opentype

It’s not “useless” just because you don’t like it. Everything that Randy said was indeed reasonable and justified. NGINX isn’t supported, so if you have problems with it, you are not getting support (here). It’s as simple as that. Your only argument, which you repeat over and over again is that it “used to work before”. But that argument is flawed, because the fact that it used to work before doesn’t mean that IPS is responsible to keep unsupported features working. If anything, you were lucky that it used to work before. Let me try it with an analogy: You use a foot path along my house where I placed a sign “private property. Use at your own risk”. When I decide to completely shut that path down after a couple of years, you can’t say “but I always use that path. You must continue to let me walk there”. It doesn’t work like that.

Pretty sure this is working as intended. You can see it here on the forum as well.

Such claims need to be tested scientifically. There is no way to test this for yourself and actually come to useful conclusion. Any effect of such a change, positive or negative, will be subtle and there is no way to assess the difference yourself. You will be “primed” to perceive the supposedly improved text as better and possibly come to that conclusion just because of this priming. That’s why science uses double-blind tests, where you don’t know what is actually being tested. And reading speed isn’t reading comprehension. Even if the method would actually make you faster, it doesn’t mean you actually understand the text just as well as when you would read a normal text. There are also confounding variables, like the font weight. The website shows a very light text and then the “bionic” text with some letters being bold(er). Maybe the problem with the light text is that it is just too light and the reading improvement comes from the bolder letters – not their “bionic” distribution. Such things must be taken into account and tested for. And from my experience with reading research, the entire premise is highly questionable. The focus points we use while reading depend on many things: personal reading experience personal understanding of the specific sentence you are reading the text layout (typeface, length of line …) the reading conditions (reading distance, lighting …) This “bionic” approach tries to force focus points on all readers of a text, independent of their reading experience and how good they understand the text. I don’t see how that can work. If the focus points don’t match what one personally needs, there can’t be a positive effect and it is actually more likely to see a negative effect caused by forcing focus points in the wrong locations. But I guess the makers of that product don’t really care as long as they can sell their API access. If they would care, they would have started with proper scientific testing, not with sensational claims distributed through general media outlets.

It’s all admins.

And what exactly is the question? Requiring admin approval is a checkbox in the database settings. That will send out an email by default.

That’s not true. Here is an example from one of my communities, tested again just a second ago. Achieved just using Invision Community with the PHP mail option. (But optimized with SPF, DKIM and DMARC records.) Technically, there is no such thing as a “PHP mail” or an “SMTP mail”. Those are just different ways to initiate the email. But no option is intrinsically better or worse. But if you are fine with using SMTP, I guess we don’t need to debate these things.

Yeah, that’s a terrible score. Switching to SMTP will probably fix it, but it also has disadvantages like slowing down replies. You can probably also get a perfect score with PHP Mails, but that will depend on your host, your DNS settings and so on. I won’t be able to tell you how to do it from a distance.

What’s the exact error message? Try sending a test mail from the ACP to https://www.mail-tester.com and check the results.

I see this functionality frequently with bigger shops. I might see prices in US$ as a guest, but when I create an account, I am actually forced to pay in Euro, which sometimes can be confusing/disappointing as the price increases this way. But from the point of view of the shop it can certainly help. I rather have EU customers pay me in Euro directly instead of giving them the choice to pay in US$ and so the money gets converted twice before it reaches my Euro bank account. Would certainly help with my bookkeeping.

Typographer’s nightmare.

Yeah, this could work with the “Must associate” option as mentioned.

This is certainly possible. What is not working for you about that? I also don’t see how your work-around of using associated products can help with anything. Even if the setup would work and would make sense for the users, it would just create a regular purchase of product B. I don’t see why you wouldn’t just offer product B directly.

Run the site through something like webpagetest to identify the files that are too large. Chances are, there are also just too many images in general. Image compression will only reduce a certain percentage of the file size. Even with that, your homepage will still be way too heavy.

Sorry, I don’t understand what you are asking.

But you have to renew your license. It’s not “buying them again”, but when you make changes to the software suite, all parts of the suite need to be up to date. You can’t add the current Pages to an old install, that hasn’t been updated in 3 years and you also cannot get the 3-year-old Pages version that would fit the old installation. Updating, at least from time to time, is highly recommended anyway. You can have your license lapse for some time if you have too, but the longer that lasts the more problems you get, because security holes aren’t closed, bugs aren’t fixed, third-party connections aren’t updated and so on.

It shouldn’t be a problem. “forum” is just a different word for “community” in such a context. One additional URL slug shouldn’t hurt the search ranking. To be clear: The version without /forum/ would be preferred, but only if you start fresh with your website. Changing it on an already establish site might cause more harm good.

The question is: is there really a problem? Most users do not actively read full URLs and more and browsers even hide anything but the domain by default. I wouldn’t make significant changes to the URL structure unless you absolutely have to. Just “liking” a different structure better isn’t enough. It is indeed risky (in terms of SEO and potential technical problems) and you really have to know what you are doing. This includes things like being able to set up htaccess redirects and resolving potential conflicts that can occur because of conflicting link targets or multi-redirects.

Well, normally all my template products just inherit the colors from the theme. But many custom themes were setting colors in such a problematic way that I had to force a background color for that article area. Guess I have to add another option to make that optional.

Is it intended to use the achievements system (with badges), but to not use ranks? I don’t see an option to deactivate ranks. I tried to simply delete all ranks but it still shows in this awkward way:

Or you add your functions to the article templates themselves. There you can easily work with the record data.

The block is parsed independently from the rest of the page, so you can’t just compare content from one part of the page with content from another part. At least that is what I would expect. To inspect what’s in a variable: {{$test=var_dump($record);}}{{exit;}} This will output the variable content to the screen when the record is viewed and the variable is available.

Does it work when a new post is made?

The embed code is hard-coded in the post, so changing something dynamically is not easily possible. And the styling itself comes from within the iframe.

Yeah, it is not looking good for the Marketplace. It only still works for a handful of people, who started years ago and already have a range of products (and even they are getting fewer and fewer). But it is not attractive at all to start today. You need a $850 package to develop, test and showcase products for the entire suite. And that package isn’t the main focus anymore, so you better get a cloud package as well, but not one of the lower tiers, as they lack standard features and can’t even install custom apps … So, you really must create some killer apps to justify those costs.