Pavel Chernitsky

WAIT! Before you try it, is that Wordpress website self hosted? Because if it is, you can't. 
I'm sorry, couldn't help myself. Yes, I know, that was mean.
But also preventing us from getting features because we want to have control over the experience our site's visitors have. OK, that's it. I'll stop now 😄 

This, like someone wrote in the post you linked to, sounds more like marketing than an actual reason. The point I'm getting at is that telling your customers "you won't be able to do it" in terms of implementing code/apps/tech is kind of patronizing and really a bad business decision.
We, for example, chose to go for a self hosted site because our traffic blows even the highest tier of the CiC out of the water, and it's specifically specified, as the FIRST selling point of the CiC, that this hosting plan is "Suited for personal and small business", and we're neither. maybe it should be replaced with "Suited for people who actually want to get all the features".

Sarcasm aside, I genuinely would like to know what prevents this from being offered to self-hosted clients (given, of course, said client gets/buys/registers/whatever "a zapier").

Thank you. I'm really not saying all this to whine and moan, but to stress the fact that some (I guess a sizeable chunk) of Invision's renewing clients aren't choosing to be self hosted because they're cheap or in order to "cheat you" out of money, because you guys damn well deserve this money - you made one hell of a software. We're doing it because it's the only viable option for our communities and businesses, and I think you'd agree with me on the fact we shouldn't be "punished" for that. 
I think that if there are technical difficulties or added costs or whatever in making this integration (or any other future feature) happen for self-hosted communities, you guys (if we're already on the subject of being open, upfront and vulnerable) should just be clear and say "hey, we want do to X, but for Y type community we have A, B, C difficulties. If you want this feature you're going to have to do 1, 2, 3". Just like was the case with Elasticsearch. It says right there - you're gonna need a dedicated server to run that. Just let us choose. Choosing for us, especially when we don't really have the choice to switch to a cloud program, just feels kinda jerky 😄 

I'm not, in any way, trying to be overly critical or harsh, but that post is pretty much 100% verbal fluff and no actual actionable content. We're all adults here, and we're all (I guess) community managers ourselves and know fluff when we see it. Maybe it's my Israeli no-bullcrap-"chutzpah" talking, but I'd would LOVE it if you could point out some of the actual technical reasons that led to making this decision, and how Invision is looking to proceed from here - is this feature never going to be available for self-hosted clients? Are you wanting to implement some sort of alternative? What's the probability of there being more of those cases in the future? Are you at all interested in doing the work needed to get hard-to-implement features available for self-hosted clients or will you put those efforts into more seamlessly integrating them for cloud clients?
 
I know what I'm saying might come off as harsh or rude, but you have to understand that none of us (I hope) bought the IPS suite as a single time purchase and "the next time" we buy a community software "we'll try something else". This isn't a bottle of shampoo, we're all making long-term plans based on your software, some of us have businesses involving actual money and peoples' jobs and livelihoods relying on it. So "being vulnerable" is nice and all, but it can't be taken to the bank, and is - honestly - kind of insulting. This whole interaction needs to be WAY more pragmatic and way less like we're a community of 10 year olds getting together to have a great time.

I thinks @Adriano Faria's plugin can get this done for you really easily, we're using it and it works like a charm.
 
 
 
Hey @Jordan Invision I think we're kind of missing the mark here... So I'll address snippets of what you said. Hopefully that'll make my point easier.
No one isn't respecting it. Just to understand the reasoning behind it.
So, it's business decision? 
Because of technical reasons?
That's kind of like saying gray isn't light black, it's dark white. that's the same thing.
 
Ok, so it is a business decision?
 
What are the reasons for you saying that? are they technical.
 
You're right, it doesn't.
 
No, they don't. I don't even know what "a Zapier" is. "They" just want to not be left out in the cold, and if they are going to be, they want to be talked to like adult business owners, and just hear the actual reasons for that decision and not just beating around the bush.
I'm sure everybody here would have taken it better if you were to say "we know it's annoying, but it's such a pain to implement and maintain, and it's so full of bugs and needs so much attention, that doing that for a 100-200$ a year plan just isn't worth it to us."

