yevlem

Thank you @Dexter_X and @Genestoy. Both of these adjustments worked great on our forum. No longer having Reputation count on the author pane was frustrating for some of our users, but now they have it back. Appreciated.

Thanks very much indeed for this rapid response.

I'm afraid that I'm very chary of mucking around with the theme and we keep ours as a standard theme but with colour changes.

Any time we get any problems with third-party routines, the first question is always whether we have a custom theme and so I prefer not to go there.

I rather hope that somebody will come along with a plug-in which will deal with the matter – and of course it would be nice if the Invision team didn't assume to "know what's best" for their customers and the probably millions of people who rely on those forums for one reason or another.

I understand that at the top of the Invision development tree are 11 developers. I'd be interested to know what the decision-making process is when they decide to change long-standing forum cultures and not even allow Choice.

Seems a bit Republican to me.

Yes but if you have a post number plug-in – which you can switch on or off – then you have three choices. You can either refer to the number – simply not displayed at all, or refer to a post by your method.

How wonderful to have three choices. Far more likely to address the diversity of needs – and is that such a bad thing?
And of course nobody yet has managed to explain why having a Choice is such an undesirable thing.
It all sounds a bit Republican to me  

Damn! You spoiled a good idea.

I wonder if anyone can make a contribution to answer that problem.

Of course the solution then is to have a numbering system – or at least have a choice to implement it or not implement it.

However, simply having the date to the top left hand side of each post is visual clutter and I have to say when it's in my peripheral vision I've had a lot of trouble focusing on the content of the post. I'm sure I can't be the only one
In fact, having a share button on the right-hand side and a clickable but otherwise useless generalised date on the left-hand side is simply a duplication which makes the visual clutter even more unnecessary and seriously interferes with the ability to focus on content without any perceptible benefit in return.
Of course, we could agree to set everything to GMT – which I think would be very appropriate and also very acceptable to subjects of Her Majesty 
 
We could refer to it as UTC or Zulu if that makes it more acceptable

That won't work across time zones though.
I'm in Australia and see times in my time zone. Many of our members are in the UK which is 9 or 10 hours behind. What I see as September 13 19:00 would show as September 13 10:00 in the UK.
Our members liked the Post Number plug-in but if doesn't return I won't be upset. I see how the numbers change after deleting, hiding, splitting posts. The PostID idea is interesting but I can't see too many members quoting numbers like this - 2931519 (a real post number from a few minutes ago on my Forum)
With collapsed quotes, we'll just keep educating people on linking rather than saying "post 1234"
Now, about the old Automatically hide/delete inactive posts feature......😮
 

Well it would still be interesting to know the answers to the to the points which I made in my previous post – two posts up from this one as I don't have a number to refer to. It's the post that I made one hour ago – although of course this will change as the thread gets older so for the avoidance of doubt, to the question I asked in this post:
but here's a suggestion which maybe will satisfy everybody.
I also hadn't realised that the dates were clickable although that wouldn't be necessary for the suggestion below.

As clearly the date of each post is logged somewhere, how about actually having the date and time each post was submitted.

This would allow people to refer exactly to the post that they made – whether it is a member view or a moderator view. At the moment, there is a certain amount of "visual clutter" which might interfere with focusing on content.

Instead of using "posted two hours ago" or "posted August 28" which is actually visually cluttering and is also using information which is quite unnecessary because it is so obvious -  such as the word "Posted", how about replacing that with simply the date and time that it was posted.
So that when you see "Aug 28, 14.31", it becomes obvious that the post was submitted on August 28 at 2:30 PM and therefore it becomes very easy to refer to whether you are a moderator or a member.

That means that you could say something like – "if you go back and check my post about eight pages ago in this thread dated Feb 10 23.49, you will see that I've already described what happened…", Then this will provide a precise reference for everybody, no misunderstanding and also it will have the advantage of removing visual clutter because unnecessary words such as "Posted".
It will have been replaced with useful and functional information and also it will be several characters shorter than the current "visual clutter" because the month names would have been shortened to their traditional three letters and the word "Posted" would have been replaced altogether.

If this is felt to be to "legacy" then there can be a setting somewhere to make this a matter of choice so that the nay-sayers will be able to dispense with it altogether but those in favour will be able to decide to use the system.

I know that I have posted the above suggestion in a slightly mocking manner – but if you can get over that and treat this as a serious suggestion then maybe you'd like to let us have your comments. It seems to me that this is a way forward.

