Jump to content



  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Lindy last won the day on February 6

Lindy had the most liked content!

About Lindy

  • Rank
    That Lindy Character

Contact Methods

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Forest, VA

Recent Profile Visitors

105,169 profile views
  1. Just to be clear - when we say a third party resource is causing an issue, we do not necessarily mean the application or plugin itself is the root cause. We try to trace it to a specific third party resource for you, but once we identify that the issue is resolved by removing or disabling a third party resource, I'm afraid that's where our involvement ends. The actual underlying issue could be the resource itself, adverse effects from the interaction with other third party resources (this is common for folks that install half of the marketplace), an environment interaction with the resource or a number of things. Unfortunately, it is not within the scope of IPS support to determine which case may apply, so we will simply advise you to reach out to the author or remove the resource.
  2. I'm sorry for further confusion. This is not cloud related (in fact, very few should see any impact from the maintenance) - this is a bug in 4.4.0 that was patched. If you are experiencing this issue in 4.4.0 (and even if you're not) - please make your way to your AdminCP and then click Support -> Something is not working correctly. You will find a patch available (assuming you have not already applied it, of course) -- please click through that to apply. Thanks. (OP - this has already been done for you, as noted in your ticket.)
  3. You should be all set - I'm very sorry you had trouble.
  4. We have been asked by customers to intervene on this resource as it appears the author has gone MIA. This, of course, is always regretful. We have reached out and should we receive a response, we will revisit - however - at this time, purchases have been disabled and we will close this support topic. Existing customers will be able to download for the time being. In terms of refunds, all app stores work on the premise of all transactions being final. This is simply because the money you spend goes back out to the author. As a convenience to our customers, we provide a central resource for pre-screened themes and modifications. This avoids you needing to provide personal information to a third party and also allows us to review each original submission to ensure it complies with basic security standards. With this convenience, however, comes a certain degree of risk on your part. Naturally, in the event an author has withdrawn their funds and disappeared, the recourse is minimal and there is no ability for us to refund your purchase, except at a loss to us - which, per the Marketplace terms, we are unable to do. The first inclination in such a situation is to simply file a payment dispute. Please understand that this does not impact the author if they've collected their funds, we take the loss and have significant chargeback fees imposed upon us. Because this has amounted to thousands of dollars in losses every year, rendering the Marketplace a consistent loss to IPS, we have to take a hardline approach on this method and per our Standards of Service and Marketplace terms, any chargeback will result in account and often license termination. I'm very sorry that this is the unfortunate reality in these rare circumstances. Digital marketplaces and app stores are not a perfect system and all parties assume a certain degree of risk. Most of the time, it works out. Sometimes it doesn't. In those infrequent cases, we do our best to try and minimize future losses for customers as quickly as possible. We take our responsibility to help safeguard you seriously. If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to reach out via the client area. Thank you.
  5. Thanks for reaching out. The first issue seems like a bug. I have copied it to the beta bug tracker and you can follow it here: With regards to your second concern, I'm afraid we will not be actioning that. Our official position is that you should not manually manipulate the URLs. The number and structure of components in the URL is required and should ideally not be altered. I understand your underlying use case for doing so (the first issue) - but again, that's a bug and hopefully we can address it.
  6. Sorry for the confusion. The title has been updated to reflect it's 4.4 beta.
  7. There are still no plans to do so.
  8. Much of this is now available via gateways like Sendgrid. On our Community in the Cloud offering, we have built-in bounce management. If an email cannot be delivered or has been flagged by the user, we will never attempt to deliver again.
  9. I'm sorry for your disappointment. Please understand, feedback vetting is not something any one employee can undergo themselves. It's an elaborate process in which every department chimes in, it's then moved to an internal tracker and our roadmap is compiled based on a number of factors including how a particular suggestion fits in with the scope of a release. In short, it's difficult to comment on a particular suggestion unless it's already on the current release roadmap. This is not targeted for 4.4, but is unofficially (not set in stone) targeted for a future major release. In the interim, as noted, a third party resource is available to fill this need for you.
  10. Have you considered leveraging the edit timeout for this purpose (minimizing damaging due to rage-quitting?) We can certainly see what kind of traction this feedback gets over time, but from my experience, it's equally - if not more - confusing and damaging to have a member run through and edit/delete individual posts, which often disrupts the flow and context of the conversation.
  11. I agree. I don't know how it's slipped through for so long, but it will be addressed.
  12. It's tricky when the ecosystem is largely derived from low-cost apps and plugins. Most third party developers start with the best of intentions -- meeting a specific need for what they feel is a reasonable price. Often (certainly not always), many unfortunately underestimate the time commitment involved with having too many resources, too many customers (which sounds like a great problem to have on the surface, until you factor in the app is $5 and it's pretty easy for one customer to consume $100 worth of your time in support) and they subsequently decide they would like to thin out their offerings and focus on more lucrative, sustainable projects. I don't fault them per se - Invision Community is a fast paced product and it's not easy for third party authors to keep up. I'm quite sure it's easy to get burnt out. That's why I always encourage contributors to focus on quality vs quantity. Have fewer resources, but make them rock solid, always up to date and if it's going to be a paid resource, ensure it's something that can financially subsidize the time you're investing - otherwise, you will lose the motivation and eventually, so will the next author for the same reason. Whether it's $10 or $1000 - if a customer pays for something, it is a risk for the customer, but a commitment is made and reasonable expectations should be met. That's more challenging to get across when you can so easily tap out and hand off accountability. Apps were being traded around like Pokemon cards and with no offense intended, the very people that are generally first to say "I'll take it", as ambitious and well intentioned as they may be, often are the exact people who should not take it - they have too many resources already that are lacking proper updates and are prepared to further compound the issue by taking on even more. Often, the authors that would do really well with the app rightfully do not want to assume the responsibility because they recognize it may have been priced far too low, the overhead is high and/or the existing customer base for the resource would overextend them. In the end, the customer and IPS both lose. The original author has already collected the commission, but the new author has no vested interest in the commitment to existing customers. The customer often ends up holding the short end of the stick and IPS is the intermediary with disputes, which is a huge financial and time loss. We had to stop allowing transfers both to reinforce the significance of the commitment being made to paying customers when they put out a resource, reduce customers being bounced back and forth like ping-pong balls and minimize our exposure in terms of financial disputes. We are less finicky about free resource transfers and in some relatively very rare circumstances, we will consider a paid app transfer to a reputable author when it's clear the the original author is leaving the Marketplace altogether, the commitment to existing customers is very clear, understood and acknowledged, and the receiving author does not appear to be already overextended so-to-speak. We've been getting more strict with what goes into the Marketplace; we have a great team overseeing it and the authors have done a great job at helping us begin to turn it around to provide greater stability in resources and increased confidence from a customer perspective. General Marketplace transfers would unfortunately be a giant step backwards at this time.
  13. In many cases, you may temporarily hide a topic while moderating individual posts within the topic. Having the entire page 'pink' -- normal posts and already hidden posts -- is very confusing. Further, the new(er) "deleted content" feature also utilizes topic view so you can view the content in context. If the topic is hidden and an admin/moderator is reviewing why content was deleted, this would again be confusing if the entire page is pink. I've moved this topic to the feedback forum and you are welcome to provide suggestions (short of making the whole page pink) if you don't feel the eye slash icon is sufficient.
  • Create New...