Brainy S.

Does social stream support guests making comments?

Thanks! Since you indicate that it should work with Guests I will take a deeper dive to see what it could be about my configuration. I certainly haven't had a chance to try a more baseline testing configuration as of yet.

It appears based on my testing this does not work with guests, only registered accounts. Are you able to specifically confirm that this is the case?

From an attorney perspective there is a shortfall in how the IPS system natively handles this: the boiler plate {cookie} language that IPS provides I find insufficient, and the mechanics of IPS in cookie consent tracking/removal of consent are basically lacking altogether. To me a great cautionary tale is the recent case where a German court awarded 100 euros to a plaintiff who sued over a site that used embedded Google Fonts (like many sites...though not IPS) which reveals an IP address to Google which was not adequately disclosed. Adequate disclosure would likely have been sufficient as "necessary" or "essential" for the proper function of the site (making the assumption that authentic rendering of the site visually equates to an essential function). Of course Google farms data left and right at every level one can presume. Between those who use their 8.8.8.8 DNS server, to embedded Youtube videos on a site, to Google Fonts embedded on the site, to any banner ads, analytics, etc. In the specific case of IPS, it does use FontAwesome. No idea what they do, probably nothing near as invasive as Google, but the total absence of any mention, disclosure, disclaimer, etc. in the default {cookie} policy provided by IPS is a giant gap on this point. The default {cookie} policy also does not mention two additional specific cookies that IPS uses: ips4_hasJS - Indicates to the site whether JavaScript support in your browser has been detected. ips4_ipsTimezone - Used to display site events properly for your time zone. I have pointed these out to IPS in private. For points 1 and 2, I handle this through a more thorough {cookie} policy. For point 4, one can at least try to make the guest/public area is a "functional" place to sufficiently satisfy some level of "access" without non-essential cookie consent (this being tied to registration). For point 3 and 5 I've repurposed another plugin to serve as the mechanism for managing proof and withdrawal of consent. The last thing I would want is for IPS to waste any time on something that wasn't necessary that doesn't provide added functionality for users and/or site owners. I would personally rather have some cool new feature rather than IPS needing to dump any development resources into something to just "break even" for legal concerns. However, things do have to be stepped up guys, sorry to say. This is only going to be more of an issue. It's not just EU and UK GDPR, but other places' laws are stepping things up as well. A lackluster boiler plate {cookie} policy aside, there has to be at least SOME mechanism made available to regular site owners to at least SOMEWHAT A) allow users manage/withdraw consent and B) demonstrate some manner of attempted compliance/proof/record of this that can be demonstrated by a site owner in court for point 5. It does not have to be perfect to be useful for this purpose. Something, in some regard, is far far better than nothing from my perspective, even if it was only 30% of what it needs to be.

Thanks for looking into this!! I just wanted to correct a small mistake in what I said. What I should have said was, "although the Ignore Forums plugin gives the option inside clubs to ignore/stop ignoring a club forum, the "clubs forum on forums index" plugin seems to ignore this and still shows the club anyway in the main forum index.

In addition to this "Clubs Forums on Forums Index" plugin I also use your "Ignore Forums" forums as well. However, the Ignore Forums plugin doesn't give the option to ignore specific clubs forum that this plugin brings to the main forums page. For example, for clubs with multiple forums it would be great if users could ignore ones they don't want to see on the main forums index. Do you think integrating the functionality of these two plugins would be worth while?

Hi, I purchased plugin today for running on IPS 4.6 and I did not notice the plugin was only compatible with 4.4. When I try to go to the reactions section in ACP I get this unless I disable the plugin: Error: Call to undefined method IPS\Content\Reaction::reactionStore() (0) #0 /var/www/html/edunderground/system/Node/Controller.php(111): IPS\Content\hook473::roots() #1 /var/www/html/edunderground/system/Helpers/Tree/Tree.php(130): IPS\Node\_Controller->_getRoots() #2 /var/www/html/edunderground/system/Node/Controller.php(99): IPS\Helpers\Tree\_Tree->__toString() #3 /var/www/html/edunderground/applications/core/modules/admin/membersettings/reputation.php(109): IPS\Node\_Controller->manage() #4 /var/www/html/edunderground/system/Dispatcher/Controller.php(101): IPS\core\modules\admin\membersettings\_reputation->manage() #5 /var/www/html/edunderground/system/Node/Controller.php(69): IPS\Dispatcher\_Controller->execute() #6 /var/www/html/edunderground/applications/core/modules/admin/membersettings/reputation.php(53): IPS\Node\_Controller->execute() #7 /var/www/html/edunderground/system/Dispatcher/Dispatcher.php(153): IPS\core\modules\admin\membersettings\_reputation->execute() #8 /var/www/html/edunderground/admin/index.php(13): IPS\_Dispatcher->run() #9 {main} Is this something you would consider updating to 4.6 in the near future? Otherwise would it be possible to get it refunded?

Hey, I do have another question (or suggestion). Are the verification codes time-sensitive? If not, that would be a great feature to have in my opinion. I would love if it was either settable, or was something like 10 minutes. Part of the use case (at least in my situation) is trying to have some modest level of certainty that the person's picture holding up the code, is the person themselves. A time-out wouldn't guarantee that of course, but it would moderately help.

I still consider this great support on your part that you looked into this and gave it a good go even though it turned out not to be practical. Thanks!

Thanks for clarifying this for me. For anyone else interested or facing the same issue, I did find a solution for my specific need using this plugin:

Question: Would this allow me to have a "regular" widgets that can be used on any regular page? (forums, clubs, etc.) Or are these 'widgets' only for the dedicated "Statistics" page itself?

Would your plugin solve my problem? My problem (link below) is that I want Admin/Moderators to be able to see and edit a Profile Field and edit it through a members Profile page, but at the same time NOT allow a member to see NOR edit the Profile Field.

We have a number of additional Profile Fields set up. When I am in the member's profile page I want to be able to edit their profile and then to add/change the content of these additional Profile Fields. I also do not want the member themselves to be able see, nor edit, those fields. This is in order for Staff to keep various private moderation notes related to a member. However, even as an Admin my ability to see/edit these fields when I edit their profile seems to wholly depend on the "Member can edit value" being turned on. If it's not turned on, I cannot even see the values when I go to edit their profile. If it is turned on, I can edit just fine. Is my ability to edit these fields as an Admin supposed to be tied to this value and goes along a member's own ability to edit it, or not?

Never mind, it's working fine.

Thank you! This was indeed my issue. To clarify for anyone else reading this I had added new fields (such as URL, Phone Number, etc.) that were not showing up when users on the front end would go to create a new record to contribute. My issue was indeed permissions on the new fields were not granted (not even to myself as admin). Thanks again!