Jump to content



  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


CallieJo last won the day on September 11 2011

CallieJo had the most liked content!

1 Follower

About CallieJo

  • Birthday February 18

Contact Methods

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

10,865 profile views

CallieJo's Achievements

  1. I'd really appreciate an answer. No answer suggests "no" I assume. I have a lot of ideas I'm trying to find solutions for.
  2. If you read the >blog entry about profiles you will see they are changing to followers instead of friends. If you >scroll down the last page of the comments, I've asked about the purpose of the new "no follow" and whether they reconsidered privacy. If you are concerned about privacy, you might want to >read this privacy topic where profile privacy concerns were addressed. You can read IPS's stance on why they don't see privacy as a top concern at this time, but you cannot reply since the topic is now closed.
  3. What about sites that are not just anonymous users? If using FB etc login & synced updates, a paid membership, a business community, a professional community, a local community, etc....it's not that hard to figure out who people are. And people don't hide their identities as much as they did 10 years ago when identity privacy was most important. Today, privacy of user's "personal" content (profile updates, personal blogs, photos, videos, etc) is most important. Not so much their real names.
  4. Yes, there should be. Especially if you have a forum you use likes as a type of vote/popularity. We should also be able to sort by ratings. ATM, we cannot sort topics by number of likes nor by ratings. These features are not utilized in the forum list at all. Only on the individual topic. Sorting by ratings is common on the internet. Sorting by likes is common in other paid forum platforms.
  5. Will we ever be able to use Nexus with all other official addons like integration with downloads? For a webmaster niche type website, Nexus + Downloads is great. For the forum, subscriptions work great. You can buy a subscription to upgrade usergroup to see forums that that usergroup can see. What if we want to sell individual photos or albums in the Gallery? What if members want to sell albums or individual photos? What if we want to sell individual Blog content from the blogs? What if members want to sell a subscription to their blog? What if we want to sell article/database content from IP.Content? Again, you can buy a subscription to upgrade usergroup to see that content. But, what if you only wanted to sell individual content items? Then subscription is not ideal. Especially if you have a lot of individual content items. What if we want to sell access to calendars? Again, the usergroup subscription could help as a whole. So, what's left out of the above in the current way things work? Gallery Blogs IP.Content for inividual content items It would be nice if Nexus integrated with "all" official addons in a way that admins & members could benefit from. Many websites are not necessarily based on downloads.
  6. Although it's a nice way to add a "little bit" of personalization that most are familiar with from big social networks, I'd much rather use background images/colors for all aspects of the profile (think vb3.7-8/4.x & how no other community suite or forum match it's profile features even today!) or movable custom profile blocks, etc. The problem with cover photos is explained nicely here: The Unbearable Sameness Of Social Networks I'd much rather have profiles that end-users can call their own. If we're going to think like other websites (ex: cover photos), why not think like Wordpress and offer themes that our members can use for their profiles and blogs and albums? Let them "own" the look of their profile. At the very least Multiple Profile Setup Choices to help communities build profiles relatable to their own community niche instead of the standard bland webmaster community profiles.
  7. I agree. If there were a community suite that was based on content types of choice and categorized by main categories, it would be possible. So, when someone clicks on a category about dogs they will see a main category page filled with all the new articles, blog posts, images, downloads, forum topics, products, events, etc about dogs. When someone wants to post something about dogs, they could choose a content type (blog post, forum topic, image, download, product, article, event, etc) and then submit their preferred dog content. This would help all apps be actually useful...connected, and help end-users find content (ANY CONTENT) that matters to them most.
  8. Can you please tell us when this will be clarified? Particularly preventing others from following them. What happens? What is the purpose of a no follow? Do they still see that member's content...have you reconsidered privacy? Or is it only linked to notifications? Will there at least be an approve system in place?
  9. I just want to say that I don't think you are being greedy, Lindy. I strongly believe that you are making a decision on what you think is best for your company. Just because not everyone would have made the same choice (including me based on what little I see on the front-end), does not mean that it was a right or wrong choice. Only time will tell. As a customer, my worry would be negative effects as stated above. The customers it directly affects, I'm sure feel like promises were broken. You chose a compromise and some don't agree with that decision. Hopefully everything will work out in the end....
