IP.Content to Pages: the nightmare on IPS Street

[TracyIsland]

Rhett at IPS posted an article about upgrading from 3.x to 4.0, and I will assume it was done to be accompany the IPS "official" 4.0 Suite announcement.  In the article are the disappointing facts about Friends to Followers but the big shocker is the final note:

IP.content > Pages
Upgrading ip.content to pages will upgrade your ip.content database, and content to the new Pages Application, however all blocks and templates will need to be re-created in IPS4 after the upgrade.

There are many community board software products on the market.  I always felt that IP.Content was the one thing that truly differentiated IP.Board from it's competition.  As we have read in other posts, the new Pages blocks do not have filtering options or very limited filtering options.  Now we (I) read that I will have to redo all of my blocks.  What exactly does that mean?  

1. Does it mean that if you have a default block but a custom layout, you have to redo it?
2. Does it mean that if you have followed IPS word for word,  that they cannot be responsible for any third party modifications and the use of anything but the default skin, and only used the default blocks, that all of those will have to be redone?
3. Does it mean that if you never changed your article templates, that you only used the default as designed by BFarber, that they will still have to be redone?

I am stunned.  This isn't an upgrade. This is tearing down the house that some of us (I) just built in the last few years instead of a remodel.

Could IPS please comment on the technical reasons why all of the blocks have to be redone?  Do we have to redo our blogs from scratch too? (That's a rhetorical question obviously). 

I just do not understand how IPS could take their singular signature item, and so totally change it that for those of us who use IP.Content heavily, it almost means starting over.

Brian

[CheersnGears]

At the moment, you can't re-do your blocks without resorting to manual coding.  I have a number of blocks that I built in 3.4.x that are just stock blocks with filters. All but one of those filters is missing in 4.0.

[opentype]

Could IPS please comment on the technical reasons why all of the blocks have to be redone? 

Because the templates are written for each specific template system, which itself sit in a specific HTML environment of each of these releases. There is no automatic way to get from one to the other. Also, it wouldn’t be useful to try it. The new system is responsive – so even if a block could be converted, it wouldn’t make any sense to do that, since it couldn’t leverage the new possibilities. If it was a 300px sidebar block only, how should that thing behave with all the responsive breakpoints? How should the upgrade system figure out what to do? It doesn’t work. 

I would suggest to set up a test site and check out what options you need for block updating. Some blocks (like “recent [SOMETHING]”) can be created in seconds in the new system and they work even better than the old. No reason to whine about a missing upgrade path in that case. If you used many specific block filters however, some blocks might currently not be able to be set up at all. 

 

[Josh Bond]

 

I am stunned.  This isn't an upgrade. This is tearing down the house that some of us (I) just built in the last few years instead of a remodel.

Could IPS please comment on the technical reasons why all of the blocks have to be redone?  Do we have to redo our blogs from scratch too? (That's a rhetorical question obviously). 

 

Just wait until you find out that you lack to the tools to rebuild your blocks in 4.0. All the filtering options for blocks are gone. Previously simple things--like showing a block with the featured files--now require custom coding where it previously required a few clicks of your mouse. Another example: try creating an IP.Pages page with the page builder, choose 3 column layout, insert a few blocks--then try to find a way to edit the underlying code of that page.

4.0 isn't an upgrade. They created a brand new product, bearing some similarity to 3.x, and having the same IPBoard name. It's more like switching to a new software than it is upgrading. Everywhere you look, you'll find features and functions you previously used that aren't there. 

They neutered IP.Content/Pages, crippling the power it once had with showing data from various parts of your community. There's no upgrade path for many of us that doesn't involve lots of custom coding. But speaking of custom coding, how would you code that functionality the old block system had? No list of variables. No syntax. No examples. No documentation. Nothing. 

I do get why they started over. The admin was overwhelming from the user's side--for a new user--it was intimidating. So, I'm guessing the code was so complex no single person at Invision understood it (when you factor in employee turn over). In an effort to simplify IPBoard, they simply cut too deep into IP.Content. I've wondered if Invision simply ran out of money when making 4.0. In a personal conversation with a friend who also runs IPBoard, as we struggled to understand Invision's decision making, I wondered outloud if the sales of 3.x dried up as the big news of 4.0 was being developed. And they simply had to rush 4.0 out to get sales. That's the only thing that makes sense to me.

I think we have until April 2017 before they stop releasing security patches for final 3.x version. Maybe either Invision gets its act together before then or another option becomes available elsewhere (I'm not digging anything out there right now, honestly).

[Shariq Ansari]

Are there any plans to restore filtering capabilities?

