Allegheny

I fixed a lot of this. There’s a pending version in the marketplace. Let me know if it still there after update. 

I hope not as well.
We'd be right behind you...

I hope not 🙁

That would be the day we'd immediately begin transitioning to another platform.

No, it's not a terrible idea on its face, and I don't think it's fair to characterize it as such. IPS is now dealing with the reality of the concerns raised during the beta. If I, as a customer, had a marketplace available to me of supported, quality products, that IPS took ownership of, controlled, and gave me assurances would be supported long term, I'd have no issue here. I'd just open up a support request, let you know that something was not working right, and IPS would help me fix it.
Now that you recognize the degree to which the items available via Marketplace are not following your best practices, I'm glad you're doing something about it. Please continue that effort. It improves the ecosystem. Yet, I think we'd be better served if you owned the shortcomings of the execution of that strategy, rather than characterizing those who alerted you to the issue in advance of having some sort of agenda. I also think you need to be in better touch and communication with your stakeholders regarding your roadmap for major changes like this and involve them in those conversations so you can get a better sense of the impact that may be difficult to see from your perspective. We could have likely had a thirty minute call that could brought to light these issues and concerns earlier on in the process and have helped guided your direction and execution. I think IPS would be well served to seek out and embrace those sorts of partnerships with customers.
Maybe that's the goal, yet the state of Marketplace in 4.4 and below was exactly the opposite, and you're now catching up. From our vantage point, the Marketplace was a hodgepodge of questionable practices, of which there was no assurance of quality, stability, or functionality. I'm glad higher degrees of scrutiny are being placed on new offerings, and that you're seeing just how that was the case, yet the purpose of my opening the topic is to ask what happens when your best of intentions fail. This is an example of where there's a clear lapse in the considerations being made by reviewers. This is an issue IPS needs to address to reach your goal. Part of the review plan should be install/upgrade/delete this on a large sized community.
We purchased your software because it was modifiable, and with the intent to modify it ourselves to suit our community's needs. We know that what is good for our community may be completely different from the needs of other customers. And to be able to create modifications, we do need the access to developer documentation and to the community of developers that is currently available only to those who contribute Marketplace resources. We purchased modifications from your Marketplace in 4.4 because we were able to see, understand, support, and take over maintenance of those resources without depending on someone else. Now that this isn't the case, and we don't yet have the necessary trust in the direction the Marketplace is shifting, we've had to quickly reverse course and strategy to making the modifications ourselves. We went from two custom modifications in 4.4 that weren't from the Marketplace to ten customizations we've developed ourselves in preparation to migrate to 4.5. In addition to taking on that technical debt, we're being limited in learning from the collaborations with others. That's not right.
For the Marketplace to work for communities like ours, we need assurances on the following things:
IPS' commitment to amend its review processes to look for issues that manifest themselves in larger communities (i.e. communities with millions of rows in each core table) and for issues that occur in the install, upgrade, and removal of third-party resources. Support for circumstances that arise from missing an issue on the IPS review of a third-party product (i.e. "We missed that this botched the conversion process in our review, so we'll provide support to you to fix the state it's in and work with the developer to get it working") Transparency in the expectations you place on developers that are viewable to individuals who have not released an item on the Marketplace (i.e. where can I learn about developing background tasks?). IPS' assurances to address the very real, and unfortunate reality of a third-party developer being no longer able to support or update a resource purchased through the black-box of a Marketplace. (i.e. We can't have a dependency of Developer X being the only one with keys to our enterprise.) IPS' commitment to notify self-hosted clients well in advance of major strategy changes such as these in the future. We would have significantly amended our budgeting and resource allocation had we known about this change to the Marketplace in advance, and you lost a great deal of the trust we put in you as a vendor by failing to do so. We're left with egg on our face making up for this lapse in the eyes of our stakeholders. We see ourselves as having a symbiotic relationship with Invision, where our respective successes help grow and support each other. We want you to succeed in these ventures as your successes enable ours. Yet we need to have a trust in our partner to ensure that our interests are protected. Doing so positions us to be advocates for your company and solutions, over simply being a client looking for the next best thing.

No worries, like I said I found a work around for the issue.... I just create it as a paid raffle, assign it to a quiz and then convert the raffle to a giveaway and the quiz function still works.  It would just be easier to not have to go through the extra conversion process.
But I do think you missed something in my earlier point.... You are correct it would not make any sense if they could just click the "participate" button in the raffle section - which is why I "lock" the giveaway / raffle tied to the quiz as I mentioned before.  With the giveaway raffle locked, they cannot just go to the raffle page and click "participate".  It won't let them.
In the locked raffle description, I tell them they must play the quiz (with a link) and they must score a 100% to be entered in the raffle.  Easy.
And, yes... playing the quiz tied to locked raffle still gives them a ticket and everything works just fine.  It even shows them on the main raffle page as being entered into the raffle if they get the 100% score on the quiz.  That might not be how you envisioned the "locked" raffles to work, but it does and I am very thankful for that.
So, It's just how I am using the two apps together and my way of forcing members to take a quiz (in hopes that they learn something) and if they get 100%  they are entered into the raffle and I don't have to worry about "selling" tickets and they can't just click "participate" without getting 100% on the quiz.

Hi, I just wanted to point out that this is still an issue in version 3.1.0.  Are there any recommended workarounds besides turning off image links?  The above quote seems to reference actions that can be performed in the ACP and then fails to list any.
I temporarily removed the {{if $table and $table->canModerate()}} code from the recordRow template, which eliminates the checkbox that does not work properly.  But that seems a little counter productive.
It's true that it's not critical, but it's one of those little things that with time... becomes increasingly annoying.

