Wolfie

Since posts/topics have a history to them (like if you delete a post from a topic, when you view the history, it tells you where it came from), it'd be nice to be able to undo the changes.

If it's a post that's been deleted, then be able to undelete it (ie, return it to the original topic). If it's been moved, split, merged, etc, anything that has a trail to it, be able to click a small button to under that specific item. That way if a post was deleted by mistake and ends up in the trashcan, then instead of moving it back to the right forum and then merging it back with the topic, you can just undo it and it'll be remerged with the topic.

Typically we perform closed alpha testing and open it up to customers when most of the bigger issues have been fixed.

That's what I'd like to test. :D

I'd love to test an alpha of the next IPB release. :D

Not sure if this has been requested or not. I know that many mods make use of permission masks now (such as tracker for example). There are some permission masks that are forum-use only, ie, would never be used except for granting permission to certain forums. So it would be nice if I could specify a permission mask as forum only or being global. That way if I have (say 20) masks that are only used for forum permissions and never for anything else, then I can set them to be forum only and then when fiddling with add-ons, I won't have those 20 to scroll past when toggling the global permissions. More or less like a "hide from add-on apps" type of flag.

If implemented, then it would make sense for all masks (existing and future) to default to global, but the admin (when editing/adding a mask) can toggle it as needed.

When about a detailed report like when they gave a rep? Because if you see a neg here and there to the same person then that's one thing, but a whole slew of neg reps to the same person in an extremely short period of time and that could be abuse.

Why? Say you have a member who is really knowledgeable about a subject, but has surgery and he's out for 6 months, not visiting your site, etc. In the mean time, users sign up and ask questions, and other users try to answer them. Say one member responds to a question and, perhaps while trying to be helpful, gives really really bad advice, something that could cause a lot of problems. The original "good" member comes back, and sees this. I would say it's reasonable for him to give the user who gave bad advice a "thumbs down" for his post, and then post the correct answer.

Random theoretical scenario and all, but you get the idea.

Let's also say that someone gets pissed off at another member or has some sort of an agenda against them *cough* and starts going to past posts just to give neg rep points for as much as they can, regardless of the quality/content of the post. At the very least, there should be an option so admins can be notified when someone is giving rep points (+ or -) to posts over a certain age. So if someone is doing it to be abusive and thinking they can 'get away with it', they'll really be caught. A member giving a rep point here or there to an old post, oh well. But you see the same member giving a few negative points to the same persons posts (older posts of course) and then you know to check it out for potential abuse.

Perhaps instead of a cut off for repping posts, have a 'grace period' for repping posts without a report being generated?

To me, it's a better idea to just issue warnings to users who can't behave themselves, and tell them to stop acting up on the forums.

Without swimming through the SQL, how do you know who is abusing it?

also .. whats up with people , giving -Rep on every post? ? i got like -5 on this post for asking a simple question .. thats great community support.

There are some trolls on the board. Your first post I could understand someone giving you a negative rep because you seem impatient in it. But after that, it's just ridiculous. (Now watch, I'll get negative rep for what I just now said.)

I gave you a few + reps to help you out some (except the first post). Someone else is giving you + points too but I don't know who.

1) Set a maximum number for how many Negatives/Positives a certain member can assign another. I have my system set up to allow 10 positive and 5 negative votes per day. It would be nice to set up a monthly or weekly limit so that one member cant constantly use his pos/neg votes against 1 member. Maybe like "Only allow 10 Negative votes per month against any given member", the same would have to be done for the Positives so people couldnt just buddy up to inflate their numbers.

I like this idea. Per reputation type, have "Limit (positive/negative) points to __ per (day/week/month/year) to the same member." Using 0 to set no limit (ie, as it is now).

2) Another way to abuse would be going back and voting on EVERY post that a member made. As such I think we should have the ability to only let people rate the last (30,60,90) days worth of posts. People should not be able to go back 3 years and give Reputation.

Why not? What if I did a search for a topic on this site and found a post that clearly and accurately addresses an issue, but it was posted 6 months ago? It may be the first time I've seen the post, and the author truly deserves reputation points for the post, but based on some arbitrary date cut-off they won't get the points?

Should be a cut off based on reputation type. Prevent someone from going to older posts just to give - to someone, but if an older post is helpful, still be able to + them.

Well if suggestion #1 is put in place, then this could be allowed. But as it is right now, the system can be abused. People should not be able to assign out Negative points to a member over and over again. Even at my low number of 5....thats still 150 points per month that could be used against a member. I have yet to find a way to SEE or PREVENT the abuse that could happen in this system. Are there log files for the Rep system that I can view? I think it would be important to limit the overall number of reputation that one member can directly assign another.

There aren't any log files in place (that I know of at least) but through some SQL queries it is possible to see who get what from who (and who gave what to another member). A tool to utilize that information to create a log file would be nice. Can select to see the details of who a member got points from, gave points to, both or see all records. A timestamp on when a rep point was given would be nice too, so if you see someone going on a rampage of -'s against another member in a limited time period (or a few people doing it), it would help to show potential abuse and something could be done about it.

What are you trying to convert?

You have to know how to get there and it's not part of the file name when you download it so you have no way of knowing which build you have on your drive.

If something like that were to be implemented, I don't think it should be a popup that would interrupt the user from typing a reply.

Gmail has something like this, where a small pop up window notifies you that the there's a new reply to the conversation. It's not a traditional popup that steals focus but more of an overlay window. Think of it like the little "Loading" tab that you see at the top sometimes. It's like that. I think something like that could be beneficial, although I'm not sure what the point would be. Either you'd finish your post and then go add in a reply to that new post or you'd lose your post to read the new one.

