Matt

We are trying to break away from large monolithic releases spaced 12-18 months apart which leaves long periods of time devoid of any significant new functionality.

In terms of demand for this feature, it's been requested a lot for our enterprise communities for quite some time.

We're looking to find the right balance. Too many incremental releases (say weekly) and you push that burden onto admins to constantly update (and check compatibility, etc), too few and the release gets bigger.
It has to be enabled by an administrator.

We're looking to find the right balance. Too many incremental releases (say weekly) and you push that burden onto admins to constantly update (and check compatibility, etc), too few and the release gets bigger.
It has to be enabled by an administrator.

I'm glad to hear news of upcoming changes. Thanks for the update.

The only thing I ask is that this is not enabled by default (i.e. automatically active after the upgrade). Please set it to "off" by default and those who need it can be told how to switch it on.
This should have been done for various editing notifications in the 4.5 upgrade for example. Instead I had to go hunting to find out how to switch off things I never wanted on in the first place (and had set the previous incarnation to "off" before IPS switched them "on" again without permission).
I understand you wanting to demonstrate your coding, but these actions are not useful and sometimes even detrimental.
Thanks!

like it... well done... 🙂

@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. 

Very pleased to know that small enhancements will be added in minor versions!
👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻

I am broadly in favour of moving away from monolithic releases, but I would much prefer that you up the cadence of minor releases than push features and especially breaking changes into patch/point releases.

We are trying to break away from large monolithic releases spaced 12-18 months apart which leaves long periods of time devoid of any significant new functionality.

In terms of demand for this feature, it's been requested a lot for our enterprise communities for quite some time.

We are trying to break away from large monolithic releases spaced 12-18 months apart which leaves long periods of time devoid of any significant new functionality.

In terms of demand for this feature, it's been requested a lot for our enterprise communities for quite some time.

We are trying to break away from large monolithic releases spaced 12-18 months apart which leaves long periods of time devoid of any significant new functionality.

In terms of demand for this feature, it's been requested a lot for our enterprise communities for quite some time.

I know there is an ACP toggle to force users to acknowledge new terms of service or privacy policy before being allowed to use the board. Could a similar process be created for this new feature? Have a dialog box appear with an explanation of the new feature and a list of who will be able to ascertain user name and for what purpose.  User clicks on an accept button and only then can they post anonymously.

Please do not make it so that when the feature is disabled users see any wording, strings, graphics, etc. that give them any indication that anonymous posting is a possibility. I can see where some admins may want the feature but for those that do not it should be completely disabled from view when disabled in the ACP
 

This is a fantastic addition, and we were actually beginning development on this as an extension to the suite. Our use case is exactly the type of case as in the example included in the announcement.
What would be a wonderful feature (if not already included) is the ability to set a particular forum in such a manner that the thread author is always anonymous (either by default, or by enforced policy), including any replies.

I love this feature. Agree with @Paul E. above that forcing OP to be anon would be helpful. An alternative would be to ensure that moderators can go the other direction as well, i.e. in addition to revealing who the OP was and de-anonymizing, it would be great if there was a setting for mods to edit a post and change to anonymous. We often have members who join to post a question that can sometimes reveal highly personal info and it’s fine when they think it’s a one off question, then they decide to stay (because our community is so great) and become a long time member. That usually prompts a PM asking if we can go back and remove some personal info they posted when they didn’t think through the implications. Would love to use this tool as an easy anonymizer for that type of content. 

@Morgin for president. Actually, if not already, this should be a setting that can be toggled as available for as long as the edit window is open.

Why are there breaking changes to add a fairly obscure [1] feature in a point release? I thought IPS had grown out of that. Are you going to update the marketplace supported versions field to have 4.5.0-4.5.4 and 4.5.5-4.5.x?
[1] the third party plugin that provided this has 58 purchases, or approximately 0.2% of communities, and you (rightly, ish) dismissed another feature suggestion for only having 1.8% install coverage

I can see this being an option for paid subscriptions/memberships for those who want to upgrade to have an option to post anonymously.
I'm assuming a user will have a choice on whether to post anonymously or not and topics/posts that are not anonymous will show on their profile pages? Hopefully they can edit their post to make it public should they decide to.

That's the great thing about promotes, it happens inline. You read something cool, hit Promote, tap in a few custom words (you do not need to do this, it pre-fills in relevant content) and hit promote. If you set up a schedule, it'll stack them up and send them throughout the day.

As Charles said, once we gauge interest, we can look at other social networks. I wrote the system to allow you to drop in a new class and it can then be used.
Great feature suggestion. Right now it's locked to one Facebook page and one Twitter account, but I like this idea for the future.

Thank you! Our goal here was to encourage you to promote your community on different channels and make it easy to do so. We also know that Facebook's organic reach algorithms favours media posts, so we felt that it was important to make it easy to share not only the link, but also any relevant images you may have. It all helps to be visible.
We'll have a detailed guide ready for the release of 4.2 on how to set up a Facebook app with the correct permissions. But if you do not want to use Facebook, that's fine as you can stick with Twitter and Our Picks to curate interesting content for your audience.

Nice one. Thanks! It summarizes well what to do and what not to do. 

Thanks @Matt
I'm creating a new forum, so i will pay attention