Instead of just saying it's a bad course of action (which it most definitely is, don't get me wrong, but just complaining about it is pointless) I would like to ask why you guys chose to go that route. Maybe after hearing the answer to that we could agree with you, or think about a way to make it work for self hosted websites as well. 

I'm not, in any way, trying to be overly critical or harsh, but that post is pretty much 100% verbal fluff and no actual actionable content. We're all adults here, and we're all (I guess) community managers ourselves and know fluff when we see it. Maybe it's my Israeli no-bullcrap-"chutzpah" talking, but I'd would LOVE it if you could point out some of the actual technical reasons that led to making this decision, and how Invision is looking to proceed from here - is this feature never going to be available for self-hosted clients? Are you wanting to implement some sort of alternative? What's the probability of there being more of those cases in the future? Are you at all interested in doing the work needed to get hard-to-implement features available for self-hosted clients or will you put those efforts into more seamlessly integrating them for cloud clients?
 
I know what I'm saying might come off as harsh or rude, but you have to understand that none of us (I hope) bought the IPS suite as a single time purchase and "the next time" we buy a community software "we'll try something else". This isn't a bottle of shampoo, we're all making long-term plans based on your software, some of us have businesses involving actual money and peoples' jobs and livelihoods relying on it. So "being vulnerable" is nice and all, but it can't be taken to the bank, and is - honestly - kind of insulting. This whole interaction needs to be WAY more pragmatic and way less like we're a community of 10 year olds getting together to have a great time.

Thank you. I'm really not saying all this to whine and moan, but to stress the fact that some (I guess a sizeable chunk) of Invision's renewing clients aren't choosing to be self hosted because they're cheap or in order to "cheat you" out of money, because you guys damn well deserve this money - you made one hell of a software. We're doing it because it's the only viable option for our communities and businesses, and I think you'd agree with me on the fact we shouldn't be "punished" for that. 
I think that if there are technical difficulties or added costs or whatever in making this integration (or any other future feature) happen for self-hosted communities, you guys (if we're already on the subject of being open, upfront and vulnerable) should just be clear and say "hey, we want do to X, but for Y type community we have A, B, C difficulties. If you want this feature you're going to have to do 1, 2, 3". Just like was the case with Elasticsearch. It says right there - you're gonna need a dedicated server to run that. Just let us choose. Choosing for us, especially when we don't really have the choice to switch to a cloud program, just feels kinda jerky 😄 

I thinks @Adriano Faria's plugin can get this done for you really easily, we're using it and it works like a charm.
 
 
 
Hey @Jordan Invision I think we're kind of missing the mark here... So I'll address snippets of what you said. Hopefully that'll make my point easier.
No one isn't respecting it. Just to understand the reasoning behind it.
So, it's business decision? 
Because of technical reasons?
That's kind of like saying gray isn't light black, it's dark white. that's the same thing.
 
Ok, so it is a business decision?
 
What are the reasons for you saying that? are they technical.
 
You're right, it doesn't.
 
No, they don't. I don't even know what "a Zapier" is. "They" just want to not be left out in the cold, and if they are going to be, they want to be talked to like adult business owners, and just hear the actual reasons for that decision and not just beating around the bush.
I'm sure everybody here would have taken it better if you were to say "we know it's annoying, but it's such a pain to implement and maintain, and it's so full of bugs and needs so much attention, that doing that for a 100-200$ a year plan just isn't worth it to us."

I'm not, in any way, trying to be overly critical or harsh, but that post is pretty much 100% verbal fluff and no actual actionable content. We're all adults here, and we're all (I guess) community managers ourselves and know fluff when we see it. Maybe it's my Israeli no-bullcrap-"chutzpah" talking, but I'd would LOVE it if you could point out some of the actual technical reasons that led to making this decision, and how Invision is looking to proceed from here - is this feature never going to be available for self-hosted clients? Are you wanting to implement some sort of alternative? What's the probability of there being more of those cases in the future? Are you at all interested in doing the work needed to get hard-to-implement features available for self-hosted clients or will you put those efforts into more seamlessly integrating them for cloud clients?
 
