Clover13

So use the choose file link rather than drag and drop is the solution?

@Marc Stridgen Looks like it could be related to the CKEDITOR if it's the same one used by this software? This issue was opened just a few weeks ago, same dialog popup. https://jira.xwiki.org/projects/CKEDITOR/issues/CKEDITOR-431?filter=allopenissues Related to: https://github.com/ckeditor/ckeditor4/issues/5095

@Marc Stridgen, I was thinking the same thing. I haven't been able to reproduce it, but also have no idea where this alert even came from. The color scheme also doesn't match my Invision Community theme.

Member reported running into this error some of the time when uploading to a topic. Same file uploads a second try. MOV is an acceptable file type at both default level and member group level. There is no size limitation (or issue as this is a small file around 6MB) for the member group or member. Anyone have any idea where this error comes from?

Is there anything in the account logs that indicates the registration method used? It's not in the member's account activity (in the AdminCP).

Thanks Marc, sent you a couple examples in PM.

So recently I started getting emails on manual review required (spam defense) but the member gets approved automatically anyway. It appears there are two Spam Defense log entries for the same account. The first flags a 3 (manual review required) and the second flags a 1 (auto approval). However, I am not sure why there are two checks?

Yes! Thank you @Adriano Faria!

I get it, but getting client feedback early in the planning process promotes optimal feature targeting directly tied to established client value. Otherwise you're operating in the silo of your company's opinion only, which IMO could cause you to fall short on meeting some requirements your clients actually have/need/want. Iterations are on compounding enhancements with minimizing tech debt incurred, however if you pattern a solution that couples you to your vision (without consideration of the clients'), shifting to meet additional/different requirements may prove difficult (or simply costly that could have otherwise been avoided). Just my .02, been through it in a different industry a number of times.

Looking to set the default behavior for all members and let them override it in their profile if desired. Seems like the default is "Take me to the beginning"

We have some problematic members such that we want to get notified every time they post content (new topic, reply to topic, etc) but without them knowing we're watching over them (i.e. we probably can't follow them without them picking up on it and dealing with the BS around that). There is a specific reason for doing it this way (quietly/silently). Is it possible and if so, where can I set it up?

Thanks Jim, I did, as mentioned in this topic page above.

He's fixing the linking but mentioned "The only way to truly fix this issue is to transcode videos into a standard format all browsers will playback." Is that being tracked as a possible enhancement in the future?

@Matt is there a tracker link for this issue/bug? Seeing the same on my site.

The site would own the channel in my case, but good point on malicious content. Does Cloudflare not enforce copyrighting or just have more leniency because you're paying for the service? I'd imagine somewhere in their ToS they have a similar limit. You'd like need an approval process to prevent that, but that disrupts the entire workflow of users posting content and it automatically being present and creating interactions (few go "back" to look at something later). Conversely, I don't know if YouTube (or any solution) has a realtime pre-scan for violations that could catch these, block the upload, and be tied into the request/response workflow. EDIT: Looking into it here shows the takedown request process: https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/7648743?hl=en I'm not sure if YouTube just takes it down or sends a request to the channel owner and gives them an opportunity to correct the problem. Either way I'd imagine you're at risk after N violations that you'll lose your channel. And there is an auto-check on upload for copyright issues (at least in Studio) per: https://www.engadget.com/youtube-copyright-check-video-upload-144103931.html It has been here:

Nice looking solution by Cloudflare, however at a significant cost for hobby sites. Youtube and Vimeo are free to host. Could use YouTube's API as easily as Cloudflare's no? https://developers.google.com/youtube/v3/guides/uploading_a_video https://developers.google.com/youtube/v3/docs/videos/insert It would just require an orchestration of the API request and response to then embed the corresponding response video URL within the IPS content editor (a topic or topic reply for example). Similar to uploading a picture or video here, except it's externalized and the response signature differs.

Or build an interface to upload video files to a free video hosting solution (YouTube, Vimeo) that specializes in video handling and easily/automatically embeds it into IPS content. Users saved on hosting large files and gain ease of management/display of video content. IPS saves on having to be universal, browser agnostic video processing masters and eliminates all browser related embed/playback issues.

Good point. The Enterprise clients are the highest yielding margin, so it makes sense to prioritize their work for profitability. The use cases driving features are certainly going to be different, and those conversations could be happening in private with Enterprise clients (who are unlikely to join the community here and start posting with hobby site owners). I have seen a few pop up here and there but mostly when it's a pretty disastrous scenario for them and they want to voice it openly (having reached their tolerance threshold).

Also to add the Block Submissions is a great example of had it been shared ahead of time, you'd have received a bunch of feedback that could have influenced the design. Post initial release, in the event you receive feedback that drives high value and look to implement it, you are now in a likely higher cost of refactoring of the existing code base versus designing it to accommodate those aspects up front. Maybe easy to overcome if the code base is hyper abstracted and extensible, but at least historically I've seen a lot of references to "that's not easy to do in the current code", which again could be mitigated by a balanced transparency driven feedback loop with clients.

I definitely understand not wanting to prematurely share an initially targeted feature only to find it's not viable/possible and won't ever be done and having to deal with the fallout from clients (in which case you should be reconsidering if there is enough client interest [$$$+] there). However, when you share at least roadmap candidates (not definitive/approved) you can establish a feedback loop with active clients to garner value which drives investment and development priority. Without that, you're reliant on parsing through comments on your forum in unrelated topics or in piecemeal to try and conceptualize what may be valued by your clients (without actually tracking it well, although you could have something behind the scenes that is tracking it in some way already). Likewise without that, you could wind up investing in and developing something that you envision is high value but turns out not to be highly adopted or accepted. There's definitely a balance to be had, and it's somewhere in the middle of transparency and secrecy. Being on either polar end is likely not optimal.

F the PHP is also lit! Do you guys ever consider sharing your feature roadmap and bouncing it off the clients in a private forum/blog/whatever? Seems like there's a lot of interest in what's on the horizon, and clients being in the dark about it waiting for the surprise. How does IPS determine relative value of a feature as it relates to their clients' needs without establishing that feedback loop (PS the comments here aren't a good feedback loop)

TIL I learned Phil Hellmuth works for IPS and goes under the pseudonym of Matt

Just an update. Tapatalk confirmed the issue in not supporting the storage quota of conversations and will target a fix for this in their next plugin release.

I verified this is within Tapatalk. The "Friendship" and "Business" is merely the title of the PM, and counts as a "Content" credit in the Ranking system I'm guessing given the 10 point credit (i.e. Posted {content}) where {content} in the case of PMs is the title of the PM. Following up with Tapatalk again as this is a problem with their PM authorization being out of sync with IPS settings/rules configured.

No matches of Friendship in the language configuration