Wolfie

When I've used the search on this board and went directly to sort by date, it tells me that I must wait before performing another search. If it's not supposed to be doing that, then it's a bug. As for the default result method, could a future release (3.1?) have it as an ACP setting, so that it's a default regardless of skin? There is a link on each result that takes you directly to the specific post (in the way the results are shown now), just I prefer to be able to read each entire message without having to click to see the post. The drawback though, and may have something to do with it, is that there is more data to load per post (especially for really huge posts) and could be a server load issue.

I prefer being able to see the whole post (even if I have to scroll inside of a small result box per row), not just a snippet. Always disliked a board defaulting to listing the topics but then you have to read the entire topic or search within it to find why it hit (I've noticed this on vb boards, just as an example, not as a put down). When I get to the results, I either forget to click to sort by date, or I remember but then I have to wait because of doing another search too soon. It's not just resorting the results, it's redoing the search too, and that triggers the flood control. Subforum searching as in, I click on a root forum and then have it search all those underneath it (all it's children) or not, depending on what I want, without having to highlight several forums/subforums to accomplish it. Also, is there a way to make it default to date sorting rather than relevance sorting (in ACP perhaps)? That's the biggest thing for me. The multiple forums and only seeing a snippet, I can deal with, but that sorting method is a pain. :D

If someone were to buy a used blog license (as an example), then to renew it would still bring in an income for IPS. If someone wanted to get a blog license but didn't feel it worth it to pay the initial price of purchase ($50 I believe), then they could get a used one, then just have to pay $20 (I think that's the going renewal rate) for a 6 month period of support/downloads. Where as that person may not have gotten a license at all and the original holder wouldn't have renewed, IPS is now making income on an existing license. The whole idea would be to make it so that IPS would have little involvement, other than the actual transfer of the license. If it's limited to doing it to/from a reliable reseller, then they'd know that there should be very few (if any) problems. As for an IPS fee to do the transfer, $15-$20 is too much, at least when it comes to blog or older yearly licenses. If a fee were to be charged for the service, then it should be a percentage of the sale, like 10%. If the sale is for $10 (example, expired blog license), then they get $1 (yeah, small amount). But if it's for a perpetual license, the price may be $150, then IPS would make $15 for the license and then $30 for support if the person ever buys it. Could even have a minimum fee (say $5), so that there is some incentive for doing the transfer. Another idea I had includes a predetermined pricing, with the option to "under sell" the normal pricing. Basically, if someone purchased the blog (just continuing to use it as an example), then say half a year later decided that they don't want it anymore, then it could go for $25 (or less), so that the original owner won't make a 'profit' from the sale, but at the same time, with a $5 fee attached, could give the buyer a reason to consider purchasing a new blog license instead of a used one. At the same time though, if the blog has 1 month left on it, they might pay only $5 ($10 with a $5 fee attached), and they might only need that one month to download the software and then only have to pay $20 when they wish to renew the license. One idea to keep in mind, aside from trying to make this as hassle free for IPS as possible, is that it would help to bring in new customers, even if on used licenses. Someone who buys a used Lifetime license, for example, might not seem like an investment for IPS at first. But if that new customer decides to purchase an addon (gallery or blog or download), then IPS just made a sale that they wouldn't have made before. I appreciate the feedback on this idea because if it's at all possible, then it's necessary for any and all problems to be sorted out before it's even attempted. Also if there's ANY chance of IPS going along with it, I know it'd require that they deal with as little hassle as possible (if any at all). I've been using IP.Board for years and despite how other board software (like vb) may have certain mods made for it that IPB doesn't get, I stick with what I know is a solid product. Obviously I want IPS to remain in business, so the idea isn't to try to reduce their income, but to make it better so that the customer base has another door to enter through, which in turn helps their income. :)

