kreitttbw

BIG REQUEST! I'm quickly learning that adding a new record in a database can be a battle. Where new records in DB1 require the creation of new records in other databases (DB2, for instance), adding them requires opening a new tab, and entering the record you need DB2 before finalizing the add in DB1.
So, in my case, if I am adding a missing person to DB1, who went missing from a location I do not currently have in DB2, with an investigative entity that is not present in DB3, I would have to manually open both DB2 and DB3 to add that content in order to actually "finalize" my DB1 entry. It's time consuming and inconvenient.
Is it possible to consider implementing the ability to cross-add records to different databases based on relationships? In my mind, this would be a HUGE upgrade to the record creation experience, and one that I think would be warmly welcomed by the community at large.

Everybody reading through this must have been shaking their heads this whole time. THANK YOU, so sorry for this oversight.
Fixed, and everything works beautifully!!!

Everybody reading through this must have been shaking their heads this whole time. THANK YOU, so sorry for this oversight.
Fixed, and everything works beautifully!!!

@Joss Leal The error message you get indicates that guests don't have access to one of the modules in the app. The permission you checked in the application list was just for the whole application. Click the little arrow on the left hand side to reveal the modules. These have their own permissions.

You should disable the "Show a list of markers in the sidebar?" setting. Unfortunately only member markers will show in that list, Pages records, calendar events, etc, will not show there (yet).

Thanks for your comment @bfarber. The crisp team was able to identify that, since it was going into PHP code, $crisp was being interpreted as a variable. They had me take out a section of their given code and it worked. 
Code to take out:
 

Open your browser developer tools and see if any errors are registered.

Something like that, yes.

You may want to consider making these discrete fields that are then combined on display via a template modification in the manner you'd like.
So, a date field, a category field perhaps that's a selectable list including "RR."
That way, in two years when you decide a better format may be a more appropriate "title," you can simply change the output formatting on your template to reorder or append the additional fields that now are important to you.

Also, to add to this conversation – which apart from the other reasons seems to be suggesting that it's not useful and that people complain et cetera, I've noticed that the plug-in which now doesn't work on the new version of Invision had 659 downloads.
by the standards of any third party plug-in or application in the marketplace – this is a huge amount. I can imagine that the number of people who have complained or the number of Invision software architects who have decided that posts numbers must not be available, pales into insignificance against the 659 downloads which presumably have been made by forum administrators and their probably hundreds of thousands (and maybe millions) of forum members who are seeing this "visual clutter" every time they are browsing their respective forums and have no problem with focusing on content.
Go figure.

No one said or tried to say it was a legal requirement (though it really is for Federal institutions, they cannot use software that does not follow certain ADA requirements by a Federally mandated law) that is not and was not the point. I have a handicapped adult child so I'm aware of how difficult many software applications are. Not trying to say the program needs massive changes to support ADA.
My point is/was that the ID tag number being shown @Mr 13 does in fact (in my opinion) provide the exact same purpose of a visual cue that post # have/had in the past. I've manually edited our forums to show it. All I'm providing is FEEDBACK which is the purpose of this forum. It would be very nice if allowing this to be shown by some setting within the ACP so that users did not need to manually edit their code.
As for the date in every post providing a permalink I'm sorry you just don't seem to understand what people are talking about. VISUAL cue just like I created all uppercase. You don't have to copy anything, you don't have to click a special button. You easily see there is something. Telling someone go find post where the date says Posted August 13 does nothing for anyone as there could be several posts made on that date. Why people are complaining it is a PITA to have to now copy and paste a special link to refer to. 
In my example here

I can tell the user to check out post ID 393 and most people can very easily find that number in the topic thread. I didn't have to copy, quote, or paste anything. 
If you don't wish to add such a feature that is your choice but to tell people they don't need it is YOUR personal opinion which may or may not be shared by others.
 