If you wanted you could also give an option to decide whether to have a 20 4 o'clock or 12 o'clock so that the date might say "Sep 14, 10.31pm" if you prefer- although the AM/PM would just make things longer and for Europeans would be unnecessary visual clutter.
Of course it would mean at some point that one would include the year that the post was made – but this would probably be a bit shorter than what is being used at the moment and at least the visual clutter would have a purpose.
2019, Aug 14, 20.21
  I think that it is important to distinguish between useless visual clutter and useful visual clutter.
I would add, that simply having a generalised date of posting is generally speaking quite unhelpful. With lots of threads, there can be a flurry of posts the same date so simply saying - if you look at the posts which were made on August 28 – when there might be 10 or 15 posts, it is pretty nebulous – and August 28 really becomes visual clutter without any particular purpose. Having a specific time makes it very useful.
 

I think you hit the nail on the head here. Often it seems frustration can be interpreted as arrogance. Like with the handling of Sparkpost-gate. (Too soon?) 😋
There's also a difference with legacy and tradition. It's interesting that the default view of forums is still the traditional view, and not the more modern, space saving and attractive grid view.

Well the new Marketplace has this requirement:
I don't know if anyone would want to take the risk of re-introducing the original post ID. The MP is a fairly scary and off-putting place these days, and whilst there's not exactly an "Abandon All Hope, Ye Who Enter Here" sign above the gate and it's done with the best of intentions, it comes across loud and clear that there are clear penalties for those going repeatedly against the corporate grain that could quickly affect their livelihood.
I actually never knew you could click on the post date, there's no indicator that it is clickable a bit like that dot in the topic list, but the ability to reference a post via the share link works great, no lengthy post id to remember, just a dynamic link or embedded rich link (a member's choice) that means it doesn't matter if the ID changes or the post moved, they will always get there by clicking on it.
 
 

Thanks for this.
 
However, you haven't explained how depriving your clients of Choice is not compatible with a modern forward-looking approach.
Also, let me ask you this:  If a developer comes along and puts a new post-number plugin on the Marketplace, will you prevent it?

Also, to add to this conversation – which apart from the other reasons seems to be suggesting that it's not useful and that people complain et cetera, I've noticed that the plug-in which now doesn't work on the new version of Invision had 659 downloads.
by the standards of any third party plug-in or application in the marketplace – this is a huge amount. I can imagine that the number of people who have complained or the number of Invision software architects who have decided that posts numbers must not be available, pales into insignificance against the 659 downloads which presumably have been made by forum administrators and their probably hundreds of thousands (and maybe millions) of forum members who are seeing this "visual clutter" every time they are browsing their respective forums and have no problem with focusing on content.
Go figure.

I can understand not wanting to use or support static post number @BankFodder  as I used that plugin too but we did have several users complain because we told them to review certain post numbers from memorized posts but it turns out that due to spammers, edits, moves, etc. that the post number was not accurate. By using this ID: number regardless of what happens to the post the numbering won't get messed up. It might not be in the topic thread anymore but you cannot reference an invalid post number which is what we have had happen quite a few times. But we do run a support site not a general purpose site so we do have a lot of mods, editing, moving, etc.
Supporting the ability to Enable / Disable showing the ID: on the post from with the ACP would be nice, but it looks like that is not going to happen anytime soon.
 

The previous post number plug-in which now doesn't work with the new version of Invision, was perfectly adequate to our needs. Anything on top of that would be a bonus.

It was a plug-in so there was a choice for the nay-sayers not to install it, and there was a choice for the rest of us to install it.

I'm not sure what's wrong with that

To be honest I rarely use a 6" screen phone except in an emergency. Using a phone to read, make, use posts is very slow and not productive at all for me. I would much rather use my 32" 4K monitor to do work. 
We have a few topics with over a couple hundred pages and it is extremely easy to reference the ID 393 in that topic and if you cannot find it then you're probably already challenged using a forum. 
As I also said, it is their choice to add it or not. But it's not like they need to add a lot of code (the code to do it was already provided). Now its just a matter if they want to do it or not. Based on replies so far it sounds like they have zero desire to add it either which is okay, I have it working already.
 
@BankFodder I'm new here but dear God if this is the normal feedback expected I cannot fathom how one gets more advanced help here. I suppose if you want real help beyond some basics it would seem you may need to hire a professional to assist you and simply stop visiting here. Very  disappointing when people even reading what you've posted don't understand what you're even talking about. Myself I'm glad that @Mr 13 came along and posted how he did it.
 
 
 

No one said or tried to say it was a legal requirement (though it really is for Federal institutions, they cannot use software that does not follow certain ADA requirements by a Federally mandated law) that is not and was not the point. I have a handicapped adult child so I'm aware of how difficult many software applications are. Not trying to say the program needs massive changes to support ADA.
My point is/was that the ID tag number being shown @Mr 13 does in fact (in my opinion) provide the exact same purpose of a visual cue that post # have/had in the past. I've manually edited our forums to show it. All I'm providing is FEEDBACK which is the purpose of this forum. It would be very nice if allowing this to be shown by some setting within the ACP so that users did not need to manually edit their code.
As for the date in every post providing a permalink I'm sorry you just don't seem to understand what people are talking about. VISUAL cue just like I created all uppercase. You don't have to copy anything, you don't have to click a special button. You easily see there is something. Telling someone go find post where the date says Posted August 13 does nothing for anyone as there could be several posts made on that date. Why people are complaining it is a PITA to have to now copy and paste a special link to refer to. 
In my example here

I can tell the user to check out post ID 393 and most people can very easily find that number in the topic thread. I didn't have to copy, quote, or paste anything. 
If you don't wish to add such a feature that is your choice but to tell people they don't need it is YOUR personal opinion which may or may not be shared by others.
 
