SeNioR-

I think this becomes a negative result for Google. Google scans the whole page and index content on a specific page. In your sitemap_posts file, you have tons of links to the same pages (they have not differences by the code or view). So with that, you bring Google just problems. Moreover, for preventing duplications Google gives us a links management service, where we can 'say' to Google which params identify something important with content changing (like a 'page' attribute) or something not necessarily (like an 'unread' param).
Additional, you made just problems for Google. If you wish to highlight or markup the content on the page - you should use schema.org meta, html5 tags. All of that already done by IPS. You don't need to do anything more in general purpose.
Anyway, if your really want to scan every post like an individual content - make a special request to the topic, which will show only one post without other (but with the link to the default view). In this way, you'll increase your number of scanned 'pages'. But it mustn't be good for your SEO.

I don't think it will have any impact, mostly because we use canonical meta tags to prevent duplicate "pages" being indexed. When I clicked on this topic I ended up at URL:
https://invisioncommunity.com/forums/topic/442742-large-community-you-have-a-problems-with-sitemap/page/10/?tab=comments#comment-2784429 In the HTML page source I have
<link rel="canonical" href="https://invisioncommunity.com/forums/topic/442742-large-community-you-have-a-problems-with-sitemap/page/10/" /> So when Google visits the URL I did, the resulting URL they will index is 
https://invisioncommunity.com/forums/topic/442742-large-community-you-have-a-problems-with-sitemap/page/10/  
With your customization you are attempting to send signals to Google "look at this URL and this URL and this URL" all from the same topic with the same canonical tag, which is different from the URL in the sitemap. I think, if anything, this will cause confusion to Google's spiders along the lines of "why does their sitemap say to index url X but when we visit it they tell us the canonical URL is Y?"

@DawPi has completed the custom sitemap application that I mentioned which handles all posts. You can see an example of it here:
https://www.celiac.com/sitemap_posts.php
but it is modeled after the existing sitemap--but this one handles just forum posts. We were not able to add a minimum word count to this application, as one person suggested, because it slowed things down and put a load on the CPU. We were, however, able to add the ability to exclude certain forums, for example my site has around 25 different forums, so I was able to exclude a general chit chat and a technical support forum that are more or less off the main topic of my site.
Whether or not this will be a benefit or liability in Google search is an open question, but I'll follow up here with any noticeable changes, positive or negative.
I believe this will have positive results, simply because we are making it easier for Google to index specific content and allow them to provide more relevant search results for any given query. Currently Google's results may send people to a topic page like this one /page/10/, and the person who searched will still have to fish on it for the specific results of their query. With all posts indexed, Google should be able to send the person directly to the content that answers their query...at least that is my hope here.
Anyone interested in this app can contact @DawPi
Here is a screenshot of the admin page:

I have written a lot about this subject, incl. and i have a design to use the critical CSS to remove the Render-blocking CSS. Yes, it works, but it takes a lot of time to analyze and develop a good critical CSS.
For a few days I've been exploring another idea that came to my mind.
Code in IncludeCSS works perfectly and this code tells the browser - download all those CSS and use them to represent the site. But this code does not tell the browser when and how to use them.
The idea I'm using right now is - I created a new template that I put before closing the tag head. In my experiment, this template looks like this:
{template="preload_css" app="core" location="global" group="analysis" params=""} In this template I placed this code
{{foreach array_unique( \IPS\Output::i()->cssFiles, SORT_STRING ) as $file}} <link rel='preload' href='{expression="\IPS\Http\Url::external( $file )->setQueryString( 'v', \IPS\CACHEBUST_KEY )"}' as="style"> {{endforeach}} {{$customCss = \IPS\Theme::i()->css( 'custom.css', 'core', 'front' );}} {{foreach $customCss as $css}} <link rel='preload' href='{expression="\IPS\Http\Url::external( $css )->setQueryString( 'v', \IPS\CACHEBUST_KEY )"}' as="style"> {{endforeach}} Now, besides a browser command to download all CSS, I send the browser a command - use these CSS as a matter of priority.
And the result of over 100 my tests - no render-blocking CSS ...
There are no side effects or any other bad impact.
I've installed it on my live site and it works perfectly.
If a development team wishes, let him test it and apply it in later releases. This will speed up all sites using this really good platform.

Profiles on IPS have virtually no meta tags, at all.
This could be improved by adding a link to the users avatar and maybe a general description line like so,
$description = "Explore {$this->member->name}'s " . \number_format( $this->member->member_posts ) . " posts on " . \IPS\Settings::i()->board_name; $newMeta = [ 'title' => $this->member->name, 'description' => $description, 'og:title' => $this->member->name, 'og:description' => $description, 'twitter:description' => $description, 'og:image' => $this->member->photo, 'profile:username' => $this->member->name, 'og:url' => $this->member->url() ]; \IPS\Output::i()->metaTags = array_merge( \IPS\Output::i()->metaTags, $newMeta ); Otherwise links to profiles contain no description or anything aside the default og:image if you have one set in the settings.