 

Good points!  No disrespect to the devs...they are doing an awesome job!  But sometimes it is easy to over think stuff!  I have found that my members don't like to click and search for stuff...it is extra work now for them to look for the edit button or report button.  Sometimes visual clutter can be more efficient...LOL!

Yes, the code provided by Mr 13 does in fact work @BankFodder . We have implemented it on our forums. I do agree though that making it an option or available to Administrators from within the ACP would be nice. Thank you @Mr 13
Regardless of how one views it Visual cues are sensory cues received by the eye that many people process and understand better than text or menus. 
Referencing a post or ID# seen onscreen without having to copy or quote and paste it would help reduce clutter as well as I would find it difficult to believe that making a handicapped person perform an additional 3 or 4 more clicks to obtain or reference the same thing would meet muster for the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) 
Designing Software that is Accessible to Individuals with Disabilities
https://www.washington.edu/doit/designing-software-accessible-individuals-disabilities
 

I've shared these comments with our site team and some of the members on our forum.
The action has been incredulity and hilarity.

If you are really concerned about "visual noise" then what's wrong with putting the post number in the pop-up under the three dots . . .  with all of the rest of the moderator/editing options. That way you clear out this offensive and objectionable "visual noise" allowing the "post content to be the focus" and also you return a very useful function to people who want to refer quickly to information contained in a previous post in a very long thread.
Once again, surely it is reasonable to let the forum administrators decide how much "visual noise" should appear on each post. Surely it is up to forum administrators to decide how far to go in resolving the balance of interests in helping members to focus on post content.
Surely it is the forum administrators should be able to make these choices. Surely it is the job of Invision simply to provide options and not to make decisions for forum administrators.

In fact one of our members said:
and that's true. The problem of "bloat quoting" is already significant and it simply adds a great of length to an already very long thread and makes it much more time-consuming to get round.
Being able to refer to post numbers is simplicity itself and makes navigation of a thread much easier.

I suppose that if Invision went into the book publishing business we would be told that in future, books would not carry any page numbers or even chapter numbers because they were simply "visual noise" and it was important to let the page content be the focus.

Bravo.

Yes. 

Is it possible to consider adding custom statuses to the orders feature in Commerce? I provide non-physical digital assets and business services, and would really appreciate the ability to assign custom statuses to each order (in progress, pending information, in production, complete, etc.). In terms of general layout, it would be VERY cool if the order would have it's own "forum-style discussion" section, where clients can communicate with me and/or my team regarding that particular order; a process much like the ability to post to a pre-defined forum when creating a database record, for example, would be excellent! My recommended process would offer the ability to choose whether to start a "discussion" section within the order. There are several layers of informational requests I conduct with my clients when progressing through an order, and a discussion is usually necessary in order to fulfill certain types of orders/request(s).
Please let me know if this is something you guys would consider implementing, I'd be very grateful!

Hello.
I have a suggestion I think IPS is in need of. While adding a product, you're given the flexibility of choosing any subscription term (renewal) you'd like - well, all except one. Lifetime purchases should be added a feature to the product feature instead of limiting it to only subscription plans. It's a huge flaw in my opinion. @bfarber suggested to make a new product that copies the main product, with the exception that it is appended with '(Lifetime)' - this won't work for me for many reasons, and it also seems like a band-aid fix; it'll look very out of place and hacky. I'd like to do this properly by having the lifetime option added natively into the product system instead.
 
Thank you.

This should do the trick - add to your custom CSS file and adjust the colour to suit 🙂
[data-blocktitle="WYSIWYG Editor"] .ipsWidget_inner { background-color: #ffffff; } You may need to add !important after the colour but before the semi-colon if it doesn't work first time.

Are you talking about shipment orders? If so, they do not have multiple separate statuses. You can adjust from pending to shipped to cancelled, but cannot define custom statuses like "in progress". That's not a bad suggestion though, so you may wish to post in our Feedback forum requesting this change be added in a future release.