I've been thinking about this for a short while based on seeing a few people who want to know about being able to sell one or more licenses that they hold but not all of them and I think I have an idea that could work and at the same time, would keep the amount of hassle to a minimum for IPS staff, with the exception of moving a license from one account to another. But other than that, disputes or claims of being ripped off (or whatever else) could potentially be eliminated. The idea would be to have a resource site that would be run by known and trusted IPS products (active) license holders. I was thinking that perhaps some of the IPS Resources group members could be in charge of it, as an idea. The purpose of the site would be simple too. Person who wishes to sell a license that they hold would submit a 'ticket', where as they include details of the license and what they want as a price for it. Things such as the product type, type of license (if it's IP.Board), date purchased and license number would be submitted by the owner of the license, so that there is enough information to validate that the owner is indeed trying to sell their license. In order to reduce work (long term at least) for IPS staff, an interactive module could be created that would let the 'resellers' submit the information, perhaps automatically, to validate the information provided. If all the information checks out (including a correct email address), then the license would get transferred out of the owners access and would become the indirect property of the resellers. Of course, at any time before the completion of a sales transaction and transfer of the license to a new owner, the old owner could cancel (ie get their license back). But once the transaction is complete, ie, information sent from reseller to IPS and license transferred to the new owner, then the sale would be final. If a module were written to make it more automated for the resellers to 'grab licenses', then a verification email could be sent out to the owner where they would need to click a link to release the license to the resellers. This would further decrease any possibility of fraud/theft. This could potentially work. With the owner releasing their hold on the license (especially via a verification link) to the resellers, the license would be in a holding area for the new potential owner. When someone makes a purchase and the transaction is completed, the resellers would then transfer the license to the new owner and 'forward' the payment to the original owner. In the event that PayPal is used and someone tries to take back a payment, it wouldn't be at all hard for the resellers to provide proof of the goods being delivered per the agreement, thus the new buyer being unable to steal the license. But in the event it still happens, then the resellers could have the unique ability to pull back a license, with the requirement that (via automated process) information about the canceled payment be submitted. As can be seen, there would be safeguards in place to prevent fraud as much as possible, with most of it possible to be automated, so that IPS staff can work on other more important things, while owners of IPS product licenses could still sell off individual products that they have aquired. Another thought, as part of this, and to prevent abuse and also to help cover costs, is to have a transaction fee included in the price. The original owner would see the final results before submitted their license for sale, with the transaction fee being explained to them. The fee would help cover cost of the website and also, part of it cold go to the individual reseller(s) who helped to complete the transaction (although this concept is optional). If there is a payment incentive for individual resellers, they would be a percentage based on amount of participation (from aquiring the license, to making sure the license is posted for sale, accepting/validating the payment and also transferring the license to the new owner). As said though, that would be optional, but could help reimburse some for time spent on helping to run/maintain the resource. Obviously, none of this can work without both IPS agreeing to such a setup (manual or automatic) and without known and trusted volunteers. However, I'm sure that IPS wouldn't have an issue with it provided that it would allow its customers to sell/buy used licenses with very little trouble (complaints/fraud attempts they have to deal with) and that it provides protection for its customers at the same time. Of course, I could be wrong on that, but it is to my undertanding that one of the reasons that transferring of licenses has become so restricted is to prevent problems that they were encountering on a frequent basis and to provide protection for its customers from being ripped off. I know that there will always be someone who will try to find a way to cheat the system and that no plan is "perfect", however I believe that if IPS is agreeable to such an idea and if there are trusted people in charge of it, then it could provide an outlet for those who have extra licenses they wish to unload as well as allowing those in search of a reduced price license (but not a whole package). I'm not offering to create or run such a resource, only offering up the idea. Comments welcome! to IPS: if this is something you would not agree to (flat out, no way, no how), then please feel free to mention so and I'll fully understand if you wish to close this topic to prevent someone from trying to debate the matter. Otherwise, if it's something that could be considered (which is NOT a promise of it being approved), then please bring up any concerns with the idea that have not yet been discussed. Thank you in advance for your consideration on this concept.

I think it'd be helpful if there were predetermined banner ad spots, designed so that if there isn't anything there then nothing is displayed, but if there is something, then it displays it. Then just need to have a few different templates to cover the different views (main board view, category view, forum view, topic view). Something like in the main board view, could have a spot at the top for a horizontal banner and then a space on the right for a vertical banner along with the empty sections (bits?) where the code could be placed that would then be placed in the main skin. That way someone without skinning knowledge could just fill in a few spots and have advertising available. Would definitely help if something were done to make it easier to put ads in the topic view (like after the first post as some sites have). In the end though, probably be easiest to just use an add on application to add an advertising system.

When I said "topic post was in", that was a reference not a full copy. Also, the post comparison isn't always the best idea as the data needed to regenerate the differences could outweigh the final result itself. That's why I said about using comparisons when it would be smaller than the post itself. If it's a huge post and the differences could be stored using data that is anywhere from 5% smaller to being 95% (or more) smaller than the saved data. Of course there is also the overhead involved with regenerating the data not only for the final product but also when viewing the history of several changes. Also keep in mind that for the first edit, you'd want to save a copy of the original post and not only the changes made.

Copy data to a different table (as suggested) with all necessary information (original poster, original post time, editor name and time, topic post was in, etc) along with extra options such as keep (protect from deletion). In the ACP, turning the system on/off, which groups have their edits saved, which edits to delete (how old before it gets deleted), etc. Only thing is that after edits are auto cleaned, the table would need to be optimized every so often to clear out the deletes. Also, what about storing a copy of the changes, similar to a wiki comparison? Could be useful for huge posts that have minor edits and used when it will be smaller than storing the entire post.

I don't like that it's defaulted to "most relevant" or whatever. I prefer newest results first, because typically, a search on forums is for recent activity. Haven't looked to see if I can change the default behavior in the ACP.

