Michael

Hello.

Yes, this section is reserved for Feedback.

If you're a Customer, you must login to the Forum using the *same* email address and password that you used when you purchased the software. Doing so will give you full access to the other sections.

If you created your Forum account before purchase, then simply logout and log back in to synchronize your permissions.

If you continue to have a problem, just send a regular Email to: accounts@invisionpower.com and they will be able to straighten out any issues.

Thank you.

I would suggest you simply contact IPS directly either by submitting a ticket in your client center or using one of the other listed contact methods. For privacy reasons, IPS won't comment publicly about specific legal issues like this.

I love when people reply to old threads. :lol:

Indeed, there was no reason to bump this topic back up.

The only built-in workaround for this I can think of is turning the setting 'Prevent other codes parsing?' for the quote bbcode off, but that would stop all other bbcodes from being parsed inside of quote tags too.

You can download IP.Board 2.3.6 from your client center, but there's no way to downgrade an existing installation, you'd need to set up a new forum using that version instead.

How about license's for saaaay IP.Downloads?

Also where could one offer his licens for sale?

You don't sell individual licenses, you would sell the entire account with all of its associated licenses. Bear in mind, though, that this is not endorsed by IPS in any way, it's a transaction between the buyer and seller only, and it's up to the seller to remove any info like credit card numbers from the profile and provide login info to the buyer.

You need to post in the peer-to-peer support forums or open a ticket in your client center for support, this forum is for feedback only.

You're missing a </div> on the Today's Top Posters sidebar hook, it messes up the layout pretty badly if you are showing that hook. There's no tracker category for this skin on your site yet, hope you don't mind me reporting this here. :)

I like the fact that the UCP got some attention in IP.Board 3.x and has a new structure to it, but I too sometimes find it hard to locate the setting I need. Someone in the other topic mentioned a live search system similar to the ACP, I think that would be great. It's not like live-searching the whole board, there is a much smaller set of data that would need to be searched and that data set would only expand with the addition of new areas in the UCP through the installation of new apps/modules, not through simply having more posts/members on a site.

This suggestion gets a +1 from me :)

On those sites where resources would be an issue (ie. really busy ones), it doesn't make sense to show a block that would potentially have old cached data, you'd want real-time fresh results since it's going to change so often.

Are you sure you don't have that dot in other skins as well? And that you didn't accidentally add that in yourself? I don't see that on this site or on my own.

[quote name='rct2

No, I understand exactly what he means, and it's something IPS often does as well. But when literally hundreds of files change from one version to the next, producing an upgrade pack is a waste of time. When a new version only does change a few files, then expect to see small upgrade packs again.

Seriously, how pressed are we all for time when the difference between spending 15 minutes uploading files and 5 is seen as that big of a deal?

There were hundreds of changed files between 3.0.3 and 3.0.4, they did not release any upgrade pack. Just upload all of the 3.0.4 files and run the upgrade. It really shouldn't take any longer than 15 minutes to upload all of the 3.0.4 files.

In 2.3, once you read a topic it didn't stay 'unread' until you marked the board as read, it was read at that point. I'm pretty sure the 'since last visit' option they added is the same as the 2.3 behavior, they added it because people wanted something similar to the 2.3 way of searching.

The reason that wouldn't function is that your idea does nothing to check permissions. Exactly which posts do you propose should be stored in this table? Only posts that guests could see? Or that only registered members could see? Or all posts? As an admin I might want to see posts in any forum, but obviously I don't want posts in hidden forums shown to everyone. And if that table just stores 10 posts, but 3 of those are in admin/staff forums, then the block could only show the other 7 to everyone else.

The block I threw together to test this is as resource friendly as it can get while still checking permissions, and it's too resource intensive for the board I had it tested on. While it may work for 95% of the boards out there, the other 5% make it something that can't be included in the base product.

I agree, that doesn't make sense that pinned topics wouldn't be visible in this case. :)

Automatic quote on reply. I do not want members to automatically quote the previous post on reply.

Each post has a Reply button on it, when members click that they will quote that post. If they don't want to quote the post, they need to either use the Fast Reply section at the bottom of the page, or click the Add Reply button at the top or bottom of the page.

"View New Content" only goes back a few hours. We need that to go back 24 hours or 72 hours.

The View New Content page shows content that is 'new', or 'unread', not necessarily within a certain time limit. It sounds like the conversion from vBulletin made everything 'read', given enough time not actively reading content will make that search return more content. Note that there is also a Today's Active Topics link near the bottom of the board index page that relies on just a time limit, not the read/unread status.

Then I'm not sure what you're suggesting, just block spammers with gmail addresses? Put folks with gmail addresses on moderator approval of posts?

Just add *@gmail.com as an email address in your ban filters, it will make it so folks cannot register new accounts using a gmail.com email address, but won't affect existing members.

They used to be used, now they just look at what URL was tied to your account to see if there is a question about the legitimacy of a certain forum.

What if I wanted a certain usergroup to be able to lock threads they personally created in a certain forum? (Not sure why I'd ever want this, but...)

You are correct, there isn't a built-in way in IP.Board to set it so that a certain group of users (members using a certain permission mask, not necessarily a certain user group) can lock their own threads in a certain forum; the permission system does only let you set those six permissions you mentioned. But there is a reasoning for that: those are the permissions most likely to change on a mask-by-mask and forum-by-forum basis.

There is a resource cost for storing permissions; the more permissions you need to be storing, loading, and checking, the more CPU and memory that is needed to load the page. Multiply that by the number of users hitting the pages where these permissions are checked and you could end up with a significant increase in resource usage. There has to be a balance between resource usage and features, which is why IP.Board only gives you these few options in the permissions matrix.

I'm a bit surprised the vBulletin guys think this is such a weakness, this isn't something that very often gets a lot of attention from customers here saying that it needs any improvement.

My last opened ticket, it was opened yesterday in the morning. This is where all this frustration comes from, when something is not working i am blocked in my development procedures.

The need the ticket number, not just when it was opened. If you don't have a number for it, my guess is you might not have actually successfully submitted it. It happens sometimes, but it's something you should check before you post a public topic about how awful you think support is.

On another forum site you can search for 3 letter words and 2 letter words by using quotes "usa" for example - I am not sure if this is a built in feature or something written for the software - but perhaps this is a way around the 4 character limit?

They're either running Sphinx or they have done the change to MySQL I referred to. AS I said, it's possible to change this limit, but the vast majority of board owners will not have the ability to do so.

I agree with these suggestions. Searching these forums is often a lesson in frustration.

I would also suggest reducing the minimum keyword size to three characters instead of four. That would make it much easier to search for various technical terms, such as "css".

..Al

As stated elsewhere in this topic, this site should behave like a typical IP.Board installation so that folks who buy the product know what they're getting. That being said, 4 characters is the minimum search limit defined by MySQL, and while it is changeable, it's not something most folks will have access to change; most folks who buy IP.Board will be limited to 4 characters searches so that's what this board needs to do as well.

And, if you're going to search for a common TLA like CSS, you're going to get results that aren't helpful.