Como

Ah. I see.

re: https://invisioncommunity.com/release-notes-v5/5021-r56/ Just to let you know, this patch has not been applied to my site - I have just started the update myself. I thought I'd mention this in case there has been some sort of omission/oversight of a subsection of Cloud customers.

Hi @Marc Then why does Invision keep emphasizing how small and unimportant Classic licenses are to your business? Why are there no discernible links for purchasing the Classic license? This is not me arguing for a particular business model for Invision; you naturally will do what is best for your business - this is only to be expected. But if Classic licenses account only for a very small part of the business (as has been stated several times), and if Cloud is being actively marketed over Classic (it not being listed with the price plans); and with the removal of the Market Place (and more recently, the third-party index), and some modules are not included with Classic (but I understand your rationale for not wishing to include modules which are likely to cause more problems with self-hosting), the overall picture is one of Invision moving away from Classic licenses and third-party development. Given that, as Invision Community is presently constituted, Classic is vital for future third-party development, I'd like to be assured that even if Classic should be dropped at some stage, there will remain a viable path for third-party development. If it has been stated prominently somewhere that Classic licenses will remain available for the foreseeable future and there are no plans to deprecate them, I withdraw my remarks and apologize. But if not, perhaps this is an argument for providing some kind of prominent (broad strokes) road map available for customers. So, I have one question: if Classic licenses are dropped at some point, will there remain a viable path for third-party development? Because as @Cedric V stated, most third-party developers have already moved on and he expects most of the remainder will move on by v6. If third-party development remains vitally important to Invision (which you or another member of the team has stated to me in the past), why are so many of us of the opinion that Invision seeks to wind down third-party app development and seems less than fully committed to Classic (Classic licenses being essential to third-party app development). I am not meaning to be argumentative or give you a hard time about this. But there appears to be a gap between Invision's goals (unpublished road map) and the general perception of customers (particularly Classic license holders and app developers). I do not seek nitty-gritty business plans or Invision's ideas for future module development. But I think we all would benefit from a very clearly stated and easily accessible (broad strokes) road map. No need to for detailed reply (or any reply). But perhaps reconsider and publish a road map. I think it would help customers. app developers, and Invision too.

Not what I wanted to hear. But thank your for the reply, @Cedric V.

Something I've wondered for some time now: what happens when Classic licenses are no longer available (which has been telegraphed by Invision for some time now)? It may not come tomorrow, but reading between the lines, it seems that Classic licenses will be no longer available for v6. Presumably, there will be some other option for app developers then. But what, I do not know. Has anything been stated about this anywhere? By the way, I am not attempting to start a discussion about why Invision should retain the Classic option. It is all but stated that they will be dropping Classic licenses sometime in the next few years. And I expect Invision will have compelling business reasons for doing so. But I would like to be assured that third-party app development will remain a viable option come v6 (or whenever Classic licenses are no longer available).

Hi @Laura Bies Try adding this CSS. Adjust to suit your needs. section.ipsType_richText.ipsType_normal { margin: 20px; }If you need more control, try this instead: section.ipsType_richText.ipsType_normal { margin-top: 20px; margin-right: 20px; margin-bottom: 20px; margin-left: 20px; }If you find other elements are also affected by the above, instead try this more targeted approach: body.ipsApp.ipsApp_front.cCmsDatabase_jobs.ipsApp_noTouch section.ipsType_richText.ipsType_normal { margin-top: 20px; margin-right: 20px; margin-bottom: 20px; margin-left: 20px; }You also appear to have a problem with paragraph margins. I am unsure, but I think adding this might fix it for you: :where(section.ipsType_richText.ipsType_normal) p { margin: revert; }

I thought that was the only tag which was causing you problems. If, for example, you wish to search for australia-valid, you'd search just for 'australia'. Another possible approach if you experience this problem with very many tags would be add a unique code to every tag 'australia-valid-[001]', china-valid-stock-[002]', etc. You'd then just search for the tag code number.

@michimachi Would it be an option for you to change the 'valid'-stock' tag to 'Valid-stock (generic)' or to include some other unique value? This way, you could instead search for 'generic' and this will take you directly to the tag you need.

Hey, @BarneyLongden With regard to what I wrote above: The app linked below might be of benefit to you. Unlike Invision's stock system, it will allow you (within manageable limits) to update the list of options for Radio or Checkbox Sets without it breaking existing values (Teams) members have already set. I use this the Invision stock system to add various values in the 'Post Bit' (the mini profile associated with each post). But I will now explore other options allowed by this app. The app should allow you to update your team lists if they should change (as they invariably do over time) without it upsetting the teams members have already chosen for themselves (the stock Invision system can upset the values set for all items in the list if a single value is changed). https://www.sosinvision.com.br/index.php?/file/601-cascading-select-custom-field/ And read the app author's explanation here to make sure it matches your needs: https://www.sosinvision.com.br/index.php?/forums/topic/3630-cascading-select-custom-field/

I just read @Lindy's follow-up post there. I still do not fully agree with the rationale for the total abandonment of the feature, but I do appreciate his effort to respond to the criticisms.

