Ocean West

Interesting article but I think there needs to be a better way to call attention WHO a feature is applicable to or perhaps the blogs should be split between self hosting or Cloud or Business & Corporate/Enterprise plans. 
Landed on this page and saw the minimum version 4.7.0 - figured that was me started scrolling and didn't read the first paragraph and get to the part to go to your ACP and nothing... 
Perhaps your Version numbers should include a suffix: 
4.7.0 Corporate/Enterprise 4.7.0 Business 4.7.0 Creator 4.7.0 Creator Pro 4.7.0 Self-Hosted 4.7.0 Platform ( all clients )  It has to be in the headline so we know the target audience. 🙂 

Interesting article but I think there needs to be a better way to call attention WHO a feature is applicable to or perhaps the blogs should be split between self hosting or Cloud or Business & Corporate/Enterprise plans. 
Landed on this page and saw the minimum version 4.7.0 - figured that was me started scrolling and didn't read the first paragraph and get to the part to go to your ACP and nothing... 
Perhaps your Version numbers should include a suffix: 
4.7.0 Corporate/Enterprise 4.7.0 Business 4.7.0 Creator 4.7.0 Creator Pro 4.7.0 Self-Hosted 4.7.0 Platform ( all clients )  It has to be in the headline so we know the target audience. 🙂 

Interesting article but I think there needs to be a better way to call attention WHO a feature is applicable to or perhaps the blogs should be split between self hosting or Cloud or Business & Corporate/Enterprise plans. 
Landed on this page and saw the minimum version 4.7.0 - figured that was me started scrolling and didn't read the first paragraph and get to the part to go to your ACP and nothing... 
Perhaps your Version numbers should include a suffix: 
4.7.0 Corporate/Enterprise 4.7.0 Business 4.7.0 Creator 4.7.0 Creator Pro 4.7.0 Self-Hosted 4.7.0 Platform ( all clients )  It has to be in the headline so we know the target audience. 🙂 

Interesting article but I think there needs to be a better way to call attention WHO a feature is applicable to or perhaps the blogs should be split between self hosting or Cloud or Business & Corporate/Enterprise plans. 
Landed on this page and saw the minimum version 4.7.0 - figured that was me started scrolling and didn't read the first paragraph and get to the part to go to your ACP and nothing... 
Perhaps your Version numbers should include a suffix: 
4.7.0 Corporate/Enterprise 4.7.0 Business 4.7.0 Creator 4.7.0 Creator Pro 4.7.0 Self-Hosted 4.7.0 Platform ( all clients )  It has to be in the headline so we know the target audience. 🙂 

Interesting article but I think there needs to be a better way to call attention WHO a feature is applicable to or perhaps the blogs should be split between self hosting or Cloud or Business & Corporate/Enterprise plans. 
Landed on this page and saw the minimum version 4.7.0 - figured that was me started scrolling and didn't read the first paragraph and get to the part to go to your ACP and nothing... 
Perhaps your Version numbers should include a suffix: 
4.7.0 Corporate/Enterprise 4.7.0 Business 4.7.0 Creator 4.7.0 Creator Pro 4.7.0 Self-Hosted 4.7.0 Platform ( all clients )  It has to be in the headline so we know the target audience. 🙂 

Interesting article but I think there needs to be a better way to call attention WHO a feature is applicable to or perhaps the blogs should be split between self hosting or Cloud or Business & Corporate/Enterprise plans. 
Landed on this page and saw the minimum version 4.7.0 - figured that was me started scrolling and didn't read the first paragraph and get to the part to go to your ACP and nothing... 
Perhaps your Version numbers should include a suffix: 
4.7.0 Corporate/Enterprise 4.7.0 Business 4.7.0 Creator 4.7.0 Creator Pro 4.7.0 Self-Hosted 4.7.0 Platform ( all clients )  It has to be in the headline so we know the target audience. 🙂 

Ok now that I see this in action - wow it's fantastic.
( give us an inch we'll want a mile )
I could really see the need for by GROUP allow individuals to customize their set of stock replies.

