13.

Suggestion.
I would love to see separate limits for positive and negative reactions in the IPS:


Thanks.

Partially related suggestion:
 

Well, it's your assumption. No more no less. But what about the diagnostics instead of assumptions? WIll IPS provide informative error instead of just "-200"?
93 frames and 816kb is nothing for GIFs. Most of uploaded GIFs on my forums has a lot more frames and sizes (and a lot of them was uploaded when i used ImageMagic).

As i already said, problem is not related to the count of frames of to the size of the GIF, it just appears with some of GIFs, not matter how large or small they are, or how much frames does they have. I've uploaded bigger GIFs with much more frames and it worked just fine. Played around with timeouts and memory limits, e.t.c. and it does not affected the error with GIFs which has lower size and less frames.
Does not matter, the actual problem is lack of information in the error, that's it.

For me, it is not important which editor to use, but how exactly it will be customized by IPS.

The main thing I hope for is that IPS won't carry over all the same bugs that they added to the current editor and haven't been fixing for years. Such as the complete inability to delete mentions in mobile Chrome, for example:

1620649541089.mp4
As well as get rid of additional overcomplications, such as replacing existing editor functions. For example, fast and easy URL embedding on clumsy and slow:

👍   


👎 

Gutenberg 

Gutenberg 

For me, it is not important which editor to use, but how exactly it will be customized by IPS.

The main thing I hope for is that IPS won't carry over all the same bugs that they added to the current editor and haven't been fixing for years. Such as the complete inability to delete mentions in mobile Chrome, for example:

1620649541089.mp4
As well as get rid of additional overcomplications, such as replacing existing editor functions. For example, fast and easy URL embedding on clumsy and slow:

👍   


👎 

For me, it is not important which editor to use, but how exactly it will be customized by IPS.

The main thing I hope for is that IPS won't carry over all the same bugs that they added to the current editor and haven't been fixing for years. Such as the complete inability to delete mentions in mobile Chrome, for example:

1620649541089.mp4
As well as get rid of additional overcomplications, such as replacing existing editor functions. For example, fast and easy URL embedding on clumsy and slow:

👍   


👎 

Gutenberg 

For me, it is not important which editor to use, but how exactly it will be customized by IPS.

The main thing I hope for is that IPS won't carry over all the same bugs that they added to the current editor and haven't been fixing for years. Such as the complete inability to delete mentions in mobile Chrome, for example:

1620649541089.mp4
As well as get rid of additional overcomplications, such as replacing existing editor functions. For example, fast and easy URL embedding on clumsy and slow:

👍   


👎 

Gutenberg 

For me, it is not important which editor to use, but how exactly it will be customized by IPS.

The main thing I hope for is that IPS won't carry over all the same bugs that they added to the current editor and haven't been fixing for years. Such as the complete inability to delete mentions in mobile Chrome, for example:

1620649541089.mp4
As well as get rid of additional overcomplications, such as replacing existing editor functions. For example, fast and easy URL embedding on clumsy and slow:

👍   


👎 

For me, it is not important which editor to use, but how exactly it will be customized by IPS.

The main thing I hope for is that IPS won't carry over all the same bugs that they added to the current editor and haven't been fixing for years. Such as the complete inability to delete mentions in mobile Chrome, for example:

1620649541089.mp4
As well as get rid of additional overcomplications, such as replacing existing editor functions. For example, fast and easy URL embedding on clumsy and slow:

👍   


👎 

For me, it is not important which editor to use, but how exactly it will be customized by IPS.

The main thing I hope for is that IPS won't carry over all the same bugs that they added to the current editor and haven't been fixing for years. Such as the complete inability to delete mentions in mobile Chrome, for example:

1620649541089.mp4
As well as get rid of additional overcomplications, such as replacing existing editor functions. For example, fast and easy URL embedding on clumsy and slow:

👍   


👎 

The easiest way to filter all ancient browsers from the IE epoch is just checking if CSS or CSS.supports are missed, because it present in all modern browsers and Edge 12+.
if (typeof(CSS) === "undefined" || typeof(CSS.supports) === "undefined") { // Here you can do whatever you want to the visitors with ancient browsers from the IE epoch console.log('Your browser is out of date'); }  

.htaccess rule for all xml and json files:
<FilesMatch "\.(xml|json)$">     Order Deny,Allow     Deny from all </FilesMatch>

You can block access to .json files via htaccess
<Files "*.json"> Order Deny,Allow Deny from all </Files> or only for "versions.json"
<Files "*versions.json"> Order Deny,Allow Deny from all </Files>  

In important rule of (cyber) security is: don't expose more than what is strictly needed.
I would deny the access to that file.
What's the point of letting anyone to know what is the version you use? To know if a certain exploit can be used or that a vulnerability is present? You certainly don't want to provide rogue actors that valuable information.
 