Thanks... I keep an eye open for the 4.5 version.

The was about moderating the entries in the ACP instead of the front end. 
4.5 is around the corner and there will likely be a SuperGrid update for that. 

I agree 100%.
What it's forced me to do is put everything in the main body / description so it will be included in a search.  Which does get around the search problem but wrecks any idea of having certain types of data separated out for uniformity and other database type purposes.  Like you said.... pretty much useless.
Which also begs the question.... The solution to not include extra fields in search results only speeds things up by having less data to process (odd solution for a search problem, as we want data and content).  But, since that forces us to put the data in an area that is indexed, the net result is the same (performance wise).  Sadly, this decision just causes us harm as now instead of having clean, uniform database like structures - we are basically left with the equivalent of static html pages.
It causes us a whole lot of extra work and we loose all the benefits of a database.
 

What's New in Version 1.5.3:
Enhancements:
Upon request, the textarea was replaced by an editor in the form to apply to an open position (image below) Remember that you can also use Applications Fields to add your own fields and thus customize the form at your wish Fix:
Thumbnail on the index  

I'll consider it when I have to update it in a future version. Just released a version to fix an issue. 👍

I was thinking...  this app is great and could also be used for members to apply to become members of a "closed" club.  Right now, if you have a closed club you have to "contact" the club owner and request access - which probably, leads to a lot of back an fourth, etc.  Giving people the ability to apply to join a closed club seems far more professional to me (if the club owner wants to go that route, not mandatory or anything).
It can actually be used for that purpose already without any changes.  But what would make using it that way better, would be an option to auto allow a member to a club if their application is accepted - much like the existing promote member feature.
Just a suggestion.

Just giving bump because it's very much required! @Matt @Lindy Please take a look, if possible.

What's New in Version 1.4.4:
Fixes:
Disable merging of identical notification type Not saving score if allowed to play more than once Check to see if the answer is already added to the question in the Multiple Right Answers mode Stop saving games from people that has left the page/tab when the quiz protection is enabled Language bits when the quiz has only one question Add missing language bit

I’ll test it out and will reply today later. 

Yes, I confirm this. Fixed.
Yes, I confirm this. Fixed.
Yes, weirdly I can confirm this one. It doesn't seem to make any sense.
Will take a look on this and will release a new version until/during the weekend.
 

Updated to 1.0.5
New Features
Added the sidebar to the category pages when there is no clubs to show Bug Fix
Fixed the bug with showing clubs on the main page when not having permissions to see the categories

I agree 100%.
What it's forced me to do is put everything in the main body / description so it will be included in a search.  Which does get around the search problem but wrecks any idea of having certain types of data separated out for uniformity and other database type purposes.  Like you said.... pretty much useless.
Which also begs the question.... The solution to not include extra fields in search results only speeds things up by having less data to process (odd solution for a search problem, as we want data and content).  But, since that forces us to put the data in an area that is indexed, the net result is the same (performance wise).  Sadly, this decision just causes us harm as now instead of having clean, uniform database like structures - we are basically left with the equivalent of static html pages.
It causes us a whole lot of extra work and we loose all the benefits of a database.
 

That's great!  I already have the Crowdfunding app and having integration between it and raffles would be pretty neat (Sadly, in my locale there might be some laws about having to give money for a chance to win so I'll have to look into that)
Doing the same for quizzes would be really nice as well (plus, no legal issues as no money is changing hands to play a quiz... just making the user proves their knowledge before getting a chance to win a reward).
Thanks for all you do!

It can be done, of course. I started integration between Crowdfunding and Raffles: if someone donates to a project, then he gets a ticket to a Raffle.
I can do something like that. Purchase Raffles and I'll make sure it will be added sometime soon. 👍

Loving this update...
That's great! no more editing out "invited by" via template.
Thanks!

What's New in Version 2.4.1:
New Features:
Add the field TOTAL INVITATIONS to the member profile on ACP, so admin can increase/decrease/reset number of invitations for the member Add a new setting to admin control if wants to display the inviteer name/link on member profile and profile card Fix:
Fix an error on invitations task

Can't reproduce, Allengheny:
There's nothing "tying" both apps.

I agree 100%.
What it's forced me to do is put everything in the main body / description so it will be included in a search.  Which does get around the search problem but wrecks any idea of having certain types of data separated out for uniformity and other database type purposes.  Like you said.... pretty much useless.
Which also begs the question.... The solution to not include extra fields in search results only speeds things up by having less data to process (odd solution for a search problem, as we want data and content).  But, since that forces us to put the data in an area that is indexed, the net result is the same (performance wise).  Sadly, this decision just causes us harm as now instead of having clean, uniform database like structures - we are basically left with the equivalent of static html pages.
It causes us a whole lot of extra work and we loose all the benefits of a database.
 

Count me in as someone who thinks being able to search extra fields is critical.  I was shocked to learn that extra fields are not searchable.  I mean... what's the point of having them if they cannot be found?
I read earlier in this thread (2016) that IPS was focusing on Engagement and would get back to this issue.  But, it's 2019 and it's still not done?  I am well aware of the challenges and hard work that goes into these things and I don't mean to be pushy, but I would think the "fundamentals" would be a top priority.
Being able to search and find the content you are looking for is 100% necessary to keep users engaged and using our sites.
If they can't easily find what they are looking for they will just leave and what does that do for "engagement"?
I wish that was not the case and people would slow down and take the time to look around - but they won't, if it's easier somewhere else.
So, please consider making this issue a bigger priority than it has been.