Thank you for the link @Adriano Faria That topic is on the Classic forum, and unless someone provides a direct link, I cannot access it (the forum is invisible to Cloud customers; it is not even searchable). So, Cloud customers are even less informed about the deprecation. As it happens, I do not much disagree with the thrust of @Lindy's comments there, but they were - as I mentioned - inaccessible to me. I never take any notice of 'guests' for the reasons he outlined. And I also agree that members should not have access to that data. No disagreement. But, admins (and perhaps moderators)? That option might have remained. Lindy's reply does not address that. Anyway, it seems that it is not coming back in any form (unless we are non-Cloud customers and wish to purchase the third-party app).

Unless I am mistaken, its deprecation does not appear in the change log. Invision, what's the thinking for removing this? Several on our team (including me) find it quite useful.

Urgh. I missed that. Thanks - I'll take a look at your app. Edit: Oh. Unfortunately, I use Invision Cloud, so this looks like a no-go for me. Thank you anyway for the reply.

I forget what this is actually called. But Online no longer displays what the member is presently doing on the site. Is this the result of a reset setting (with recent install of 5.0.20), a bug, or something else? Thanks.

Urgh. The expanded 'Complete Event Management' system looked like something we might use in the near future, and it fulfills many of the requests for improvements I've seen posted over the past year. But I too will be unable to take advantage of this if it is restricted to Professional plans and above.

Hi @Jake. I have a few suggestions. We have very few issues with spam on our forums. Typically, we go a few months between each incident. Further, when there is spam, it effectively never makes as far as being viewable by members. We have three post-count groups; I'll refer to them as Groups A, B & C. Group A is for those members with zero posts. Group B is for members with 1-9 posts. Group C is for members with 10 or more posts. Group A have their posts queued for moderator approval. Once they have had their first post approved, they are automatically moved to Group B and can post freely. Group A cannot send private messages; Group B can. But very few spam messages ever even make it to the approval queue because we use the app, AntiSpam, by CleanTalk: https://cleantalk.org/anti-spam-plugins It is cheap ($12/yr) and we have found it to be incredibly reliable. We typically go months between incidents of spam making it as far as the approval queue. AntiSpam has proven so reliable, we are thinking about dropping approval of first posts. In which case, Group A might be for something like 0-9 posts, and apply restrictions something like: Maximum 9 posts per day; can start 3 private messages per day, with a maximum of 1 recipient. You might also restrict the use of signature lines. Then, rely upon members to report spam posts and private messages. But as I said, I would expect very problems. I think logging into member accounts to view their messages is potentially very problematic. It should be reserved only for cases where the member has invited you in, or you have a very solid reason to suspect seriously problematic behaviour. I am unconvinced that potential spam would ever rise to this level. In my experience, AntiSpam will make it very difficult for spammers to reach your PM system. And member-reporting (along with sensible restrictions on new accounts) will take care of most of the few who do make it through. I think your approach is making this harder for yourself than it need be. If you end using a similar system to us (approval of all post from accounts with zero posts), you likely will never have PM spam again.

All is good. Thanks.

I've been off and on the forums for the past 3 hours. All seems good @Marc. 👍

I have the same issue, and I do not get the Cloudflare message. Generally, there will be rotating circle and the message will will simply fail to go through. With PMs, I get the Cloudflare check, I will pass, but the message will then still fail to go through.

Ah. So, not just me then. Mentions have not been working for 3-4 hours, and for the past hour, we are unable to post or PM.

AI first noticed this about an hour ago, and I am now receiving reports from members. I have made no changes. Ignore - my original post appeared to not go through. This is a copy topic.

I am unsure if we are talking at cross purposes. When I approve a post, those who have visited the topic since the post was queued for approval (and normally receive notifications for updates to the topic), appear to not receive retro-active notifications for the newly approved post (which was queued before their last visit to the topic). I am suggesting that they should receive the notification.

As I recall, this information used to be available in our Client area, but there was problem with it, it was supposed to be overhauled, but it has never happened. (It must be more than two years ago, now). I seem to recall that Invision advised that we contact them if we need this kind of information. I can now only assume there is no plan to again provide this kind of information via an easily accessible route.

It would be helpful if notifications are triggered for approved posts which would normally have triggered notifications if they had not been queued. As it stands, if a member has visited the topic since the post was posted, they do not receive the notification when it is approved. Perhaps the easiest way to achieve this would be to create the notifications as usual, but queue them too, only releasing them when the post is approved. I sometimes find I need to quote an approved post and add a note to be sure other members see it. But I am sure that other posts which would benefit from this are missed on a regular basis.

This makes sense. If I understand the code correctly - or more accurately, if I have interpreted it correctly - that code is only triggered on desktop. I can see this being useful. Though, it would better if Invision finesse how reactions work so that your JS is unnecessary. FWIIW, Invision team, I agree that the behaviour in v5 needs to change to properly support mobile. But it would benefit from some tweaking.