We still need WhatsApp share button as long as the hook is not working anymore.

@dayh I overwrote the editor icon calls with CSS using FontAwesome icons like so:
.cke_button__bold:after { background: none !important; font-size: 1.4rem !important; font-family: "FontAwesome"; content: "\f032"; position: relative; top: 0rem; left: 0rem; } FontAwesome 4.7 cheatsheet: https://fontawesome.com/v4.7.0/cheatsheet/

Can't wait for the new version which will limit links. We see a huge increase of users that signup just to drop a link and then never come back or posting anything useful. So if you can add a limitation of links in the message I would set up a members group for members that just signed up and till they make 5-10 useful posts without links they will not be promoted to regular member group where they can posts links.

I would recommend to use our Profile completion setup. You can force a user to complete their profile when they complete their registration or you can turn off quick registration and any field that you have setup in the Profile to be shown on Registration will again.

Took me a few years to decide, after being with VB having the full licence with apps, but it didn't worked well as I cannot compare with IPB in any way. so here we go, we have decided taht we need to pay for apps 🙂 

to early to be honest, in top of the lump sum there will be additional costs for updates etc, but.. as i said once I have them ready, we will decide

My 16 year old niece was about to use a page on my site a year ago... and then again a few weeks ago. Each time should would go to the responsive web page, look at it, get somewhat excited about the idea and then instantly look up at me and ask "Do you have a web app?" ..... She hasn't posted once. 😒
 

We use a CSFR key to prevent bots attempting to log in as you.

Which is specifically what AdSense are trying to do.
I'll speak to the team to see if there's something we can do, but we'd be looking to remove or mitigate protection designed to keep your accounts safe.

I've put together a plugin which handles this in a different location, making it hookable - have sent a new copy of it to @Mopar1973Man to try it out. If anyone would like a copy then please PM me directly.
I won't be releasing it to the MarketPlace, as it does circumvent the security which IPS has built in to the product (albeit for only one configured account) - all I ask is you chuck me a beer 😉

To clarify since @Joel R mentioned me specifically... 😂
We will be sticking with CKEditor 4 for a little while. While we will presumably move to CKEditor 5 some time in the future, it is currently still very new and maturing (when Joel asked me, it was before 5.11.2.0 was released which is when they re-added paste from word). But most importantly, to move would require a lot of development time (to upgrade our custom plugins) for what will be, to the end-user, very little change. And since CKEditor plans to continue releasing updates to version 4 for the foreseeable future we're not missing out on bug fixes or security patches.
Obviously if you're experiencing issues, please submit a support ticket and we can look into that - if you're not seeing the same problems on CKEditor's demo, the problem is likely our end and so it's probable that moving to CKEditor 5 wouldn't resolve it.

I asked IPS about Ckeditor 5 because I liked the inline and balloon toolbars.  
@Mark slapped me down.  Hard.  My cheeks still sting from the slapdown LOL.  Something about IPS would need to rewrite all of their plugins, we would lose some of the features that IPS needs, and current version is supported until 2023.  So that's a hard no.  
Not until Invision Community 5 maybe or later.  

The answer to that is "No". Version 4.4 will use CKEditor 4.11.0 (see this post).

@Sonya* yes, and it will stay issue as long as IPS does not change the sitemap mechanism and structure.

We have 1407 sitemaps. The oldest is more than 1 month old and the newest one is 4 days old. And we have decrease in Google indexed page. Is there still an issue with large sitemaps?

Just a few points from me...
1) In my POV it is far better for you to create individual topics for individual requests. It is rare that we spend time reviewing large "how about all of these things" topics because frankly it's difficult and time consuming. We can and do, however, flag individual requests for follow up on our side quite often.
2) We absolutely DO base our changes off of requests clients have made. They may not be requests YOU have made, but why would we (as a business) spend time implementing things no one wants? That's just illogical. It's important to remember that we get feedback from many different sources (this forum being but one of them) and you may simply not be aware of common things we hear about from other avenues.
3) We'll be sticking with PHP for 5.0.

Yes it will be great to have something like that for IPB. Cause, when we are on a share hosting, we can not do what we want on the server side. fail2ban and other can not be added.

I have a same problem. The only way at this time is to block this IP in htaccess but every day there is a new bot with another ip address
so it's tiring ..: /

 
Great idea. Something like this http://www.site-scanners.com/smart-404-security-blocking-addon/

Hi,
Every day I get some IP¨address who try lot of things like that :


 
I think it will be good if we can configure some filter. If any address IP get more than 10 error code in 1 minute, she had to be ban directly for 1 week or something like that.
I know there is CDN who can help for that, but I think it will be good to have it on IPB.

We haven't used salted md5s since v4 😉 We use bcrypt.