Makoto

What would be cool is if you could define a set of  Stock Replies could be restricted to the alerts.
As there are some that would only ever be used in more of a private setting. 

Looks fantastic!  By any chance does this tie into the report center as well?  (For example if someone reported content?)

And with predefined alert titles/content too? 🙂

From what I understand only for communities with a someone paid plan. So this not be available for self-hosted instances.
By the way, they should mark these types of articles with the information that the features are only available to CLOUD users.

That's a nice widget.
I like that widget.
Something you plan to release on the marketplace?

I am not going to pay them for that either!! 🙂

This sounded great until I read you have to pay Apple for the privilege of being able to make use of it!
Whiskey. Tango. Foxtrot? 🤨
Still, nice addition to 4.5, IPS!

It wasn't planned, but yea, I can probably next week. Right now this whole app includes dozens of changes for the topic page, will need to add some settings to make them optional 🙂

That's a nice widget.
I like that widget.
Something you plan to release on the marketplace?

That's a nice widget.
I like that widget.
Something you plan to release on the marketplace?

I've done something similar for a project, where we have put the link to the most popular comment (which is also the one with the highest rates) into the sidebar.

 

Now I see why you downloaded Track Members a few weeks ago. J/K. 😂
Nice improvements. 👍

This all looks wonderful. So many awesome improvements to the suite lately.
Keep up the great work guys.

All new features are nothing worth as long as they won't kill facebook, twitter, instagram and os on!
 

There is no actual benefit in doing this.
Those additional prefixes are also there for a reason. They're maintained for backwards compatibility. 

There is no actual benefit in doing this.
Those additional prefixes are also there for a reason. They're maintained for backwards compatibility. 

This blog entry details (and/or touches on) at a high-level some of the changes made in 4.4 to improve performance. 
There will always be other areas that can be improved. There are always new test suites that can be tested against. Technology is constantly changing, both on the backend and in the user agent. If something was not mentioned in the blog entry, chances are it hasn't been changed. That doesn't mean it isn't something we should look at, it just means we haven't yet due to many reasons (time is one factor, but also sometimes changing an approach, such as how plugins are handled, is not a simple thing to do). I recommend posting suggestions of other areas you would like for us to look at in the appropriate feedback forum, so when we are planning 4.4.1 or 4.5 or 5.0 or any other future version, we can easily reference those ideas. Posting your suggestions here in blog entry comments will, unfortunately, likely result in those ideas being lost and forgotten.

This is absolutely no longer the recommended approach with HTTP/2 becoming mainstream, just FYI. Naturally there's always a balance, but I would recommend reading up some more on best ways to handle CSS/Javascript with HTTP/2 to learn more.

This all looks wonderful. So many awesome improvements to the suite lately.
Keep up the great work guys.

When you announce a new minor feature in an upcoming software version and people just post the other stuff they'd like.

 
1) Nope, you can't take my animated GIFs from me! (But you do not need to enable GIFs, that's up to you)
2) You'll like a blog entry we have coming up soon.

 

@DReffects2 - I appreciate you've done extensive research as applicable to your situation jurisdiction. We have expended an enormous amount of time and resources aiding our EU clients with GDPR compliance to the best of our abilities and it's our understanding, we've actually done more than most similar platforms. A temporary line has to be drawn somewhere or we're going to end up with, as Matt said, a barrage of half-baked features and checkboxes everywhere. We have consulted with the ICO, our largest EU clients and perused legal resources and are confident that our implementation as of 4.3.3 will help satisfy your compulsory requirements under the GDPR. I know you don't like the "let's wait and see" approach on your remaining potential concerns, but that is in fact a key purpose of the judicial system -- interpreting and providing subsequent guidance on existing regulation.
We are committed to adapting and accommodating as needed, I assure you. We aren't, however, able to go crazy and toss things in based on armchair interpretations. From a layman perspective, a simple checkbox here and there seems easy. From a development perspective - you need to do something with that checkbox. As the contact form, when configured such, is merely an email form, there's nothing to do in the same way there's nothing to do when you actively send someone a traditional email -- you're sending the email because you want to initiate contact. If you wanted a "simple" checkbox on the contact form that's simply sending an email, you then need to provide a mechanism for obtaining consent, store the email address, store the consent, provide a mechanism to withdraw the consent to store the email, etc. None of that is necessary based on reasonable interpretations of the GDPR, so as developers with finite resources, we need to weigh out these requests that amount to a fair amount of development time with limited basis and simply say, if you're super concerned about untested, unchallenged, extreme interpretations for things like this, it's likely best, for your own peace of mind, to simply not use the feature.
I say with confidence that although ultimate compliance with any local, national or international law or regulation is the responsibility of the community owner; 4.3.3 is GDPR friendly. If you feel you need to be more restrictive based on additional member state requirements, interpretations or even personal peace of mind - you can of course disable embeds, disable the contact form, disable spam mitigation, disallow tech support and/or peruse third party solutions. It's my opinion, however, the EU authorities are not intending to cripple the Internet or make it cumbersome, inconvenient and unenjoyable to use; only to hold providers, controllers and processors to task for safeguarding data... and in that regard, it's only a good thing. 
There's a lot of information, opinions and suggestions floating through the comments here and it's difficult to keep track of. We welcome you to engage us via a support ticket for software and corporate specific information and, of course, you may use the client forums to discuss various scenarios, share opinions, tips, etc. 
We appreciate the feedback and participation. Let us know if we can be of further help.