Sonya*

No. The issue is not reproducible. It happens occasionally, but I cannot tell what should be done to make it happen. 😐

And grouping would be nice to....

Please sort templates alphabetically:

It would easier to find a right template if there will be other sorting as by ID. Thanks!

Btw, you don't show as purchaser for this file. Support is provided for those who purchased it, unless you're talking in someone else's behalf. In this case, provide the purchase name and I'll check.

It seems that the pages default templates were left behind when other things got revamped.
It would be great to have same style template for the record, DB, and category view as already exists for the Blogs post and category views.
If that already exists and i missed, i would greatly appreciate the pointer.
steve k.
 

Is an old bug 
 
 

Additionally I wish I could filter only language strings from one application or plugin. At the moment I can sort by plugin or application but I have 861 pages in the languages translation and it take a lot of time for me to get to the page, where the application or plugin begins. E. g. if it starts on the page 564 I have to find it out first browsing page by page till I get there. 
 

@Matt, there is also a mismatch with sorting by Most Reviewed in applications/cms/modules/front/database/category.php
if ( !$database->options['reviews'] and !$category->allow_rating ) { unset ( $table->sortOptions['num_reviews'] ); unset( $table->sortOptions['rating'] ); } While options['reviews'] is about reviews, allow_rating is about star rating. This way I have Most Reviewed option even if I only allow star ratings. This option sorts by record_reviews. The column is always 0, if only star rating is enabled. So, the option does not make sense if reviews are disabled. Or it should sort by rating_hits instead.

While the topic is marked as solved. The real solution is to use:
{$record->customFieldDisplayByKey('title', 'listing')} in template instead of $record->_title. This way the formatting works as for every other field. Also different output with second parameter "display", "listing", "raw" - everything you want 😄 

While the topic is marked as solved. The real solution is to use:
{$record->customFieldDisplayByKey('title', 'listing')} in template instead of $record->_title. This way the formatting works as for every other field. Also different output with second parameter "display", "listing", "raw" - everything you want 😄 

Yeah, if the option to edited these fields for the title and content really should be removed or should work as that would remove a lot of ambiguity when editing these settings.

I can understand, that they do not want special formatting anywhere else. So that one cannot break activity stream, notifications, blocks or any other area where title and content is used. But I do not understand why they suppress formatting even in database templates. I mean, we can format every other field via format options without touching template. However, for title and content, we have to do it in template. Ridiculous. 

I do. But this works only for display and listing. It is not system-wide. Notifications and activity stream use title as is. This is not critical, but I wonder why title and content cannot use format options. Even in templates. The options are there, but they are just ignored.

FYI guys I used sendgrid in the end .. works fine now . Thanks for all the help also

Discord has its place.
It's a great tool if you're just starting a community and want to see if there's a need, or you want a semi-asynchronous chat that focuses on a 24-48 hour time window.

However, we have a mature support community so it's less useful. We want to encourage thoughtful posts that have a life beyond a few days. We want others to find these topics from search engines and we want to build a crowdsourced knowledgeable for Invision Community.
If we were to create an official Discord, it would create a brain drain and instead of us being able to look back and look at feature request trends, or customers being able to search for answers to their questions we have a 'here and now' relatively informal chat room.

@RandyCalvert, it's a part of the solution. We provide conflicting information to the search engines, if we add "noindex" in the meta but include the URLs in sitemap at the same time. You will get critical issues in Google Search Console for every URL 😐

Please add a possibility to exclude some databases from search engine indexing. There should be a possibility to add
<meta name="robots" content="noindex" /> to all database records in one database at once (probable via page database), and to exclude certain databases from the sitemap.
Examples:
Databases with thin content, like database relationship records created only to group the main records. Databases with quotes, citation, news snippets - not unique content. Databases created from forum topics, blogs etc. - duplicate content. Thin, not unique and duplicate content is terrible for SEO. It would be perfect if we could control, what databases should be indexed and what not. 
Thanks!

You can add robot rules pretty easily...  from the ACP:
Search for "Search Engine Optimization" Click "Meta Tags". Enter the base URL of the database with a wildcard (/articles/* for example) Click the blue "+Add" button. Under the "Meta Tag Name" option, choose "Robots". Under the "Content" option, enter "noindex"  Save your changes.  By using a wildcard in the database URL, it will cover all database records under it.  
This would be harder to do for forums and clubs as they don't have a common URL structure.  Databases should work however.  
 

Hi Andreas,
you should switch from submenus to dropdowns. When the submenu bar is empty it's hidden automatically.
And this is how to create dropdowns...


This is what IPS is using, it's all build in.

