Jump to content

Community

Brandon D

Members
  • Posts

    4,314
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    24

Reputation Activity

  1. Like
    Brandon D got a reaction from Mark in IP.Blog attacking my mailbox   
    No kidding. My inbox was flooded this morning :-p 
    Took it as a sign that I should finally check out IPB/S4 
  2. Like
    Brandon D got a reaction from Mur in Force uninstall app   
    I've requested this a blue moon ago, but it'd be extremely nice to have a "force uninstall" option for applications. All this does is simply run the current uninstall procedure but suppress any database errors and continues. Right now, if a field or table is missing due to a bad install, upgrade in IPB, change by admin, etc. then IPB's uninstaller will barf when the uninstaller attempts to drop it, causing an incomplete uninstall and most likely a lot more driver errors than before the uninstall.

    So long as IPB has an app key then the uninstall should run without errors.
  3. Like
    Brandon D got a reaction from svit in Remove or improve "Help Files"   
    Either remove them or make them context sensitive. For example, if you click on help from the registration page it displays the help article on registering or if you click on help from the post screen it displays the article on posting a topic.
  4. Like
    Brandon D got a reaction from Makoto in Mobile skin needs some improvement   
    The mobile skin is designed to provide efficient use for its users. It is intentionally designed to be minimal to provide quick and easy navigation of your community. While IPS might consider it in the future, IMO a mobile skin is not intended to be used as a moderation or administration tool. I suggest you click the "Full Version" link available at the bottom of the mobile skin if you're determined to use those features.
  5. Like
    Brandon D got a reaction from Michael.J in IPB3's Application Framework   
    I think I've made one of these posts before, but I felt another was appropriate with 3.2 now released.

    IP.Links was one of the (if not the) first 3rd party application released for IPB 3.0 utilizing not only the new application structure at the time, but also all of the various extensions available to add on applications. It was incredibly easy to integrate my application with IPB3 using these extensions making it feel like it was part of the core product.

    Fast forward to today with the release of 3.2, and while I haven't been near as quick to adopt the new features as I was with IPB 3.0, it has been equally as easy to do so. So far I have implemented the "Like" system (note the reputation was already implemented in previous versions), following content, and tagging. Even though there wasn't any documentation (that I could find), I was able to quickly integrate those features by simply looking at the forums application. I look forward to tackling notifications within the next couple days, and from a first glance it seems it too is just a matter of implementing a file and a few lines of code here and there.

    Point being, you guys introduced a great framework in IPB3 for modification authors, made only better by the fact that not only do your own 3rd party applications make use of it, but core functionality like the forums do too.
  6. Like
    Brandon D got a reaction from bfarber in IPB3's Application Framework   
    I think I've made one of these posts before, but I felt another was appropriate with 3.2 now released.

    IP.Links was one of the (if not the) first 3rd party application released for IPB 3.0 utilizing not only the new application structure at the time, but also all of the various extensions available to add on applications. It was incredibly easy to integrate my application with IPB3 using these extensions making it feel like it was part of the core product.

    Fast forward to today with the release of 3.2, and while I haven't been near as quick to adopt the new features as I was with IPB 3.0, it has been equally as easy to do so. So far I have implemented the "Like" system (note the reputation was already implemented in previous versions), following content, and tagging. Even though there wasn't any documentation (that I could find), I was able to quickly integrate those features by simply looking at the forums application. I look forward to tackling notifications within the next couple days, and from a first glance it seems it too is just a matter of implementing a file and a few lines of code here and there.

    Point being, you guys introduced a great framework in IPB3 for modification authors, made only better by the fact that not only do your own 3rd party applications make use of it, but core functionality like the forums do too.
  7. Like
    Brandon D got a reaction from Ryan Ashbrook in IPB3's Application Framework   
    I think I've made one of these posts before, but I felt another was appropriate with 3.2 now released.

