Painted Horse

Most other sites that send me mail also include the ability to unsubscribe from such notices within that same email via a clickable link. Seems silly that it is not done here. I also would like to see this changed for the future.

We'll just have to agree to disagree with that. While a normal person would just ignore the post without ever using the ignore feature, there are those narcissistic users who just can't help but to click through to read what was posted, and start the flame war all over again. By completely removing the post from the user's view makes for a calmer and more pleasant environment for all concerned.

Currently you have the ability to ignore someone's posts and ignore someone's personal conversations. I believe if you ignore someone in personal conversations, they can't send you one.

What I would like to see is a couple options to expand the ignore posting part.

1) An option to forbid a user from posting in your topics.

2) An option to either completely hide a post from view (as in no "This user has posted. Do you want to see it anyway?"), or make it much more condensed. The purpose of ignoring a particular user is that you get annoyed by their posts. But that annoyance still remains even if you can't see what they posted but know they posted in line with the rest of the posts. I know there has been some comments about this like "What if someone else was replying to this person and it caused confusion". Well in this case how about something near the top of the topic out of the line of posts that says "X posts hidden". I can see it, skip past it, and half-way forget about it when I start reading. Essentially don't give me a reason to click on "read it anyway" because if it's in line with the posts, I'm more likely to do so, thus making the ignore feature useless.The whole point of this is -- please make this not inline. It defeats the purpose of ignoring posts.

Ok, sitting back and thinking about this, if we contract ANYONE to do a security audit - why would we require them to buy a license first? :blink: I can't imagine how that would make sense. If I was a security auditor and faced with that situation, surely I'd simply raise my price to compensate for the cost of the IPB license (or tell the company they're nuts and ignore them).

Cryptovirus has been looking for and reporting issues he finds on his own without compensation. The fixes, once rolled into IPB, benefit all of our customers (especially since he seems to be focusing on security-related things). Personally, I'm happy for him to look through the code and report any problems he finds so we can continue to deliver a secure, stable software for all of our customers.

Would it be possible to add in a future version (don't know if IPB3 has it or not) the ability to add multiple 'Group Icons' to a person. We have several people that are assigned to Primary Group and then one or more 'Secondary Groups' most of which have their own distinct group icon.

Right now we have to go in and create a 'combined group' as well as a new image for that group that combines the group icons for each of the groups... while this is easily doable, it becomes a management nightmare. :D

This could even me enhanced with a member profile option that allows them to select what group icon they want to display on their profile.