 I can't tell you how many people asked why that feature was missing. I had to scramble to add it back. Sure would be nice to see this as a stock feature since Invision is already so close. You can view all your posts and see all the threads you've started, but not all the threads you've participated in. I will submit this mod once I've had a little more time to work on it. ..Al

One of my users just pointed out something interesting with the new editor in 3.0. Previously, if you selected some text and then applied an attribute to it (such as bold), the text would still be highlighted, including the new tags, so you could then apply another tag. For instance, you could select some text, then click the Bold and Italics icons in succession and your text would be formatted as expected. Now, with 3.0, if you try this you'll end up with: Sometext After you apply the first tag, the text is deselected, so that when you click the second icon the tags are added after the text. Was this done intentionally or is it an oversight? Thanks, ..Al

I've noticed that on my 3.0.2 forum (only been running it a few days now) that when I quote an inline image attachment from another post, the attachment does not render in my quoted post. Instead I just see an icon and the filename of the attachment: Hmm, I did a test in the test forum and it does the same thing here. I don't really like this behavior--was this changed intentionally? ..Al

I upgraded my forum from 2.3.6 to 3.0.2 two days ago. Now that I have all the posts converted (which I ran in the background and took a good day to complete), the forum seems to be running at a reasonable speed. This morning I re-enabled Xcache and enabled CSS caching for the default skin. It's a fairly busy forum (over 300 active users at the moment) with 1.8 million posts running on a dedicated server. I am also using Sphinx, which is a godsend. ..Al

Yes, please. :) It's also a bit confusing with regards to PMs--if someone reports a PM you can only see who reported it. I'm not really crazy about jumping into a private conversation to get all the details (and at present this is broken), so some basic information (such as the name of the person who wrote the message that is being reported and a timestamp) would be helpful. ..Al

Looks like this has been fixed. :) ..Al

I am unable to download IP.Board 3.0.2 from the Client Area. I receive an error when clicking on the "Download File" link at the bottom of the license agreement. Is anyone else seeing this? I am able to download the Blog and Gallery without any problems. ..Al

Yeah, this is what I do on my forum. It's useful to keep banned accounts around so you can see if new spammers are signing up with the same IP address. Perhaps this will be less of an issue with the spam service serving as a central repository of these bad IP / Email addresses. ..Al

I completely agree that as time goes by, it becomes less and less useful to check new accounts. In my experience there isn't a large lag time between a spam registration and the spam that follows, if the account is validated immediately (via email validation). If there is a delay in validation, this seems to slow them down a bit. I've actually seen spammers come back and post several weeks after an account has been validated. For the purpose of a spam service, after the first few days if you don't get any "hits" on an account, it's probably benign. At least until the spammers get smart and start planting accounts and sitting on them for a while before activating them. One thing that could help cut down on the number of accounts that are checked is to ignore accounts that have made 'x' number of posts in the forum (posts that haven't been deleted). 'x' could be as low as one for this purpose. Presumably after a user has made one or more posts that haven't been deleted, then that is a legitimate account and there would be no reason to check it against the spam service. So at that point you'd only want to send recent accounts that don't have any active posts. Of course, Invision will have some interesting statistics on all this down the road. I don't expect them to share that information, but it would be nice to know how many forums are using the spam service. ..Al

Bullocks, I never said anything about checking every few minutes, go read my posts above again, I said every few hours to once a day. Several thousand boards doing one of these checks a day is not going to overly tax a server, especially if the checks are done in a batch operation (send all accounts at once) as opposed to individually. You're passing a small amount of information about each account (I believe right now it's just IP address and email address), so even several hundred accounts is going to be a trivial amount of bandwidth, as will the server's response. The lookups on the server should also be very fast as you'd have indexes for the IP and email addresses. I understand quite well that the service requires spammers to be flagged before they are marked on the spam service server as a "spammer". Presumably this can happen in a much shorter period than three days, especially when efficient bots are involved (or even a human/bot combination--human registers, once account is validated, bot takes over). Having to wait 3+ days to re-check new accounts means that some spammers are going to get through to my board and I will still have to manually validate all new users to try and prevent that. Anything that can be done in a reasonable fashion to cut down on that time is a good thing. Now, I'm speculating here, but assuming there are "tens of thousands" of Invision boards out there, I would imagine that only a small portion of them are huge boards that get 100+ registrations a day. And of all those boards, not all of them are going to be running the Spam Service, which is off by default. While this problem would require careful engineering to ensure it's not a huge resource drain, I really don't think it's an insurmountable problem. ..Al

I'm not sure I agree about three days--I'd want new accounts to be checked more frequently so they are properly flagged as quickly as reasonably possible. A new spam account that's been validated for three days is probably one that's going to end up posting spam on my forum. I'd rather have false positives than spam accounts that are missed. If an account is improperly flagged and it's a legitimate user, they can write the admin to ask why their account is not active. I'd rather have this than spammers posting the garbage I saw earlier today on my forum. ..Al