Michael

I think, personally, that this shouldn't be a site-wide setting that changes the behavior for all members, but rather it should be something individual members set as a preference in their My Settings pages. Clearly as we can see from this topic, we have some folks who really like external links opening in a new window, and some who always want to control whether or not this happens. As it is on this site, the powers that be decided that they would leave this setting to No, and so that means that all of us members here have to live with that.

It's not like they went out of their way to have it not use ajax, I just think they didn't forsee that folks would want to have it work like a Shoutbox (since that's not what it's intended to be).

How would it do it with one click? IP.MindReading? It would have to in order to figure out with one click which posts you wanted to move and what you wanted to call the new topic you're moving them to.

[quote name='G

You can do this already, click the box in the upper right corner of the posts you want to move and choose Split Topic from the Post Moderation dropdown box.

What if you're not showing calendar events or birthdays? The stats section is going to be floating in the lower right corner with whitespace beside it.

I never had any problem with ieSpell when I used Internet Explorer. :unsure:

No, there is no way around it, if javascript was allowed to be posted in the editor you'd run into all kinds of security issues.

Note that only HTML will work, javascript will not. Anytime you use the IP.Board editor, all javascript code gets stripped out when it process the input you give it.

Will there be some way for it to be able to deal with false reports? Say someone goes to a bunch of sites I'm a member at and reports me as a spammer on those sites. Will the system be able to detect that that's bogus?

There's a difference between these features of the software you mentioned and this new service: those don't require IPS to have the additional expense of running a new server to store this central repository. If IPS has to be the ones to build and maintain this system, and pay for anything involved in keeping it running, then it makes sense that only those who are still actually regular paying customers get access to that.

http://mashable.com/2009/07/16/ie6-must-die/

I think, personally, that this shouldn't be a site-wide setting that changes the behavior for all members, but rather it should be something individual members set as a preference in their My Settings pages. Clearly as we can see from this topic, we have some folks who really like external links opening in a new window, and some who always want to control whether or not this happens. As it is on this site, the powers that be decided that they would leave this setting to No, and so that means that all of us members here have to live with that.

You can't compare the response time on a single IPS ticket registered at a time when they have just released a new major version to a random vBulletin ticket, that's apples to oranges. Are the response times from IPS a little longer than typical right now? Yes, they are. This would not be a good time to judge what the 'typical' response time for IPS on their tickets would be. Things will improve as time goes on.

@Patrick Shaw
The key word in my statement is 'regular' paying customers. Perpetual or Lifetime licenses aren't offered anymore, and haven't been in years; they're not the norm anymore. IPS has done more than most companies would with such customers. As stated, they're not taking anything away from customers with these licenses, your forums will continue to operate just as they do today. They're just offering something completely new and only giving it to the folks who use the only licenses they offer now, I don't think that's such a terrible thing. People who own Perpetual or Lifetime licenses (of which I am also one) have a pretty good thing that a lot of others wish they could get, it's kind of greedy to want even more than the benefits you already get IMO.

[quote name='G

Will there be some way for it to be able to deal with false reports? Say someone goes to a bunch of sites I'm a member at and reports me as a spammer on those sites. Will the system be able to detect that that's bogus?

Since in the announcement nothing is mentioned about that I'll it here: is there any way for us forum admins with an active license to ask for the removal of an address/IP from the spam list if a certain data is marked wrongly as spam?

I'm sure there is a way (maybe opening a ticket) but a fast way to report such things is needed when a lot of people will use this system after the release :)



A good idea indeed :thumbsup:

Will there be some way for it to be able to deal with false reports? Say someone goes to a bunch of sites I'm a member at and reports me as a spammer on those sites. Will the system be able to detect that that's bogus?

When we are developing an app and we are getting to the point where we are ready to build all of the XML files in order to package the app for redistribution, there are several pages we have to visit to create these files. In addition, on each page we visit, typically the option we have to click to build that particular file will build a lot more than what we actually want.

Consider this scenario: I am working on an application that has language strings (both admin and public), modules, CSS, skin templates, settings, and bbcodes. Each of these items has its own XML file. In order to create that file, I turn on IN_DEV and go to a different page in the ACP to find what I need to do. For example, to create the XML of the language strings, I go to the Manage Languages page and use a form at the bottom to export the XML file for my app. Doing that not only creates the XML for my app, but for ALL apps. Next, if I want to create the XML for my modules, I go to the Applications & Modules page, click on my app, and then click the Export button there. That one, oddly enough, asks me to save the XML file on my computer instead of putting it into the application directory. To export my settings I go to the Settings page and click the Export All link there, again exporting stuff for every app instead of just the one I want to package.

What I'd like to see is a place on the Applications page where I have a single link where I can click to export all of the XML data for that app, and for just that app. There's too much running around that's needed to create all of these XMLs at this point.

How would it do it with one click? IP.MindReading? It would have to in order to figure out with one click which posts you wanted to move and what you wanted to call the new topic you're moving them to.

Currently, in order to edit a hook to change something like which template it hooks into, you have to turn on IN_DEV mode. This is bad because it puts the whole site into developers mode. We should be able to edit a hook's properties without having to enable IN_DEV.

In 2.3.6, it was possible to view a user's profile through a link in the Manage Members section of the ACP. It would open in a new window so you could look at the member's most recent posts and topics. This was useful for helping determine if new users were spammers or not.

This functionality has been removed in 3.0.0. Now in order to view a member's posts and topics one has to open another browser window in the regular forum and do a second search.

It would be nice to either have a tab added that shows the recent posts/topics, or a link which allows such a search from the ACP.

Currently, in order to edit a hook to change something like which template it hooks into, you have to turn on IN_DEV mode. This is bad because it puts the whole site into developers mode. We should be able to edit a hook's properties without having to enable IN_DEV.

When you're in a topic and you choose the topic moderation option to delete that topic, you not only get a javascript prompt asking you to confirm this, but upon accepting that you go to a second page where you have to once again confirm you want to delete the topic. Did folks have a problem with the old way, where you only got one confirmation screen? The new way seems like overkill to me.