esquire

I agree with the OP even though you do have a point. Perhaps "urgent fix needed" may be technically the most accurate. While I can appreciate your workaround I can say that on active or visible sites the notion of editing away mass spam is an utter nightmare. You'll spend significant time needlessly deleting automated entries or those created by human drones. It's why I haven't implemented certain features as of yet.

Ah, the text is very light and was difficult to see. It looks like the default may be the new IPS default skin with tabs, which has also been improved since I last saw it a while back. Nice theme. I'd want to make a few tweaks for visibility and probably remove the animated area in the header and reduce the size, which I'm sure can be managed with just a little bit of code. I like the cleanliness. Well done.

SuperBlocks as Pages blocks in general are meant as links to content. Embedding full content there would lead to various other problems and so I don’t plan to change that. For videos in Pages databases I would rather solve this in the content itself. Write a little sentence to describe the video. That wouldn’t hurt and even help with SEO. 

If if turns out that the Activity Stream navigation system can not, after all, be improved, will IPS consider re-introducing pagination, or similar, on Activity Stream? Currently we still have the situation where, contrary to some assertions, Activity Stream still does not do everything that View New Content did (ie the ability to switch back and forth effectively between Activity and Posts on active forums). This is important as it makes for a poor user experience and is my main gripe with IPS 4.x.

Returning to the result you left off at after you have loaded activity and clicked to read.

My problems:
One album with 100 images blows up the Activity Stream.  You get a flood of images, even though it's a single album.* Clicking IP.Gallery image in AS opens up lightbox, even though underlying premise of AS was content discovery and not content interaction.  Shouldn't it open in the IP.Gallery application? A thought regarding Images in an Album: this is the same corollary as many Posts in a Topic, and the concern of the OP.  Users may not want to be notified of each individual content item, but of the content container (eg. Album or Topic) which is far more visually efficient when there are multiple related content items in the same content container.     

For the next update in the Advertisements Section, Would it be possible to add the forums that you would like the ads to be shown in? Some people might get sponsors for specific subforms...should be a simple add on. Default can be all forum, and then you can select which forums, like in the announcements dropdown.

I agree with the OP even though you do have a point. Perhaps "urgent fix needed" may be technically the most accurate. While I can appreciate your workaround I can say that on active or visible sites the notion of editing away mass spam is an utter nightmare. You'll spend significant time needlessly deleting automated entries or those created by human drones. It's why I haven't implemented certain features as of yet.

I agree with the OP even though you do have a point. Perhaps "urgent fix needed" may be technically the most accurate. While I can appreciate your workaround I can say that on active or visible sites the notion of editing away mass spam is an utter nightmare. You'll spend significant time needlessly deleting automated entries or those created by human drones. It's why I haven't implemented certain features as of yet.

I agree with the OP even though you do have a point. Perhaps "urgent fix needed" may be technically the most accurate. While I can appreciate your workaround I can say that on active or visible sites the notion of editing away mass spam is an utter nightmare. You'll spend significant time needlessly deleting automated entries or those created by human drones. It's why I haven't implemented certain features as of yet.

There is one setting now:
Moderate new records
But one VERY Important setting is missing:
Moderate records changes
Without this setting the whole system is useless as the user can post cool new posts and after they get approved they are posting porn stuff in it ... and i dont even get informed about post changes AT ALL!!! do i always have to get there and see if there is changed content ... every hour, every minute?
So why dont moderate post changes?
Here is a possible solution:
after the user changes the post inform moderator save a copy of this post: "set this post for moderation" from now on this user sees only this "edit-copy" of this post, all other users see the original post let the user edit this copy so many times he wants to after every submit, the post is sent for submiting (if revisions are enabled only this revision) no need to hide or delete the original post unit changes are confirmed as its different postID if revisions are enabled => use it insead of postID or always use revisions when wiki-editing is enabled after the moderator confirmed the changes ovverride the orginal post with the new version delete the copy or save a revision inform user => post approved This system right now makes absolutely no sense without changes-moderation. So please make some changes or disable it completly.
What you think?

Really need this. With an expansive database this could fill up with not only malicious info but erroneous info you do not approve of. We have editors for such approvals that will research the changes, this is really needed for a clean and professional database or records.

I would find it easier to work with on the front end, but I agree with most of your other extra protection proposals.  Having it only available for people who have ACP access would be a good security check. 

I too have seen 'accidents' with this feature.
I thought about extra protection for it, but thinking again instead of how it was in 3x and 2x ie a global mod option, how about making it only available to those with ACP access and in a global mod group ?
Another idea would be to request the users password I guess, although I am starting to think this should *only* be available in the ACP itself rather than appear on the front end...

I understand that worry.  I limited the ability to just my main admins for that exact reason.  It is however something I use on a regular schedule (not often, but at regular intervals throughout a year).  I have to move an entire category's worth of topics into a sub-topic by year.