    IP.Links was one of the (if not the) first 3rd party application released for IPB 3.0 utilizing not only the new application structure at the time, but also all of the various extensions available to add on applications. It was incredibly easy to integrate my application with IPB3 using these extensions making it feel like it was part of the core product.

    Fast forward to today with the release of 3.2, and while I haven't been near as quick to adopt the new features as I was with IPB 3.0, it has been equally as easy to do so. So far I have implemented the "Like" system (note the reputation was already implemented in previous versions), following content, and tagging. Even though there wasn't any documentation (that I could find), I was able to quickly integrate those features by simply looking at the forums application. I look forward to tackling notifications within the next couple days, and from a first glance it seems it too is just a matter of implementing a file and a few lines of code here and there.

    Point being, you guys introduced a great framework in IPB3 for modification authors, made only better by the fact that not only do your own 3rd party applications make use of it, but core functionality like the forums do too.
  8. Like
    Brandon D got a reaction from .Ian in IPB3's Application Framework   
    I think I've made one of these posts before, but I felt another was appropriate with 3.2 now released.

    IP.Links was one of the (if not the) first 3rd party application released for IPB 3.0 utilizing not only the new application structure at the time, but also all of the various extensions available to add on applications. It was incredibly easy to integrate my application with IPB3 using these extensions making it feel like it was part of the core product.

    Fast forward to today with the release of 3.2, and while I haven't been near as quick to adopt the new features as I was with IPB 3.0, it has been equally as easy to do so. So far I have implemented the "Like" system (note the reputation was already implemented in previous versions), following content, and tagging. Even though there wasn't any documentation (that I could find), I was able to quickly integrate those features by simply looking at the forums application. I look forward to tackling notifications within the next couple days, and from a first glance it seems it too is just a matter of implementing a file and a few lines of code here and there.

    Point being, you guys introduced a great framework in IPB3 for modification authors, made only better by the fact that not only do your own 3rd party applications make use of it, but core functionality like the forums do too.
  9. Like
    Brandon D got a reaction from Martin A. in IPB3's Application Framework   
    I think I've made one of these posts before, but I felt another was appropriate with 3.2 now released.

    IP.Links was one of the (if not the) first 3rd party application released for IPB 3.0 utilizing not only the new application structure at the time, but also all of the various extensions available to add on applications. It was incredibly easy to integrate my application with IPB3 using these extensions making it feel like it was part of the core product.

    Fast forward to today with the release of 3.2, and while I haven't been near as quick to adopt the new features as I was with IPB 3.0, it has been equally as easy to do so. So far I have implemented the "Like" system (note the reputation was already implemented in previous versions), following content, and tagging. Even though there wasn't any documentation (that I could find), I was able to quickly integrate those features by simply looking at the forums application. I look forward to tackling notifications within the next couple days, and from a first glance it seems it too is just a matter of implementing a file and a few lines of code here and there.

    Point being, you guys introduced a great framework in IPB3 for modification authors, made only better by the fact that not only do your own 3rd party applications make use of it, but core functionality like the forums do too.
  10. Like
    Brandon D got a reaction from Matt in IPB3's Application Framework   
    I think I've made one of these posts before, but I felt another was appropriate with 3.2 now released.

    IP.Links was one of the (if not the) first 3rd party application released for IPB 3.0 utilizing not only the new application structure at the time, but also all of the various extensions available to add on applications. It was incredibly easy to integrate my application with IPB3 using these extensions making it feel like it was part of the core product.

    Fast forward to today with the release of 3.2, and while I haven't been near as quick to adopt the new features as I was with IPB 3.0, it has been equally as easy to do so. So far I have implemented the "Like" system (note the reputation was already implemented in previous versions), following content, and tagging. Even though there wasn't any documentation (that I could find), I was able to quickly integrate those features by simply looking at the forums application. I look forward to tackling notifications within the next couple days, and from a first glance it seems it too is just a matter of implementing a file and a few lines of code here and there.