I can understand having to redo templating, but removing filtering capabilities that used to be much easier... that's just killing a feature that was clearly popular, with no rhyme or reason...

[Josh Bond]

Are there any plans to restore filtering capabilities?

I can understand having to redo templating, but removing filtering capabilities that used to be much easier... that's just killing a feature that was clearly popular, with no rhyme or reason...

In another thread, an Invision rep said they were listening and asked which filters people used.

But this is where my cynicism comes into play, just based on the 4.0 experience and (troubling) logic thus far. They'll throw in a fraction of the filters 3.x had and claim they've met the community's demand. Then they'll say someone can develop a mod and sell it to meet the need--but really? Who wants their site dependent on a third party developer or may or may not be here next month when the mod is broken by the next update.

[Everytime I reply to this thread, the editor is pasting images that I previously uploaded in another post. Good grief, something is very bugged with this editor]

[opentype]

Are there any plans to restore filtering capabilities?

It’s in the road map and should come shortly:
https://community.invisionpower.com/release-notes/

[Josh Bond]

It’s in the road map and should come shortly:
https://community.invisionpower.com/release-notes/

That says, "More robust block feed filtering options", which means:

They'll throw in a fraction of the filters 3.x had and claim they've met the community's demand. Then they'll say someone can develop a mod and sell it to meet the need--but really? Who wants their site dependent on a third party developer or may or may not be here next month when the mod is broken by the next update.

[Lindy]

Brian, I understand and appreciate you're not a fan of such change and perhaps do not understand the nature of an upgrade of this caliber -- that's perfectly fine, we don't expect you to, so I'll help as best as I can. 

The biggest complaint about IP.Content was that it required that you be a developer to use it. The feedback was noted loud and clear and when Pages (which was built from the ground up and can be seen as a successor to IP.Content) was created, it focused on usability. Admittedly, we have work to do in the documentation area and that is beginning next week. With that, absent artificial intelligence, it is impossible to predict all intentions with the old block and template system and port it to the new. Again, it's new technology on a new platform and while we can covert predictable content within the confines of a specific structure (which, as you noted, is literally everything else) - we can't reliably convert what you're asking for while still meeting the demands of progressing technology and the feedback attained from the usage of IP.Content. 

Upgrades aren't always seamless, unfortunately. From what I understand, you have a site with a lot of modifications - it's not going to be completely painless for you; that's simply the nature of technology. Major upgrades don't always go perfectly with a click of a button -- that's why corporations take years to roll out major updates on their internal systems and why some are, in spite of it being EOL, still using Windows XP. Upgrading all of the moving pieces, applications, user policies, etc. isn't seamless when you are dealing with things outside of your control as a developer. 

Hopefully with improved documentation, the impending improvements to Pages and the willingness to adapt, it will work out for you. 

 

Josh, I appreciate the constructive bits of your feedback. I do want to ensure you're basing your opinions on actual usage and interaction with IPS4 - as you're not an active client, I'd hate for these conclusions to be drawn without actually giving it a chance from an admin perspective in a real-world situation. Nonetheless, I think the backhanded reference to throwing a few things in for appeasement is a bit unfounded. It is true, with IPS4, we do believe some things that do not yield wide benefit to the masses are best left to the marketplace. Nonetheless, items that receive a good amount of attention can, have and will be added back in as justifiably necessary. A few of the many examples of changes prompted by feedback based on previous usage in IP.Board include: Legacy/classic PayPal subscription handling, the ability to use Pages in the root, advertisements in multiple locations, ability to force manual queries on upgrade, inline topic title editing, etc. What some consider frantic omissions are in fact intentional, some are mere oversights as this is not IPB and it is a ground-up rewrite of the entire community platform, some we need to gauge overall feedback on (as cited above) -- but we do listen, when the feedback is presented constructively and with real-world use cases. 

As Ralf noted, we are working on more powerful filtering options for blocks. It will be in one of the next few releases; not months away. It seems you haven't upgraded literally in years, so surely you have nothing to lose by waiting a few weeks to prove or disprove your cynicism.  

[Marcher Technologies]

I kind of understand where Josh is coming from, though he is blowing it a bit out of proportion considering we haven't even seen the filters planned. The feed block filters is the one area you actually can't ask us for use cases without getting an encyclopedia in response(something few, if any, are willing to type out). Each and every filter was so heavily used it even surprises me. The fear is that by you asking for use cases, you seek to trim down options that are used heavily by most if not all. If we have to 'champion' every filter with a use case it is going to be a long, bumpy road getting anywhere near the powerhouse Content feed Blocks were.