  10. If you have lots of time to spare, you can read IPS's stance on profile privacy here: http://community.invisionpower.com/topic/398396-profile-privacy-in-ipb-4/
  11. I understand the reasoning behind this decision based on the change in structure of the product(s). However, as a business owner, I would have honored the 4% in a different manner. Purchase the "core" and receive a lifetime forum at no additional fee. Giving them a coupon through Nexus to honor the promise. That would have been my business plan. But, maybe I don't quite understand the new purchasing structure to make a valid decision. Rational behind the path I would have chosen (keep in mind this is personal opinion based on my business experience): Older customers are often your best customers. They have and continue to refer new customers through the best advertisement...Word Of Mouth backed by trust in the company's promises. 4% is a huge number in terms of word of mouth. Older customers oftentimes support the company in other ways like purchasing multiple licenses under new license structures. Sometimes even renewing those licenses even when they don't need any updates or support. Older customers and customers with multiple purchases are your biggest assets in business, IMHO. This decision does not affect me directly, but I hope that it does not cause more negativity towards IPS. The more negativity out there based on the company's trust factor, the less people will invest in IPS. As customers, we want to see IPS grow so the products grow and our investments continue to have stability. Anyways, I hope for the best on all ends...
  12. Don't say that forums will not be a requirement and then use forum posts as an excuse against profile privacy. IPS says they take privacy seriously. Yet, they don't want to go in any direction outlined in this feature suggestion other than maybe later a few custom profile fields. I'll agree to disagree whether or not I think IPS takes privacy serious or not. No offense, but I just don't see it. Hiding emails is a tiny example. Clearly we have different thoughts on what privacy really is. Really? Wow! Must be you skipped over my reply to IPS. IPS would rather argue that you can't find forum posts (even though you can without the profile) and heaven forbid you stop guests from discovering profile content that many already block anyways. You and others opposing are regurgitating what they said and adding unrelated examples. Really? Comparing sending nude pics in private messages has nothing to do with profile privacy. For someone who created an addon for profile privacy, I would have thought you'd know the difference. And for someone who created an addon for profile privacy, you'd think you'd be in support of the feature....makes me wonder what's your motive! Seriously!!!??? This whole topic went from making a common feature suggestion to being attacked for explaining the suggestion since it appeared that some didn't understand anything already said. It's no different than admins hiding profiles for guests! It's already a feature for admins to choose! Why can't the members choose? Why provide that choice if you are soooooo against it?
  13. It's clearly been explained many times in this very topic by many of us more than once. I don't think there is any other way to explain it! Period! Whether or not some just don't get it really is irrelevant since it's not an important feature to those who oppose it. All these opposing examples are pointless if you actually read through all the replies we've already made. At this time it's a waste of our time to keep explaining something that others here just don't understand while the rest of the internet DOES....
  14. As far as content discovery. That works fine when talking about forum threads & posts. But, we are talking about contact info, profile comments, etc. If you are so worried about searching for member posts, click their name (use the popup) or use the search options or use the memberlist! It has nothing to do with hiding posts and threads/topics. Just because you can find those in the search when profiles are private on XF, has nothing to do with the private option that still hides contact info, the comment archives, and many many other information from third-party apps that friends like sharing with JUST friends on XF. If you want to use VB as an example, how about looking at the screenshot I posted earlier. Nowhere can you see those things if set to private...unless you are a friend. Again, it has nothing to do with the forum threads & posts. VB actually doesn't hide the whole profile. So, if you MUST use the profile to search for their posts instead of other options...well, you can still. And did IPS not state that 4.0 will allow admins to break free from requiring forums? Why does everything fall back on public forum content when we ask for profile privacy? Two different beasts, IMHO. As far as members not controlling content, I beg to differ. They control their profile comments & updates & contact