    Point being, you guys introduced a great framework in IPB3 for modification authors, made only better by the fact that not only do your own 3rd party applications make use of it, but core functionality like the forums do too.
  11. Like
    Brandon D got a reaction from Marcher Technologies in IPB3's Application Framework   
    I think I've made one of these posts before, but I felt another was appropriate with 3.2 now released.

    IP.Links was one of the (if not the) first 3rd party application released for IPB 3.0 utilizing not only the new application structure at the time, but also all of the various extensions available to add on applications. It was incredibly easy to integrate my application with IPB3 using these extensions making it feel like it was part of the core product.

    Fast forward to today with the release of 3.2, and while I haven't been near as quick to adopt the new features as I was with IPB 3.0, it has been equally as easy to do so. So far I have implemented the "Like" system (note the reputation was already implemented in previous versions), following content, and tagging. Even though there wasn't any documentation (that I could find), I was able to quickly integrate those features by simply looking at the forums application. I look forward to tackling notifications within the next couple days, and from a first glance it seems it too is just a matter of implementing a file and a few lines of code here and there.

    Point being, you guys introduced a great framework in IPB3 for modification authors, made only better by the fact that not only do your own 3rd party applications make use of it, but core functionality like the forums do too.
  12. Like
    Brandon D got a reaction from Rhett in IPB3's Application Framework   
    I think I've made one of these posts before, but I felt another was appropriate with 3.2 now released.

    IP.Links was one of the (if not the) first 3rd party application released for IPB 3.0 utilizing not only the new application structure at the time, but also all of the various extensions available to add on applications. It was incredibly easy to integrate my application with IPB3 using these extensions making it feel like it was part of the core product.

    Fast forward to today with the release of 3.2, and while I haven't been near as quick to adopt the new features as I was with IPB 3.0, it has been equally as easy to do so. So far I have implemented the "Like" system (note the reputation was already implemented in previous versions), following content, and tagging. Even though there wasn't any documentation (that I could find), I was able to quickly integrate those features by simply looking at the forums application. I look forward to tackling notifications within the next couple days, and from a first glance it seems it too is just a matter of implementing a file and a few lines of code here and there.

    Point being, you guys introduced a great framework in IPB3 for modification authors, made only better by the fact that not only do your own 3rd party applications make use of it, but core functionality like the forums do too.
  13. Like
    Brandon D got a reaction from The Old Man in Mobile skin needs some improvement   
    The mobile skin is designed to provide efficient use for its users. It is intentionally designed to be minimal to provide quick and easy navigation of your community. While IPS might consider it in the future, IMO a mobile skin is not intended to be used as a moderation or administration tool. I suggest you click the "Full Version" link available at the bottom of the mobile skin if you're determined to use those features.
  14. Like
    Brandon D reacted to Feld0 in Special thanks to Jason, Andrew, and the rest of the IPS team!   
    Over the past couple of weeks, I took up a couple of strange issues with IPS, and I wanted to give a special thanks to Jason Hanna and Andrew Millne, who stuck with me through the tickets I opened until everything was resolved. Jason logged onto my community to diagnose a problem with IP.Chat that several of my members were having, and Andrew wrote a custom script to fix all the "corrupted" smilies in my database (which came from this issue).

    No copy-pasted answers, quick response times, and the sheer professionalism of it all - for a license that costs only $50 a year to renew, I really couldn't have asked for better support. Apologies if I might've come off as a bit... demanding when asking for new features here on the feedback forums (post revisions come to mind :tongue:), but I want you all at IPS to know that I greatly value your software and the service you back it up with.

    I remember being very hesitant to lay $150 down on forum software back in April having come from the phpBB world; but I didn't hesitate to grab a second license a few days ago for a new site I just launched, now knowing first-hand that I'm paying not only for a beautiful software package, but also for a wonderful support team that always goes the extra mile when I need it most.

