opentype

Just for the sake of completeness: the official solution is …
Turn on “Moderate new records” in the database settings Assign an “author group” to the users Change the database permissions to allow “add record” for this group

Just for the sake of completeness: the official solution is …
Turn on “Moderate new records” in the database settings Assign an “author group” to the users Change the database permissions to allow “add record” for this group

It always worked like that in 4.x. 
I usually avoid using default values for fields because of this behaviour. I’m sure it’s all “working as intended”, just not exactly what a user (or even admin) would expect. 
Suggestions:
show the actual number of filtered items don’t pre-select default field values (which are useful in the record form and during record creation) in the filter widget.  (Clover’s point 3 is just a side-effect of point 2.)

The error doesn’t point to a specific problem. You would need to narrow down the cause first. Could be a problem with the email links (changed by the mail provider?). Could be a caching issue. Could be admin interference (where accounts are approved before the user does it). Could be the links are simply clicked multiple times …

It never really was. Google just follows the user. If a site offers the most relevant content for a search query, then it’s what the user wants to see, whether it takes 500 milliseconds longer to load or not. Only if different sites have exactly the same ranking otherwise, then maybe your ranking position changes a bit. But in general, search results are not ordered by speed. That would be ridiculous. 
Optimizations are still useful of course, but there is no reason to obsess about them. There are much more impactful changes to be made on the site itself, e.g. how to name pages/forums/topics, how to structure a menu and so on. 

You can do that with the Pages app. 
Or just blocks, where you hide content from guests and show your blocks to guests only. There is even a “Guest Signup Widget” included with the software. It may not exactly do what you want, but it is made for the purpose you ask about. 

You can do that with the Pages app. 
Or just blocks, where you hide content from guests and show your blocks to guests only. There is even a “Guest Signup Widget” included with the software. It may not exactly do what you want, but it is made for the purpose you ask about. 

Some nice ideas there. 
I’m not a fan of minimizing the user info in the topic view though. The personal touch of clearly seeing who you are interacting with is getting more important these days, not less. If anything, this view should only be triggered if there is not enough space, not in full desktop view. As a typographer, the example screenshot is painful to look at.  3 posts with just one or two lines each that are waaaaaaaay too long for comfortable reading. This was always a problem with a default IPS installations but now it was made worse, not better. If the user info remains to the side, it also improves the readability of the post content. 

Put “register” in the search bar. The specific one should be popupRegisterTemplate.

Some nice ideas there. 
I’m not a fan of minimizing the user info in the topic view though. The personal touch of clearly seeing who you are interacting with is getting more important these days, not less. If anything, this view should only be triggered if there is not enough space, not in full desktop view. As a typographer, the example screenshot is painful to look at.  3 posts with just one or two lines each that are waaaaaaaay too long for comfortable reading. This was always a problem with a default IPS installations but now it was made worse, not better. If the user info remains to the side, it also improves the readability of the post content. 

Not much space in blocks, so it uses a reduced reaction counter there. 

Some nice ideas there. 
I’m not a fan of minimizing the user info in the topic view though. The personal touch of clearly seeing who you are interacting with is getting more important these days, not less. If anything, this view should only be triggered if there is not enough space, not in full desktop view. As a typographer, the example screenshot is painful to look at.  3 posts with just one or two lines each that are waaaaaaaay too long for comfortable reading. This was always a problem with a default IPS installations but now it was made worse, not better. If the user info remains to the side, it also improves the readability of the post content. 

Some nice ideas there. 
I’m not a fan of minimizing the user info in the topic view though. The personal touch of clearly seeing who you are interacting with is getting more important these days, not less. If anything, this view should only be triggered if there is not enough space, not in full desktop view. As a typographer, the example screenshot is painful to look at.  3 posts with just one or two lines each that are waaaaaaaay too long for comfortable reading. This was always a problem with a default IPS installations but now it was made worse, not better. If the user info remains to the side, it also improves the readability of the post content. 

Some nice ideas there. 
I’m not a fan of minimizing the user info in the topic view though. The personal touch of clearly seeing who you are interacting with is getting more important these days, not less. If anything, this view should only be triggered if there is not enough space, not in full desktop view. As a typographer, the example screenshot is painful to look at.  3 posts with just one or two lines each that are waaaaaaaay too long for comfortable reading. This was always a problem with a default IPS installations but now it was made worse, not better. If the user info remains to the side, it also improves the readability of the post content. 