 

I take it that's a No, then.

Let's hope that the developer who produced the excellent post number plug-in for the previous version comes up with modifications which make it work in the new version.

Then we will have choice and everybody will be happy.

I don't see what problem Invision have with customer choice

Good points!  No disrespect to the devs...they are doing an awesome job!  But sometimes it is easy to over think stuff!  I have found that my members don't like to click and search for stuff...it is extra work now for them to look for the edit button or report button.  Sometimes visual clutter can be more efficient...LOL!

Thanks for this, @Malwarebytes Forums. It hadn't crossed my mind about the effect on disabled persons, but of course you are right. Of course it's a shame that one needs to fall back on legal requirements – when I think that a far more customer-facing approach by Invision would be simply to facilitate client choice as part of their mission.

The support function with Invision is excellent but the software architecture function I find to be rather prescriptive and I don't think it's necessary

Yes, the code provided by Mr 13 does in fact work @BankFodder . We have implemented it on our forums. I do agree though that making it an option or available to Administrators from within the ACP would be nice. Thank you @Mr 13
Regardless of how one views it Visual cues are sensory cues received by the eye that many people process and understand better than text or menus. 
Referencing a post or ID# seen onscreen without having to copy or quote and paste it would help reduce clutter as well as I would find it difficult to believe that making a handicapped person perform an additional 3 or 4 more clicks to obtain or reference the same thing would meet muster for the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) 
Designing Software that is Accessible to Individuals with Disabilities
https://www.washington.edu/doit/designing-software-accessible-individuals-disabilities
 

I've shared these comments with our site team and some of the members on our forum.
The action has been incredulity and hilarity.

If you are really concerned about "visual noise" then what's wrong with putting the post number in the pop-up under the three dots . . .  with all of the rest of the moderator/editing options. That way you clear out this offensive and objectionable "visual noise" allowing the "post content to be the focus" and also you return a very useful function to people who want to refer quickly to information contained in a previous post in a very long thread.
Once again, surely it is reasonable to let the forum administrators decide how much "visual noise" should appear on each post. Surely it is up to forum administrators to decide how far to go in resolving the balance of interests in helping members to focus on post content.
Surely it is the forum administrators should be able to make these choices. Surely it is the job of Invision simply to provide options and not to make decisions for forum administrators.

In fact one of our members said:
and that's true. The problem of "bloat quoting" is already significant and it simply adds a great of length to an already very long thread and makes it much more time-consuming to get round.
Being able to refer to post numbers is simplicity itself and makes navigation of a thread much easier.

I suppose that if Invision went into the book publishing business we would be told that in future, books would not carry any page numbers or even chapter numbers because they were simply "visual noise" and it was important to let the page content be the focus.

Bravo.

We've been operating forum software for 15 years with post counts and we don't have any problem and most importantly our users like it.

There are only about 10 or 15 members of the site team – whereas there are getting on for half a million ordinary members. Because of this, I don't find that the argument that the numbers reviewed by moderators are different from the numbers reviewed by the half a million members to be at all compelling.

We prioritise the interests of our users and as I say, we've never had a problem. Most other platforms have post numbers. We've used post numbers with Invision now using a plug-in which unfortunately doesn't work any more with the latest version of Invision.

I don't see what is wrong with choice. Invision is a pretty good platform and well supported but one thing I find quite unpleasant about it is that the Invision team seem to consider that they should make choices for us and deprive us of choice.

We are all adults – I don't have an option to use post numbers which I can either switch off or switch on. It's also not beyond the wit of someone with the right technical ability to have the member Post number in the corner and then to the left of it in a slightly different colour moderator post number.

Problem solved. People don't like it can switch it off. People who like it can switch it on.

Problem solved – what's not to like?

 

For my communities, I fixed this issue showing the unique ID of the post. You can see it in action here.

It's a basic function used by most forum software. Like Xenforo, vBulletin, wBB, mybb, smf. 

Glad you got it working. Setting the policy did ring a bell, I remember doing something in that area, but not sure what.
The background queue MOVES the files.

@yevlem Could it be that your DNS changes haven't propagated yet? It may take a while for a nameserver change to be picked up by the various DNS servers around the net. Most take up to 24 hours.
If you visit https://cdn.mysite.com, are you getting something?