info...etc. If some of us don't allow guests to see profiles, then why say that most users are guests discovering content. I don't allow guests to view profiles. Therefor, they are not discovering "that" content. There should be some kind of value on having friends other than just listing mugshots. Would have been nice to at least have these minimal options: Profile comment updates should be friends only. Contact info should be friends only. Continue consistancy across all apps. Other app content on profiles should retain friends only privacy options. IE: blogs, personal albums... This information should NOT be accessible anywhere else unless you are a friend if set to friends only. We all know the benefit of friends/followers with every other popular website on the internet, but not in IPS community websites. IPS products work great for IPS and likewise websites. Instead of basing assumptions on this particular community, I'd suggest looking at not only competitors (who DO have better profile privacy) but also the most popular websites on the internet that are geared toward regular internet users and not just admins and developers. There lies the problem. Funniest answer I've ever heard, "tell members not to share anything personal"....LMAO!...Really? I suppose all websites are telling members not to share anything personal and they really do listen, right? Should we ban all those sharing people who did not listen? Someone should tell the internet they are doing something wrong. How about we ask IPS... What is the point in profile friends in IPS? What is the benefit of an all or nothing admin option as opposed to a member choice option? What would make grandma feel better? What about businesses that want to reward their friends for following them with special updates? And encourage users to sign-up to friend them for those special updates? What about parenting sites that want to share their personal updates w/ family & friends only? What about health sites that want to share private info with just a select few friends? Should we tell them all to go to the next big social network instead? If yes, then what's the point in creating our own communities? They do not need our communities...there's always other options. A missing fact here is that communities create personal relationships & connections. It's not just about the public content. It does NOT take content to keep members in a community...it takes a whole lot more than that! I admit defeat....clearly some of us was hoping 4.0 would step-up the profiles.
  15. Sticking with the motto of being consistant across all apps, I'd like to see privacy taken seriously in all areas related to member content. Privacy: Blogs - Can set to friends only (hopefully still in 4.0) Gallery - Can set to friends only (hopefully still in 4.0) Profile - Cannot set to accepted friends only (was really hoping to see this in 4.0. Huge disappointment it will not be!) Downloads - Can these be set to friends only? (what if members want to share downloads with friends only?) IP.Content - No friends only setting for submitted articles (may make no sense for most, but possibly some) IP.Nexus - No friends only setting (may make no sense for most, but possibly some) IP.Board - Makes no sense for topics & posts to be friends only (but not everyone will base their site on having forums) As it stands, there is very little of any privacy settings for members' content. If you're just running a support forum like IPB for their products then it's no big deal...who cares about privacy & profiles. If you are running a full community, then it's a huge deal for some of us. If you are aiming to stay up to date with TODAY's standards, then privacy should be on the top of your list since it IS the norm and what people are accustomed to having on the biggest websites out there. If you think it's just copying them, you ARE WRONG...as I've already explained so many times about past requests long before those sites were born! Those sites chose to do it right! We are still stuck with the idea here that communities are a free for all. Here is a screenshot of VB's profile privacy (available in 3.8 & 4.x). If nothing else, at least they got this part right! Those who disagree, clearly do not see past their own forum. If I were to base a site on just a forum and nothing else, I'd use all my XF & VB licenses (17 in total!!). They work fine and do have more privacy permissions. I'm not interested in just forums, though. I'm interested in communities! If you say you provide a community suit, then provide a community suit that meets today's standards for member privacy consistant across all apps. I like IPB as a company and was hoping for more in 4.0 for the members themselves. Consistant privacy permissions across all apps was important to me. I'm happy to see all the new things in the blog updates here. But, the members are the most important to me...and privacy is at the top of that list.
  • Create New...

Important Information

We use technologies, such as cookies, to customise content and advertising, to provide social media features and to analyse traffic to the site. We also share information about your use of our site with our trusted social media, advertising and analytics partners. See more about cookies and our Privacy Policy