Don’t get obsessed over things like compact mode 😀
These new modes are options and you can keep a traditional mode like we have now or experiment with new modes. It’s all just a toggle and you can mix and match to create endless customization possibilities. 

No two sites are the same, which is why we've made it very simple to switch between layout types. More on that very soon.

Some nice ideas there. 
I’m not a fan of minimizing the user info in the topic view though. The personal touch of clearly seeing who you are interacting with is getting more important these days, not less. If anything, this view should only be triggered if there is not enough space, not in full desktop view. As a typographer, the example screenshot is painful to look at.  3 posts with just one or two lines each that are waaaaaaaay too long for comfortable reading. This was always a problem with a default IPS installations but now it was made worse, not better. If the user info remains to the side, it also improves the readability of the post content. 

Check for template calls in places like Listing template → categoryHeader. 
It will indeed call a stock template for categoryRow there by default. But you can change that to call your custom template groups. 
There might be more places like that. In general, you want to make sure that all {template… calls point to your custom templates. 

I tested it and can confirm it. It’s hitting “save” that kills the EXIF data. Doesn’t really matter what is changed or if anything is changed at all. It’s just clicking Edit → Save. 

It never really was. Google just follows the user. If a site offers the most relevant content for a search query, then it’s what the user wants to see, whether it takes 500 milliseconds longer to load or not. Only if different sites have exactly the same ranking otherwise, then maybe your ranking position changes a bit. But in general, search results are not ordered by speed. That would be ridiculous. 
Optimizations are still useful of course, but there is no reason to obsess about them. There are much more impactful changes to be made on the site itself, e.g. how to name pages/forums/topics, how to structure a menu and so on. 

It never really was. Google just follows the user. If a site offers the most relevant content for a search query, then it’s what the user wants to see, whether it takes 500 milliseconds longer to load or not. Only if different sites have exactly the same ranking otherwise, then maybe your ranking position changes a bit. But in general, search results are not ordered by speed. That would be ridiculous. 
Optimizations are still useful of course, but there is no reason to obsess about them. There are much more impactful changes to be made on the site itself, e.g. how to name pages/forums/topics, how to structure a menu and so on. 

It never really was. Google just follows the user. If a site offers the most relevant content for a search query, then it’s what the user wants to see, whether it takes 500 milliseconds longer to load or not. Only if different sites have exactly the same ranking otherwise, then maybe your ranking position changes a bit. But in general, search results are not ordered by speed. That would be ridiculous. 
Optimizations are still useful of course, but there is no reason to obsess about them. There are much more impactful changes to be made on the site itself, e.g. how to name pages/forums/topics, how to structure a menu and so on. 

It never really was. Google just follows the user. If a site offers the most relevant content for a search query, then it’s what the user wants to see, whether it takes 500 milliseconds longer to load or not. Only if different sites have exactly the same ranking otherwise, then maybe your ranking position changes a bit. But in general, search results are not ordered by speed. That would be ridiculous. 
Optimizations are still useful of course, but there is no reason to obsess about them. There are much more impactful changes to be made on the site itself, e.g. how to name pages/forums/topics, how to structure a menu and so on. 

It never really was. Google just follows the user. If a site offers the most relevant content for a search query, then it’s what the user wants to see, whether it takes 500 milliseconds longer to load or not. Only if different sites have exactly the same ranking otherwise, then maybe your ranking position changes a bit. But in general, search results are not ordered by speed. That would be ridiculous. 
Optimizations are still useful of course, but there is no reason to obsess about them. There are much more impactful changes to be made on the site itself, e.g. how to name pages/forums/topics, how to structure a menu and so on. 

It never really was. Google just follows the user. If a site offers the most relevant content for a search query, then it’s what the user wants to see, whether it takes 500 milliseconds longer to load or not. Only if different sites have exactly the same ranking otherwise, then maybe your ranking position changes a bit. But in general, search results are not ordered by speed. That would be ridiculous. 
Optimizations are still useful of course, but there is no reason to obsess about them. There are much more impactful changes to be made on the site itself, e.g. how to name pages/forums/topics, how to structure a menu and so on.