Clover13

Any idea why my task was locked but I had no logs? And only one of my sites had the locked queue task? All I see is: Tasks do not usually log anything if they run without error.

I just got this notification in my admincp but there are no logs (30 day retention)

I'm adding multi-day events but each day has varying hours. For now I'm just listing the start of day 1 and end of the last day but it would be better to allow specifying hours for each day when applicable as these venues aren't open 24/7 and it isn't very efficient to add an Event per day to achieve this, not to mention each Event being considered unique and taking up duplicate space on your Upcoming Events block/list.

@Jim Quinn, tagging you so you're aware of the split topic (you may not be). Also please see my comment above.

If you're talking about Sovrn Commerce, they provide a JS snippet you can add to your Theme >> Header and Footer >> Footer HTML section.

Nevermind, was a name matching issue and mistype. Both valid and invalid usernames appear the same in the "To" section. TIL the error message "cannot receive messages" is an indicator of an invalid username.

Yeah I saw that there, and wasn't sure if the member's messenger settings were held differently than an Admin level setting to disable it. @Marc Stridgen do you want me to PM it to you?

Not exceeding the quota from what I can see in AdminCP:

I tried to message a member and received an error: {member} cannot receive messages. I'm assuming that member disabled their messenger, which I thought would prevent members from messaging them but not admins/mods, however I found I cannot message them either. Is there an override for this? Where can I verify they have disabled their messenger without logging into their account?

FWIW, I removed Tapatalk entirely from my sites a couple months ago. As you've experienced, their support is lacking, security is a concern, and their hijacking of your content is an even bigger concern. I'd make efforts to review your uploaded images/videos and try to reclaim them from Tapatalk servers (as I've personally seen them just disappear there and your topics will get hit with 404s on image/video retrievals). Some members didn't like it initially, but quickly learned, adapted to and even prefer the responsive mobile design of IPS. Some like that "app" selection feel as opposed to opening a browser app and then navigating to a URL. To achieve this, they can save the site to their device homepage as an icon (thereby appearing as an app) and load it that way.

OK, however I am confused by it so I want to make sure I'm describing it correctly. There are three parts to this feature: The profile photo being uploaded (full resolution) The profile thumbnail (thumbnail resolution) The profile photo presented in the profile (displayed resolution upscaled from the thumbnail) Are there other areas the thumbnail is used that storing it at less than the profile photo display size is important or beneficial? I understand it's a space saver (matter of a few kB maybe?), but it seems to conflict with the goal because it reduces the resolution and then rescales it back up causing the pixelation. Why would these not match to maintain the visual fidelity, i.e. the upload process recognizes the member's profile photo dimensions and creates a corresponding matching thumbnail that is sized to match that space? Otherwise you'll just have all pixelated profile photos (which is exactly what is being seen). I can create an enhancement request to this effect but I want to ensure I'm not missing some other aspect to this that makes it not a good idea.

To clear up, the thumbnail saved on upload is 100x75 and then cropped to 75x75 but displayed as 120x120 in the profile photo under the profile page https://site.com/profile/{id}-username What's confusing is the thumbnail vs the display and how this can be controlled, unless you must edit certain underlying theme properties (not visible in the AdminCP) to achieve matching resolutions of display (profile photo) to what is thumbnailed for that exact display (via the profile photo upload process). Each of those is a separate configuration, but they *should* match no?

Hi Jim, can you obfuscate the URL or send PM if you want to go over specific details? Thanks. Let me review what you put in place and I'll reply back.

OK, both sites have been updated for AdminCP and FTP. You can test it with the account I created for you on either site. Thanks!

OK so I switched to the default theme, deleted the profile photo, renamed the original file, reuploaded it as a profile photo and have identical results: Rendered size:120 × 120 px Rendered aspect ratio:1∶1 Intrinsic size:51 × 51 px Intrinsic aspect ratio:1∶1 File size:10.6 kB

I customized the theme many years ago, but even in the default IPS theme, where is the 90x90 defaulting set that you suspect is overridden? I'll keep looking for it as well.

Thanks @Jim M, I never, ever, EVER use Edge, so was completely unaware they changed the default behavior of this.

Maximum profile photo storage size is set to 5000 kB, so that's not it. Where is the theme based setting? I can't locate anything that defines the size to save these (90x90 for example)

OK so I think the issue is that the profile image is saved as a 51x51 image by IPS, but then displayed as 120x120 in the profile thereby pixelating. Not exactly sure where you set the sizing for these, other than the Member Group >> Social >> Maximum profile photo width/height I have it set to 100px, yet it's saving as 51x51 px and rendering to 120x120 px? Rendered size:120 × 120 px Rendered aspect ratio:1∶1 Intrinsic size:51 × 51 px Intrinsic aspect ratio:1∶1 File size:10.6 kB

I can't edit the initial post, but the Amazon example is actually all just text and not linked. The link is made by an affiliate library I use that I disabled and retested. So any arbitrary link, the default behavior is the plain text substitution wrapped by a <p>

Microsoft Edge Version 109.0.1518.52 (Official build) (x86_64) When you copy a URL from the Edge address bar and paste it into the IPS forum post/reply editor, it will paste a text substitution instead. Example: https://www.google.com/ Posts: Example: https://www.amazon.com/deals?ref_=nav_cs_gb Posts

Browser is latest Chrome (happens to me as well). Original photo is 1000x563 and 69KB

Seems changing IPS PNG compression has no effect. Whether it's 0 or 9, the profile image appears the same.

A member reported a pixelation aspect to their profile photo whereas they upload a large, high resolution photo and it correctly gets resized for the profile photo, however it is significantly pixelated. Image settings in IPS are set to the max and I see the same result whether using GD or ImageMagick. The test file is also a PNG and has no such pixelation.

Never realized once it was used it disappeared. TIL! 🙂