Once you read the topic, how would it know which post is the first unread? :blink:

You can always click on that icon, which is what I do. :)

New PM -messenger max number of PM and archive

yes document 5.a section 45c paragraph 96a subsection D clearly states "Anyone who creates a avatar that is similar or representative of a members of staff's will be eaten by Lindy and then regurgitated and burnt".

That was amended. Now it's defecated then thrown into a spinning fan.

The idea I'm suggesting would be to do a secondary check on a low-key basis, that way you get the benefit of a second check when there might be a positive hit while not putting a major toll on the service. Checking the same accounts time and time and time again gets wasteful.

It's the staff's thing, let them keep them. It looks good and should be exclusive at least here at IPSF, do what you want at you own board. :)

I want the overall look to use as an option at my own board. :P

The new IPS avatar (minus the IPS logo of course) would totally rock. I mean as far as the rule against using avatars with the IPS logo, if someone was really out to do it, they could easily do it (not that it makes it okay or anything). Just I like the overall look. :)

I'm more interested in the general design. Keep the logo out of it. It's not the logo that would be of use anyway. :)

I'm not sure I agree about three days--I'd want new accounts to be checked more frequently so they are properly flagged as quickly as reasonably possible. A new spam account that's been validated for three days is probably one that's going to end up posting spam on my forum. I'd rather have false positives than spam accounts that are missed. If an account is improperly flagged and it's a legitimate user, they can write the admin to ask why their account is not active. I'd rather have this than spammers posting the garbage I saw earlier today on my forum.

I said false negatives, not false positives. The idea of checking each account one additional time would be to limit the resources used. Can you imagine a very busy board that gets about 100 new registrations a day, checking say 300 accounts a day? One site alone, not a big deal. But add on multiple busy sites along with the tons of smaller sites and suddenly 300 accounts a day becomes a big drag on the resources.

However, waiting a few days allows sites to report new spammers so that you can start getting accurate responses when you do a followup check on an account. If someone manages to get registered because they're not flagged yet, then aside from constantly checking every few minutes, you're going to have spammers who get in and spam before they are registered as hits on the service. What you want is unrealistic, as you want it to stop a spammer before they have gained a 'reputation' as being a spammer. How do you expect the service to work for you? The service relies on people reporting spammers so that when that spammer uses the same information to register on more sites, they are then known as a spammer and can be stopped from proceeding.

Which falls back to the checking of accounts that are over 3 days old. If the spammer registered on your site and passed the check because they didn't gain a reputation yet, then if they have plans to hit your site but haven't yet, then by the time they do, their account might have already been banned/suspended because that re-check caught them.

The service is a give and take. You gain the benefit of stopping spammers that others reported, just like they'll get that same benefit when you report spammers who hit your site.

Here's an idea.

Set it up so that once a week, new registrations (that are 3 to 10 days old) are bundled sent to the spam server and if any 'new' hits are returned, then the proper action can be taken on an account. Otherwise that account marked as "clean" so it's not checked again. That marking could also be done by an Admin, so that the account doesn't get checked, which can be useful if the admin knows it might get flagged even though it's a legit person.

The time interval could be adjusted to be daily or even hourly if necessary, for busy boards. Although it should only check on accounts that are over 3 days old (to give time to let spam reports build up first to prevent false negatives).

The new IPS staff avatars look rather nice. Also looks nice on Alex (albeit green because he's a community developer).

Any chance of a GDK/PSD being released for those who want to have similar avatar styles for different boards? :D

@Matt - *bump*

:D

This is the feedback forum, you need to ask this in the Peer to Peer support forum.

Also it would help if there was a link to your board.

Something that vB has that IPB doesn't.. "Smart" marking of read topics. If you read a topic that has new posts but you don't read the last page of the topic, then it's still marked as unread (because really, you have unread posts in that topic). If you happen to start reading the topic (say the first of 5 pages) and your first unread marker is in page 3, then it'll take you to that first unread post on page 3. If you go to page 3 and then look at the topic list again, I believe it'll take you to the first post on page 4 (since you didn't look at it or the last page yet). Basically only marks all the posts read that you might have actually read, instead of the entire topic.

If this has been asked before then ummm.. Oops.

Anyway... It would be nice if fixes made were to be documented as part of a fix in the bug tracker. I'm not talking about complex fixes, but more of simple or of elevated severity/importance.

If it's a small typo in the php code or if it's something else that only takes a couple of minutes to do, then it'd be nice to know so that members can apply the fix themselves.

If it's got a more than average severity level, that fix would be appreciated as well, at least if it's something that is severe because of the amount of functionality it affects, etc. I know that security issues are always made available via announcements, so that's not really a concern (kudos to IPS for always making those available in a very timely fashion).

Obviously if it gets complex, requiring an edit in multiple files, SQL queries, etc, then it's best for us to just wait as the instructions would take up quite a bit of time to include. But simple fixes could help us not only do minor 'upgrades' while we wait for the next release, but also if that bug fix causes another issue or isn't working quite the way it's supposed to, then it can be addressed again and another attempt made before the next release.

I'm also not talking about nightly releases or anything. Just something we we customers can do fixes to our installs if we want (and we could even pick and choose the fixes to install until the next release). When a fix isn't made available, something that explains what was happening or what was changed would be nice to.

Sometimes a fix or an explanation is included and that's very much appreciated, as it's usually done in a way that helps us to understand (in concept at least) what was wrong and what was done to correct it. Just would be nice if this was done more as a standard.

Just in case there's any misunderstanding, I'm not dogging on IPS in any way. Just that I noticed a bug in which the fix was included and it was nice to see it. I know that it'd be next to impossible to do it for every single bug reported, but if it's a simple enough fix (and I do mean simple) or if it's an important enough fix, just be nice to be able to apply it without having to wait. Obviously, all bugs reported and fixed up to this point should just be left as is. Just some feedback as 'food for thought'.