I know what I'm saying might come off as harsh or rude, but you have to understand that none of us (I hope) bought the IPS suite as a single time purchase and "the next time" we buy a community software "we'll try something else". This isn't a bottle of shampoo, we're all making long-term plans based on your software, some of us have businesses involving actual money and peoples' jobs and livelihoods relying on it. So "being vulnerable" is nice and all, but it can't be taken to the bank, and is - honestly - kind of insulting. This whole interaction needs to be WAY more pragmatic and way less like we're a community of 10 year olds getting together to have a great time.

Thank you. I'm really not saying all this to whine and moan, but to stress the fact that some (I guess a sizeable chunk) of Invision's renewing clients aren't choosing to be self hosted because they're cheap or in order to "cheat you" out of money, because you guys damn well deserve this money - you made one hell of a software. We're doing it because it's the only viable option for our communities and businesses, and I think you'd agree with me on the fact we shouldn't be "punished" for that. 
I think that if there are technical difficulties or added costs or whatever in making this integration (or any other future feature) happen for self-hosted communities, you guys (if we're already on the subject of being open, upfront and vulnerable) should just be clear and say "hey, we want do to X, but for Y type community we have A, B, C difficulties. If you want this feature you're going to have to do 1, 2, 3". Just like was the case with Elasticsearch. It says right there - you're gonna need a dedicated server to run that. Just let us choose. Choosing for us, especially when we don't really have the choice to switch to a cloud program, just feels kinda jerky 😄 

I'm not, in any way, trying to be overly critical or harsh, but that post is pretty much 100% verbal fluff and no actual actionable content. We're all adults here, and we're all (I guess) community managers ourselves and know fluff when we see it. Maybe it's my Israeli no-bullcrap-"chutzpah" talking, but I'd would LOVE it if you could point out some of the actual technical reasons that led to making this decision, and how Invision is looking to proceed from here - is this feature never going to be available for self-hosted clients? Are you wanting to implement some sort of alternative? What's the probability of there being more of those cases in the future? Are you at all interested in doing the work needed to get hard-to-implement features available for self-hosted clients or will you put those efforts into more seamlessly integrating them for cloud clients?
 
I know what I'm saying might come off as harsh or rude, but you have to understand that none of us (I hope) bought the IPS suite as a single time purchase and "the next time" we buy a community software "we'll try something else". This isn't a bottle of shampoo, we're all making long-term plans based on your software, some of us have businesses involving actual money and peoples' jobs and livelihoods relying on it. So "being vulnerable" is nice and all, but it can't be taken to the bank, and is - honestly - kind of insulting. This whole interaction needs to be WAY more pragmatic and way less like we're a community of 10 year olds getting together to have a great time.

WAIT! Before you try it, is that Wordpress website self hosted? Because if it is, you can't. 
I'm sorry, couldn't help myself. Yes, I know, that was mean.
But also preventing us from getting features because we want to have control over the experience our site's visitors have. OK, that's it. I'll stop now 😄 

WAIT! Before you try it, is that Wordpress website self hosted? Because if it is, you can't. 
I'm sorry, couldn't help myself. Yes, I know, that was mean.
But also preventing us from getting features because we want to have control over the experience our site's visitors have. OK, that's it. I'll stop now 😄 

@Andy Millne When you say:
Does that mean completely de-anonymizing the author for everyone who reads the post? or just a momentary thing for the Mod/Admin clicking the option?
Also ALL of that 👆👌

Just a momentary thing for the moderator. 

@Andy Millne When you say:
Does that mean completely de-anonymizing the author for everyone who reads the post? or just a momentary thing for the Mod/Admin clicking the option?
Also ALL of that 👆👌

@Andy Millne When you say:
Does that mean completely de-anonymizing the author for everyone who reads the post? or just a momentary thing for the Mod/Admin clicking the option?
Also ALL of that 👆👌

Wow wow wow! 
Great job, subtle enough so it isn't daunting, but different enough to implement great features (mostly excited about the more spacious mobile design and the the topic stats block). 
But I have one nitpick, why don't you apply (or give an option to apply) a divider between the sticky threads to the regular ones? 
Please, LET ME HAVE IT!!! ok? 😊