[Lindy]

I kind of understand where Josh is coming from, though he is blowing it a bit out of proportion. The feed block filters is the one area you actually can't ask us for use cases without getting an encyclopedia in response. Each and every filter was so heavily used it even surprises me. The fear is that by you asking for use cases, you seek to trim down options that are used heavily by most if not all.

I wasn't actually speaking specifically to filters in asking use cases to accompany feedback, obviously we're not going to ask you for specifics on every imaginable filter and combination thereof. Josh was commenting on his perception of "neutering" the product and the general logic behind what we've done thus far, so I was responding in general, not specific to filters. Often, people demand a feature or setting for no other reason beyond "it was there before." We need more than that, or we'll end up with piles of features and settings that do nothing more than bloat the software for the majority of users and box us into a corner as IP.Board did. Everybody has their "one thing" or "deal breaker" and if we accommodated all of them, again - we'd end up in a hot mess. Our job is to determine what has merit, what's going to be popular, what's in demand and what's a fad for today and an obsolete nuisance tomorrow (OpenID anyone?) Asking for specifics and use cases allows us to do that and say "ah yeah, we hadn't thought of that", "ah yeah, we hadn't thought of that, but how about we take that further" (like instead of a birthday field on registration, how about a complete your profile system?) or simply "nah, better left to the marketplace." All happen frequently and try as we might, we're unfortunately not going to make everyone happy 100% of the time. 

Filters are already covered - they'll be overhauled shortly.

[Marcher Technologies]

Excellent. Thanks for the clarification.

[Josh Bond]

Lindy, thanks for adding some of the features back in that are used by a huge cross section of people, both the filtering options and the attachment restrictions (so users can't attach exe files or whatever files the admin deems too dangerous). I'm sure this will continue as you learn more about how the majority of people have used your product.

My knowledge of IPS 4.x comes from the demo server.  It's how I have the screenshots presented in other threads. I've experimented with 4.x and tried a number of "real world" scenarios, leading to the filter issue and the lack of technical documentation overall in 4.0 for IP.Pages. I do intend to buy 4.x when it gets to a usable point for me. I haven't only because it's not possible to re-create the IP.Content/Pages site yet.

The reason I made the prediction about you not putting the all of filters back in is in the other thread where IPS staff were saying, yeah ok what filters are important? It's not unreasonable to infer there that all the filters people used to build their communities aren't coming back. If they were, the staff wouldn't have asked (essentially) which ones are important to you. But now, maybe they will come back. 

For what it's worth, I do see value in IPB 4.0. You don't hear people criticizing the new admin layout, the better logical organization of features, the slicker templates (front and back end) etc. Because it's good. People only complain about the bad. 

Josh, I appreciate the constructive bits of your feedback. I do want to ensure you're basing your opinions on actual usage and interaction with IPS4 - as you're not an active client, I'd hate for these conclusions to be drawn without actually giving it a chance from an admin perspective in a real-world situation. Nonetheless, I think the backhanded reference to throwing a few things in for appeasement is a bit unfounded.

[Lindy]

Thanks for the follow-up, Josh and I appreciate the positive points you've mentioned for reinforcement. 

I hadn't seen the other topic you were referencing until now. I don't see an inference that we're not going to add back some or all of the filters, we're just trying to get an idea of what's important -- as in "have to have it now." From there, we can prioritize and say "ok, developers -- these are really hot ticket items that need to be addressed right now" and what we can let slip for a few releases. Everything has to be prioritized and we now recognize the filters are an oversight (and with a brand new platform of 8 applications, there will undoubtedly be things to address over the long-haul as I'm sure you can appreciate), but unfortunately, hindsight is 20/20 - we have to prioritize and balance. "All of them" is not helpful for immediate prioritization purposes. We understand the desire for all of them and we're not saying that's not an option, but it's not an option that will materialize tomorrow, so we need to build a general idea of our short-term goals and long-term ideas; that's all.

[Marcher Technologies]

I see. That explanation would have saved our kneejerk reaction.

I'd say at the very minimum, needed 'now now', filtering by Nodes, Status and allowing sorting by fields that make sense(and as much as I hate to say it, by RAND() as well, the end user will have to take responsibility for that weight, maybe add a warning) globally for all feeds. Database feeds however, we really really need the ability to filter by custom fields back. These would get most of the most basic usages and allow you to focus on the rest in subsequent releases.

[GrooveOnBeat]

IP.Board has become streamlined, most likely to fit the middle ground for a wide range of users. Just look at IPB 4's ACP for instance. It was feature galore before and now it's like the basic version. I'm waiting for the Pro or Ultimate.