It is fastenating and very encouraging where it's going – however there is much to be concern about sending data to a third party. All the web hooks run without a 'group' permission. Depending on the event its payload may include private information (names, emails, ip, address, etc ).
I would really like to see more care in restricting what is included in the payload each event. 

I think the description was copy and pasted. 

Is there a way to enable this in bulk?
It would be very tedious to go through 200 forums?

I started out in '96 with a cgi script every post / reply was a file on the server. Then switched to UBBTreads that uses sql and php. Then there was an upset in that community and several devs left and started FusionBB was on there till it floundered in '09 and I found my way home here. 

I started out in '96 with a cgi script every post / reply was a file on the server. Then switched to UBBTreads that uses sql and php. Then there was an upset in that community and several devs left and started FusionBB was on there till it floundered in '09 and I found my way home here. 

I started out in '96 with a cgi script every post / reply was a file on the server. Then switched to UBBTreads that uses sql and php. Then there was an upset in that community and several devs left and started FusionBB was on there till it floundered in '09 and I found my way home here. 

That being said are you planning the ability for us to restrict what data is being sent? Via hook permissions or event payload modifications.  Of which, we have no controls to limit or work around it at this moment. In this current form we all would most certainly be violating all our own privacy policies by blindly sending payloads to Zapier and the like. We need to be able to see real data being sent not just an outline of data - it took me aback, when I starting seeing such data outside of my walled garden. If you currently are sending payloads from this site from topics / posts it would include many data points from each member that are traditionally for Admin eyes only. Does this pose implications with GDPR and other such laws or regulations.
I know that third party processors have their own policies and retention of data. But it reminds me of the phrase "your secret is safe with me, as long as the person I tell - doesn't tell."  My only wish is to protect the reputation of this platform and our collective communities and thwart any potential fallout if a data breach occurred. Yes API's are fun and magical but should be architected with a pessimistic opinion about security and privacy - first and foremost.
I yield the soapbox. 😉

It is fastenating and very encouraging where it's going – however there is much to be concern about sending data to a third party. All the web hooks run without a 'group' permission. Depending on the event its payload may include private information (names, emails, ip, address, etc ).
I would really like to see more care in restricting what is included in the payload each event. 

That being said are you planning the ability for us to restrict what data is being sent? Via hook permissions or event payload modifications.  Of which, we have no controls to limit or work around it at this moment. In this current form we all would most certainly be violating all our own privacy policies by blindly sending payloads to Zapier and the like. We need to be able to see real data being sent not just an outline of data - it took me aback, when I starting seeing such data outside of my walled garden. If you currently are sending payloads from this site from topics / posts it would include many data points from each member that are traditionally for Admin eyes only. Does this pose implications with GDPR and other such laws or regulations.
I know that third party processors have their own policies and retention of data. But it reminds me of the phrase "your secret is safe with me, as long as the person I tell - doesn't tell."  My only wish is to protect the reputation of this platform and our collective communities and thwart any potential fallout if a data breach occurred. Yes API's are fun and magical but should be architected with a pessimistic opinion about security and privacy - first and foremost.
I yield the soapbox. 😉

It is fastenating and very encouraging where it's going – however there is much to be concern about sending data to a third party. All the web hooks run without a 'group' permission. Depending on the event its payload may include private information (names, emails, ip, address, etc ).
I would really like to see more care in restricting what is included in the payload each event. 

Ok now that I see this in action - wow it's fantastic.
( give us an inch we'll want a mile )
I could really see the need for by GROUP allow individuals to customize their set of stock replies.

Can't seem to locate the bug tracker - but the ACP Search does not find this new feature when you type in Stock

Cool!

Cool!

Curious if the there is a warm up or hart beat after the stream decay has happened.
Say if the member is in a 'decayed' state and they aren't getting regular emails send them a reminder encourage them to reengage with the site?
 
 
 

Curious if the there is a warm up or hart beat after the stream decay has happened.
Say if the member is in a 'decayed' state and they aren't getting regular emails send them a reminder encourage them to reengage with the site?
 
 
 

i am not seeing any image when loading?

What about an internal queue for admin/moderator tasks so that notifications are delayed or staggered based on most recent active or some other presence and removed from queue for actions that have already been managed.