I had to disable it completely. It was automatically flagging friends of mine as spam. I even complained about it in the around a month ago.  

I'd say that there is likely a 50/50 split between spam registrants that are simply trying to create a profile with links in an attempt at SEO or link count nonsense as compared to those that actually attempt to post.
There is a need to be able to moderate links in profile fields. We turn off profile viewing to guests as one way to mitigate against this, but it's less than ideal.

Thank you for this. We operate a site that is similarly sized to the one you are associated with, and have had similar suspicions.
We had far better success at addressing the issue by focusing our efforts on the source of registrations. For us, the majority of spam registrations came from particular network segments once we looked at the ASN associated with known spam registrants. We used our CDN's firewall feature to handle those registration attempts and have quite significantly reduced the number of spammers getting through. It's mostly a rare occasion now.

I run a large site, so I have a lot of legitimate members and receive a fairly significant number of spammers. I turned it off (but continued to collect members' spam scores) several months ago, due to the volume of requests by legitimate people who were being caught by the spam filter. I've run some statistics based on registrations over the past month, comparing whether they have been flagged as spammer (which is very closely correlated with whether they were actually a spammer (this may not be true - see my post later in the topic)) and the code that the IPS spam service gave. The results are:
+-------+------+----------+ | FASed | code | count | +-------+------+----------+ | 0 | 0 | 77 | | 0 | 1 | 5657 | | 0 | 2 | 3 | | 0 | 3 | 5 | | 0 | 4 | 147 | | 0 | null | 233 | | 1 | 0 | 3 | | 1 | 1 | 616 | | 1 | 2 | 13 | | 1 | 3 | 75 | | 1 | 4 | 155 | | 1 | null | 2 | +-------+------+----------+ Breaking this down:
12% of registrations are spammers 6% of registrations receive a spam score > 1 4% of registrations receive a spam score of 4 So far, these numbers don't seem unreasonable. However,
If someone receives a spam score of 4 ("user is a known spammer"), they have 51% chance of actually being a spammer A precision of 51% is totally useless.
If someone is actually a spammer, they have a 28% chance of receiving a spam score > 1. That's a pretty shoddy recall too.
If I set my site to reject members with a spam score of 4, I will lose ~150 members to the spam filter each month; even if I use 2 as the threshold instead it will still only reduce spam by 28%. That's not an OK trade-off to me.
You may say that the answer to this is to set accounts to require admin validation instead when caught by the spam filter, and that's not unreasonable. However, I'm not logged into ACP every day, so I suspect this would result in the loss of a large portion of the potential registrations who will just go and ask their question on a different forum because they didn't want to wait. Furthermore, it's often not possible to tell whether the account is legitimate just based on the registration info, so that 28% hit rate is going to drop quite a lot more.
I appreciate that catching spam is a very hard problem. However, I believe these number demonstrate that the current system is not fit for purpose, at least with the level of confidence that you currently assign to it ("member is a known spammer" in the config page is a long way from the truth, and "certain spammer" from your marketing materials is an outright lie).

Hello! The problem is you can't add a third-party translation of a third-party application into the existing language already installed from the acp marketplace. This is very annoying especially for non-English communities with third-party applications or even custom self-made applications. Users can't combine multiple language packs into one single language.
I told support about the issue and just got an answer from @Daniel F that "the feature is working as intended and we have no plans to change the behaviour". Yeah, I think it means "we do not want to make your community solid and clean". Why you can't just make a good software for everyone, not only for English-speakers?
And I'm silent about problems with update check of languages, uncomfortable 'translate' page, glitchy 'out of date' filter and so on. Uploaded my language pack March 22, 2015 and it is on #1 place by reviews, views and downloads (previously #2, but German was deleted). And I got 'oh, sorry, it is not in our priority'. That's very encouraging! Awesome, thanks!
I really hate doing this (mean mass-ping), but... @Matt @Lindy
Thank you for your time. Hope we will be able to improve current situation.

1. Webp is not a niche image format anymore. Full stop.  While I could understand that argument in 2015,  webp is now almost universally supported by all browsers: 
https://caniuse.com/?search=webp
2. The grand irony - or perverse absurdity - is that my own website delivers images as webp via my Cloudflare.  I literally have users who have downloaded my site's images, but can't upload them back to my site! That comes across as distinctly discrepant.  

The interface has unnecessary duplicate elements in some places. It would be great to get rid of this duplication and thereby simplify the interface and make it more clean and readable.
Here is some examples: