Clover13

Bumping this one as I'm still having an issue with a different RSS feed that is valid but is returning the same error. Are there any logs I can look at that might give me more information than the response payload? That is not a valid RSS or Atom feed.

I'm confused by the NOT part of YouTube, Vimeo, etc. Have you ever seen them block or throttle embedded playback? Why would they care? Their ads are embedded within the videos, no? Sure they want you to be on their site to get eyes on other videos, but I've never seen anything that would prevent one from using them as a FREE video hosting provider (in fact that's what everyone does who uses them) and sharing it in other ways whether that's on a separate website, an IPS based site, Wordpress, or whatever. What are the disadvantages you've identified with using YouTube or Vimeo for these purposes? The one that does indeed have merit is what @Chris027 alluded to regarding ad payouts, but the benefit of FREE storage and simplification/mastering of video processing and analytics may outweigh that for many. I totally understand IPS' desired approach to the video hosting solution and the set of applications available on AWS to support the desired workflow, but making it a cloud-only feature once again puts self hosted clients in a corner. This is going to be the continued nature of cloud based hosting as it will have cloud specific features available to it that self hosted does not. It puts IPS and clients between a rock and a hard place when product decisions are made that only benefit cloud clients. On top of that (and maybe the bar is lower today), doing video "well" has historically been a challenge. Is this an area that is worth IPS' development time when others have already mastered it? Again, I'm not clear on the benefits to an IPS approach, but I do see the downsides (maybe too much devil's advocate in me).

I get that side of the coin too, but you can monetize YouTube. Does IPS have video monetization built into video? I haven't seen it. You can also embed your YouTube videos into IPS and monetize around the video (literally around it), while also monetizing the video itself (within it). I've posted an enhancement request in the past, the goal isn't to direct traffic away from our IPS communities to YouTube, it is to interface with YouTube for video handling, processing, storage and browser agnosticism...and then embed that video within our IPS content automatically. When you upload a video to IPS (say in forums), leverage YouTube's API to upload it to a channel, then embed the YouTube URL where that attachment would otherwise go. This is an oversimplified workflow not accounting for asynchronous behavior and post submission updates, but it seems feasible and offers stronger benefits than IPS trying to become YouTube IMHO (unless video processing/handling/storage/presentation has become easier). Either way, video storage alone is a high cost, and YouTube frees you of that. On top of that, YouTube has strong analytics to leverage viewership, trends, etc to learn and adapt your content.

Pretty disappointing to see this proprietary cloud-only video approach. Video IS the wave and it's one of the biggest gaps to IPS. Video is HARD, so I'm baffled as to why IPS would want to incur the cost of enhancing this with a cloud-only solution and also incur the resource and storage cost for cloud customers (driving cloud pricing up in all likelihood) versus leveraging YouTube, Vimeo, etc and their APIs to make a cloud and self hosting solution that saves everyone time and money, as well as ports video handling into the hands of companies that have already mastered it.

Run this on your database via phpMyAdmin and it'll give you a rough idea (number of posts that have images but not the actual number of images). I did an ugly iterative approach to fix these since it was a one time fix. SELECT fp.* FROM forums_posts fp WHERE fp.post like concat('%','uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com','%') ORDER BY fp.post_date DESC; You're just looking for posts that have reference to uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com

They've definitely changed their wording. Maybe it is the $5/month plan that does it, it isn't clear in their description but I thought it was the $10/month plan that said it specifically at one time. Here's a screenshot for the Branding control where Image Hosting is set to enabled (they make it seem like uploading to them is good). You'll be prompted to pay for one of the plans to Disable this setting. You get to this by logging into your account, going to your account setup, then Manage Groups and then Manage Settings of one of your groups (sites). From there you'll see Branding Control in the left menu.