    Thank you Jason, Andrew, and everyone else who's helped me out in my tickets and is part of this wonderful company. As long as you keep up your awesome service, I'll be more than happy to keep renewing my license to support the future development of your software. I look forward to continuing to build a lasting relationship with IPS. :smile:
  15. Like
    Brandon D got a reaction from DaCurryman in Mobile skin needs some improvement   
    The mobile skin is designed to provide efficient use for its users. It is intentionally designed to be minimal to provide quick and easy navigation of your community. While IPS might consider it in the future, IMO a mobile skin is not intended to be used as a moderation or administration tool. I suggest you click the "Full Version" link available at the bottom of the mobile skin if you're determined to use those features.
  16. Like
    Brandon D reacted to Lindy in I have had a conversion in progress since wednesday.   
    Once again, I'm sorry the ball was dropped on this. I've addressed your issue via the client area and have followed up with the conversions department. Please let me know if you need any further assistance.

    Thank you for your patience. I hope we're able to resolve this for you shortly!
  17. Like
    Brandon D got a reaction from AndyF in Post Edit History - REALLY NEED THIS   
    Space used would be greatly reduced by only keeping the relevant changed information. If a post is modified to make a spelling correction then it is not necessary to store to nearly identical copies of the post, just the original post and the information needed to know what modifications were made to it (position & what text was removed, position & what text was added).
  18. Like
    Brandon D got a reaction from Andrej in Viewing member's content from profile   
    When you view a member's profile you can go through a short list of their submitted topics, posts, and other content. If you want to see all of the member's content you can click on the "Find content" button. Currently, this button defaults to the member's topics & posts no matter what tab you're on. I think this should be content type sensitive, meaning if I'm viewing a member's recent Gallery images on their profile and click Find content it should default to the Gallery content type.
  19. Like
    Brandon D got a reaction from xCurlyx in Force uninstall app   
    I've requested this a blue moon ago, but it'd be extremely nice to have a "force uninstall" option for applications. All this does is simply run the current uninstall procedure but suppress any database errors and continues. Right now, if a field or table is missing due to a bad install, upgrade in IPB, change by admin, etc. then IPB's uninstaller will barf when the uninstaller attempts to drop it, causing an incomplete uninstall and most likely a lot more driver errors than before the uninstall.

    So long as IPB has an app key then the uninstall should run without errors.
  20. Like
    Brandon D got a reaction from MageLeif in Force uninstall app   
    I've requested this a blue moon ago, but it'd be extremely nice to have a "force uninstall" option for applications. All this does is simply run the current uninstall procedure but suppress any database errors and continues. Right now, if a field or table is missing due to a bad install, upgrade in IPB, change by admin, etc. then IPB's uninstaller will barf when the uninstaller attempts to drop it, causing an incomplete uninstall and most likely a lot more driver errors than before the uninstall.

    So long as IPB has an app key then the uninstall should run without errors.
  21. Like
    Brandon D got a reaction from (e) Eric in Force uninstall app   
    I've requested this a blue moon ago, but it'd be extremely nice to have a "force uninstall" option for applications. All this does is simply run the current uninstall procedure but suppress any database errors and continues. Right now, if a field or table is missing due to a bad install, upgrade in IPB, change by admin, etc. then IPB's uninstaller will barf when the uninstaller attempts to drop it, causing an incomplete uninstall and most likely a lot more driver errors than before the uninstall.

    So long as IPB has an app key then the uninstall should run without errors.
  22. Like
    Brandon D got a reaction from MageLeif in The worst thing about 3.2   
    Yes. I've tried to ignore it. But, I'm weird.


  23. Like
    Brandon D got a reaction from Glumbo in The worst thing about 3.2   
    Yes. I've tried to ignore it. But, I'm weird.


  24. Like
    Brandon D got a reaction from stoo2000 in The worst thing about 3.2   
    Yes. I've tried to ignore it. But, I'm weird.


  25. Like
    Brandon D got a reaction from NenaDice in Great work   
    From what I've seen, I love IPB 3.2. Keep up the amazing work :-)
×
×
  • 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