IP.Content was very powerful and yes, complicated. The resolve was to make it more user-friendly, thus features were trimmed down or removed. While I can see the logic, to keep the software stripped from being bloatware, the approach missed the mark. I see more topics about what happened to this or that feature than omg thank you for designing a light and useable product. The resolve should have been proper documentation instead. Documentation that the average can follow. I pointed this out in another thread and I'm glad that documentation is now a priority. It should have been the priority to begin with, but a start is better than status quo.

Whether it's the ACP or IP.Content/Pages, it isn't the abundance of features/options that was the problem. It all comes down to documentation.

[opentype]

I see more topics about what happened to this or that feature than omg thank you for designing a light and useable product.

True, but I think that more a result of human nature, than the new software version actually “missing the mark”. 

It all comes down to documentation.

I agree. 

[Shariq Ansari]

@Lindy has been doing a great job with pretty thorough & understanding responses lately, which are really appreciated.

It's fantastic that filters are being worked on; I'm not using them currently, but I'm planning on leaning extensively on Pages for future additions to our site, and they will be critical.

I understand the desire not to commit to specifics before all the planning is done, but is functional parity with the IPB 3.4.X implementation of filters a design goal? In other words, given that you agree that the user community can't be expected to enumerate every possible use case for a core piece of functionality like this, is there anything IPB 3.4.X will be able to "do" re: filters that IPS4, once this issue has been addressed, will not? Or is it too soon to answer that question?

[GrooveOnBeat]

True, but I think that more a result of human nature, than the new software version actually “missing the mark”.

Although I miss features in IPB 3x, overall I like what I see in IPB 4 and I'm looking forward to the changes that will make the product better. I never expect to be 100% satisfied because once I set a goal that's unreachable I'll always be filled with disappointment. Yet, I am hoping to see things I want make its way to IPB 4.  I believe that IPS is listening to customer feedback, and as long as they do so and provide quality support, I'll be a happy customer.

[Ali Majrashi]

@Lindy i love the new ip.pages but it's not only the filters options we miss also fields options to control any field we create 

i posted alot about things i miss in ip.pages and hope they get added specially the DateTime and relationship fields i use them extensively on my 2 sites and they still run IPB v3

waiting for these fields or options to be added so i can upgrade

and for advance users 

 

[Shariq Ansari]

@Lindy i love the new ip.pages but it's not only the filters options we miss also fields options to control any field we create 

i posted alot about things i miss in ip.pages and hope they get added specially the DateTime and relationship fields i use them extensively on my 2 sites and they still run IPB v3

waiting for these fields or options to be added so i can upgrade

I'm very interested in these as well, and I've seen others asking about them, too.

I know filters are being worked on, but has IPS made any statement about restoring these fields?

[sobrenome]

IPS 4 is amazing, specially on mobile devices.

But in my humble opinion, Pages, as the successor of IP.Content, should have, at least, all the functionality of the old software and adds even more.

I hope that future releases takes this point as a goal. Thanks for the great software!

[Ali Majrashi]

I'm very interested in these as well, and I've seen others asking about them, too.

I know filters are being worked on, but has IPS made any statement about restoring these fields?

only relationship fields on the road map at the end of the page hopefully they consider advance and simple usage to be true relationship between 2 databases 

https://community.invisionpower.com/release-notes/

 

[Joel R]

it almost means starting over.

Brian

Hate to break it to ya, but it doesn't mean ALMOST start over.  It means ... Start over.  Completely.  Fully.  In totality.  From scratch.  Rebuild all.  

While this has forced ALL IPS users to rebuild their websites from scratch, it's been a known fact since the very beginning for v4. They've never stated that IP.Content blocks or templates would migrate over; they've been very clear that those items would need to be recreated.  

With that said, at least from my personal perspective, I actually view it as a positive: even though I've invested a lot into my v3 website, the new version gives me an opportunity to re-invision (get it?) my website from the ground up with new features and functionality from the very beginning. 

[recifbox]

note to reader first : to be clear yes i know that 4.0 will bet a total reset of the software, but that said here my pov:

 

so far, from my pov and as a "old customer", i'm reviewing all option including leaving invision (i compare cost for migrating to 4.0 and migrating to other solution).

after trying on a beta test environment and not able to "migrate it" completely.

after having review that all my content need to be re-coded, 

etc etc... i try to figure out how this 4.0. could be "productive and helpful" for my tiny business without spending 4k$ in coding, skining... 

side note, the no documentation at release not helping to understand the work to be done and the understanding of page, because this is my biggest concern, my site is build around the old ip.content and this is this part i need to be done at first and with no errors at the release of the upgrade