Yep, they require you to pay them $10/month to upload to your server instead. Wild huh? I actually just finished recovering all I could from Tapatalk servers on my sites and then moving them to my IPS storage (S3 in this case) and then ran SQL updates to update the corresponding links in every post. Tapatalk actually lost a bunch of the images, many were returning 404s even in the same post (post not topic, i.e. from the same member) where some images did work, i.e. this wasn't a case where the member deleted some of the images themselves as the links/embeds were still there and the images were all part of a "story" post and relative. So I recovered what I could, pushed it all to my servers and updated the DB. Then happily deleted Tapatalk from my sites.

What is the Publish feature you're referring to? The IPS Promote or the direct Facebook Publish (copy and paste approach)? I was OK with the IPS Promote as the workflow was faster than doing it directly on FB, but right now I feel like without Adriano's add-on I'd have to spend $20/month to get Zapier to do it (without the og:image) or manually do the copy/paste and image upload to FB directly for every post I want to share.

From what I can see, at best I can set an og:image and then share via Zapier but the multi-step Zap will require $20/month just to do this (but it's also mostly automated and controlled via a manual Feature). However, the manual effort it takes to mark a topic as a Feature topic is nearly the same as just sharing directly on FB (via IPS's embedded FB share) with the same og:image behavior using Adriano's add-on. Maybe it's worth the monthly cost to Zapier if I ever do more sophisticated and regular Zaps and get some offsetting value from it. However, right now, I can't justify the $20/month just do replace the IPS Promote to Facebook.

Thanks @Marc Stridgen, I think I see one way to do it by labeling an item as Promoted (as an example approach) and then can set up the Filter criteria. Are you aware of a way to attach/upload an image as part of the Zapier publish to a FB page similar to what IPS did before (giving you the set of attached images in the topic to select from)?

Just wanted to add this add-on by @Adriano Faria is a great substitute, the only caveat is the difference between using an og:image in Facebook's native share versus being able to upload a picture and get a better/bigger resolution image for an impactful and consistent share like the IPS Promote would do. Nothing really in Adriano's control, as the FB share option is the FB implementation, whereas the IPS Promote was a custom approach using FB APIs (?).

I've read posts here about using Zapier to replace the Facebook promote that was native to IPS, however I'm not seeing a way to selectively publish topics as desired (like we would do when we wanted to promote something). I've seen where you can filter on certain forums and can publish every topic but not selective ones. Is there a way to achieve selective publishes to Facebook via Zapier?

It appears to be a source site issue, not something in the AdminCP. Subsequent attempts to add it eventually work. Sorry @Jim M, thanks for the quick reply and review!

I'm trying to set up an RSS feed to a forum, but getting an error "That is not a valid RSS or Atom feed." I can PM the feed address, and it's W3C Feed Validation Service confirming it is valid.

I did notice in the last release I had the Facebook share box with a checkbox option (some underscore name like promote_to_page) which still worked. Now that is all gone. This was a pretty significant way for me to attract traffic from FB to my site and it did work. What changed with FB or what do you mean by making it almost impossible to add?

Went to promote a forum topic today and the Facebook promotion option was no longer there, only the Twitter one and Top Picks. Can't seem to locate where this is configured now.

OK thanks @Randy Calvert and @Jim M, minor thing! 🙂

Not sure if this is new or I never noticed it but it does impact the post login landing page. Is this customizable somewhere? I don't see it defined in FURLs. Login and you'll be redirected to https://{yoursite}/?_fromLogin=1

Just an FYI for anyone who may try to do something similar, this seems to work now in 4.7.5 👍

Verified this issue is now fixed and working for me in 4.7.5, thank you! 👍

Shot in the dark but any chance anyone else made the mistake of installing Tapatalk only to realize Tapatalk took those Tapatalk using members uploads and saved them to their Tapatalk servers instead of your site's? Anyone subsequently built a set of scripts to download the media from Tapatalk, save on the site's storage and update all DB references?

Thanks @Marc Stridgen!

@Marc Stridgen just checking in if this has a target resolution date or if you have a link I can track its progress until it is released? Unfortunately it impacts creating any custom FURL for us which is significant.

Ok I manually created their account for them.

So a user tried to register and got blocked by IPS spam check with a score of 4. When I google the email address I find no traces of it anywhere. Does that seem correct? SFS shows no matches