This sound reasonable, but we do not have a number of single votes of X stars saved in the database. The values we have: average rating, total rating and number of reviews/votes.
Without touching a database, there could be at least two solutions:
Solution #1 can be to use both columns record_average AND num_reviews or rating_hits. This would result in more accurate rating like:
3x5 stars (average 5 with 3 votes)  2x5 stars (average 5 with 2 votes) 5x4+6x5 (average 4 with 11 votes) 10x4 stars (average 4 with 10 votes) 1x4+2x5 (average 4 with 3 votes) 1x4 stars (average 4 with 1 vote) Edit: if average rating would be saved as float and not integer, the results would be more accurate, but this requires changes in database.  There is already unused column called rating_real. If we change the column to float and sort by the column AND number of votes/reviews, then we get this:
3x5 stars (average 5.0 with 3 votes)  2x5 stars (average 5.0 with 2 votes)  1x4+2x5 (average 4.6 with 3 votes) 5x4+6x5 (average 4.54 with 11 votes)  10x4 stars (average 4.0 with 10 votes) 1x4 stars (average 4.0 with 1 vote) Solution #2 can be to calculate ratings based on total stars and votes https://calculator.academy/average-rating-calculator-star-rating/ IPS already calculates the total rating by star ratings in rating_value. Just do the same for reviews. Then divide the total number of stars by 5 or 10 (depending on how the rating system is configured in AdminCP). Save the result in rating_real (the unused column) and sort by it. The example from above would be different.
5x4+6x5 (50/5) = 10 10x4 stars (40/5) = 8 3x5 stars (15/5) = 3  1x4+2x5 (14/5) = 2,8 2x5 stars (10/5) = 2 1x4 stars (4/5) = 0,8 Scientific solution would be to use true Bayesian estimate.
But this would be an overhead, as we would need to recalculate the whole database every time the vote/review is given, changed or deleted. 😉
 

I am trying to sort database records by rating.
If I choose Highest Rated, then the number of votes is not considered. See below, the record #1 with only one vote is above the record #3 with 3 votes. Both have only 5-Star votes.

If I choose to sort by Most reviewed, then I have this order (I assume by publish date)

This does not make sense. I have set Allow reviews for database to No. There should not be a sorting option Most reviewed for the databases where reviews are disabled.
Additionally, if I choose Custom and enter this data

After clicking on the Search I have the order like Highest Rated (false, number of votes is still not considered) but also another not translated (translatable) string in the Sort by menu. See below. Both are selected. Bug?

 
Back to the rating: How can I consider not only 5 stars, but also the number of votes? 
Thanks.
 

I have flagged this so  that we can get some clarification for you

There is a bit of mess with ratings and reviews in databases and sorting by Highest rated.
We have 5 fields in tables cms_custom_database_X related to reviews and rating:
rating_real rating_hits rating_value rating_reviews record_rating Depending on what we allow on database, they are filled or not.
Case 1: Database allows stars rating (no reviews)
rating_real -> not used rating_hits -> number of votes rating_value -> total stars (e. g. 1x4+2x5 = 14) rating_reviews -> not used record_rating -> average number of stars Case 2: Database allows reviews (no star rating)
rating_real -> not used rating_hits -> not used rating_value  -> not used rating_reviews -> number of reviews record_rating -> average number of stars This is a database column mapping from applications/cms/Application.php:
'rating' => 'record_rating', 'rating_hits' => 'rating_hits', 'rating_average' => 'record_rating', 'rating_total' => 'rating_value', 'num_reviews' => 'record_reviews', It seems you use the value mapped into rating_average to sort for Highest Rating, that's why you have odd results like this. Rating_average does not consider the number of votes/reviews.
Possible solutions
Solution #1 can be to use both columns record_average AND num_reviews or rating_hits. This would result in more accurate rating like:
3x5 stars (average 5 with 3 votes)  2x5 stars (average 5 with 2 votes) 5x4+6x5 (average 4 with 11 votes) 10x4 stars (average 4 with 10 votes) 1x4+2x5 (average 4 with 3 votes) 1x4 stars (average 4 with 1 vote) Solution #2 can be to calculate ratings based on total stars and votes https://calculator.academy/average-rating-calculator-star-rating/ You already calculate the total rating by star ratings in rating_value. Just do the same for reviews. Then divide the total number of stars by 5 or 10 (depending on how the rating system is configured in AdminCP). Save the result in rating_real (the unused column) and sort by it. The example from above would be different.
5x4+6x5 (50/5) = 10 10x4 stars (40/5) = 8 3x5 stars (15/5) = 3  1x4+2x5 (14/5) = 2,8 2x5 stars (10/5) = 2 1x4 stars (4/5) = 0,8 Can you please look into it? It would really help to have a more sophisticated logic in sorting by rating. 
Thank you!

Please add a possibility to exclude some databases from search engine indexing. There should be a possibility to add
<meta name="robots" content="noindex" /> to all database records in one database at once (probable via page database), and to exclude certain databases from the sitemap.
Examples:
Databases with thin content, like database relationship records created only to group the main records. Databases with quotes, citation, news snippets - not unique content. Databases created from forum topics, blogs etc. - duplicate content. Thin, not unique and duplicate content is terrible for SEO. It would be perfect if we could control, what databases should be indexed and what not. 
Thanks!

Please add a possibility to exclude some databases from search engine indexing. There should be a possibility to add
<meta name="robots" content="noindex" /> to all database records in one database at once (probable via page database), and to exclude certain databases from the sitemap.
Examples:
Databases with thin content, like database relationship records created only to group the main records. Databases with quotes, citation, news snippets - not unique content. Databases created from forum topics, blogs etc. - duplicate content. Thin, not unique and duplicate content is terrible for SEO. It would be perfect if we could control, what databases should be indexed and what not. 
Thanks!