It still has everything.. Except for result types (topics/posts), how to sort (example, date) and whether or not to search subforums, it's all there. But now you can choose the start and ending dates instead of being restricted to relative start/end times.

Ooooooooh.... Yeah, it's not there.

Your personal profile settings? Or in the ACP? Trying to narrow it down.

By "can't edit", do you mean you can't edit the information in your profile or that you can't edit the AIM field? Can you edit the other fields like MSN or Yahoo?

The AIM/ICQ/MSN/Yahoo things have been moved into the custom profile fields. Is that what you are looking for?

I originally thought that too, until I read the description for that option... If enabled, a user accessing showxxxx=x type links will be automatically redirected to the new URL format. Oh well, can't have everything... Where would it all go?

Don't suppose an option that would modify the conf_global file to turn the feature on/off could be included (not a major issue so not a v3.0 request)? Not a big issue since it shouldn't be something that gets turned on/off on a regular basis.

Is it not included on purpose or was it accidentally overlooked? Referring to being able to toggle "use_friendly_urls" on or off via ACP.

Considering that v3.0 is feature locked, then v3.1 is the next place for certain features to get added, unless it's an important enough of a request, then it might get squeezed into v3.0. The RC1/RC2/etc aren't final released, they're testing stages leading up to the final product. That's why I'm asking ahead if it's something that will wait for v3.1, if it's going to get added.

So is it something that will get added with v3.1 or might it (or something) appear with v3.0? Only reason I labeled it as important is because in circumstances with multiple admins, if each is given different permissions (ie, not group based) then it'll be a pain to give access to everything they should have access to. There are a LOT of check boxes.. :D

I just gave it a try and in order to give access to everyone in a section, you have to check each and every option. A check box for that section (like in System Tab, Manage Settings bar) to check everything in that specific section would be majorly appreciated. Checking it should check all options in that section, unchecking that box should uncheck all boxes in that section. Something should be available for tabs to, because if someone is supposed to have access to everything in a tab except for a few options, or all options everywhere except a few spots, then that's a lot of clicks to do. I checked the bug tracker to see if this was reported as an issue and didn't find anything and since it doesn't look like it was meant to be included, I doubt it's a bug.

Okay that's cool. Just sounded weird so thought I'd mention it, in case it was an oversight. You're not going to duplicate yourself again are you? :D

"Confirmed - Ongoing Researching" doesn't sound correct. Was it meant to be "Ongoing research" or "Research ongoing"? Or is it just me that it sounds incorrect to?

I know that v3.0.0 is feature locked so not requesting it for that. Hopefully these are simple enough that they can make it into v3.1.0 though. * When you are on someone's profile and click to send them a PM, if you will not be able to complete that PM for some reason (user has their PM turned off for example), notify the user then instead of when they click the "send" button. If they do it from their own messenger, where they have to type in the name, then that's different. * Made this request back in the v2.2.x days. In the ACP, for the listing of bans (IP/username/email), have each in a separate tab. That way the admin can view only the list they want to see. * For bans, allow option to use regular expressions, per ban. Default would be as it is now, but when adding a ban, admin to select to say that the ban is using a regular expression. For those who know how to use it, it would provide greater power for banning multiple objects in a single line instead of adding multiple lines. * For bans, allow multiple lines to be entered at the same time (via option to add multiple filters at one time). Could only be one filter type at a time, such as IP or email, but could enter one ban per line, then submit all at one time. * Some way of detecting if the board is on an IPS server or not. If not, give the admin the option to not honor a members choice to not receive bulk emails. I don't know if IPS hosting customers can modify their own source but if not, then perhaps include a line to edit in a specific file that would enable the option. * If last item is not possible, then some option for being able to send out an email to everyone in the selected user groups in an effort to test email addresses. Way I see it, if someone doesn't have a valid email address, I don't want them to have access on the board. Wouldn't have to be a big email and could be something internal that can't be easily altered. Something small like "Account status checking" for the topic and inside a brief explanation letting the member know that no action is necessary, it's just checking for expired accounts and to please not mark it as spam. Also restricting how often it can be used would be a nice idea, to prevent abuse. * Facebook: Be able to prohibit the creation of new accounts using FBC, but allow members to associate accounts with Facebook. * Facebook: Allow admin access to view/edit a members Facebook information (including a link to view the members profile). * Custom profile fields: Include 2 lines that the admin can use, both optional of course. First line would be a URL/link line. Second would be a display format. Both would replace {content} with the members input. This would be useful when external services are made into fields, such as Twitter or Photobucket, etc. Also could be used to replace all the if/then and else-if statements in the skin to cover things like AIM, MSN, etc. As I said before, I know that it's too late for v3.0.0 so please consider for v3.1.0 or v3.2.0 (if there will be such a version). For those who feel compelled to tell me that v3.0.0 is feature locked, please read this post again.