dyelton

+Clients
  • Content count

    306
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About dyelton

  • Rank
    IPB Full Member
  • Birthday 03/19/1982

Recent Profile Visitors

10,528 profile views
  1. I run a large forum with many sub-forums and many moderators. Each sub-forum (for the most part) gets a different moderator and rarely does a moderator for one sub-forum have access to the others (this would be reserved for a global moderator). Currently I must modify the permissions for each individual moderator because of how things are coded in the ACP. I can't rely on the group permissions for moderator. The forum software assumes that I have a very simple setup where applying a moderator group or a small handful of moderator groups will apply to all or most of the forums and sub-forums. This may apply to some sites, but it definitely doesn't apply to all sites. A better option would be to decouple the moderator permissions from the list of forums that a moderator can moderate. This would allow for both setups to work as intended. I'm now stuck having to open the permissions for each individual moderator to make a change when necessary. I hate knowing that I'm going to waste a good hour or so going through each tab for each moderator and setting up permissions. I would love to see this decoupling in an upcoming release. I can't think of a negative for doing it this way and it would ensure consistent permissions for all moderators and forums.
  2. +1 for this. I would love to enable HTTPS on my site but it is currently impossible to do so. I've enabled serving up images locally for HTTPS but as you stated, it only works going forward. My community has almost 1.3 million posts so changing all links over to HTTPS isn't going to be so easy.
  3. ^ I actually have 1.1 million posts on my board and it's been running just fine.
  4. It would be absolutely exceptional if we were given a choice in the ACP to have a user's avatar be the global representation of that user instead of the current method which is having avatar and personal photos in parallel. I, along with many others from what I gather in various posts I've found, feel that having both separated is slightly confusing to the user and really doesn't give good representation to that user. Sure, it may work better in a business environment like you guys have here, but it doesn't work well with many of our forum setups and the way they have organically grown. This post has a solution, but obviously requires editing the source code...something that would likely be overwritten in the next minor release and every release afterward. Seems like it would be a great choice to give admins a choice of how their board is setup. Allow personal photos and avatars, or only allow avatars globally. Please find it in your hearts to make this a reality in a future release. :)
  5. Community SEO (http://www.communityseo.com) handles sitemaps just fine, but I had to stop using their software as they were giving me extremely high server loads (not related to sitemaps). I have a very large forum (1+ million posts) and this sitemap task also times out for me. I'm using version 1.0.3.
  6. That worked! Thanks!
  7. I just installed this on my board that has the application iContact Form. Unfortunately I get this error when running your program: System Error Could not find Setup directory for the 'iContact Form' application. Is there anyway we can bypass and use it even though it can't find the setup directory for an installed application?
  8. I'm glad to hear that development of 3.0 is progressing, but I'm very alarmed at the discontinuing of the subscriptions manager. My site is a company for me that generates a good bit of revenue from the subscriptions manager. I wouldn't mind it being discontinued if you offer a direct path for migrating over to IP.Nexus for this purpose, but if this isn't going to be the case then I fear that some customers, including me, are going to be in a bit of a conundrum.
  9. [quote name='ellawella' post='1396047' date='Jun 22 2006, 12:44 PM']It may be a sound feature for your site, but IMO most other sites would not have a use for it. If you browse around virtually any forums you'll seldom see more than a couple of posts of any significant length per thread page (broadly speaking). Most posts can be typed out in under 3 mins, no need for a save feature You could always request/make a modification though.[/quote] I agree, most forums are probably not setup like mine. I have had custom modifications from Invision done on my site before but I'm not sure I want to touch on that subject at the moment. I have to pull teeth everytime a custom modification from Invision is done so anytime I pay to have one done I make sure it is a good one. I am curious as to what Brandon C was referring to however.
  10. [quote name='ellawella' post='1396043' date='Jun 22 2006, 12:32 PM']I don't see the point of a save feature for posts. It's all very well drafting emails, but drafting a post? Nah. It's just not important enough. Save it to Wordpad [/quote] I have been caught in this situation as well as many of my users. My site is a large reference site (http://www.urbanplanet.org) with all sorts of stats, figures, etc. A lot of the posts on my site take a bit of time to compose with users having to switch between reference material to make the complete composition. A save feature would be great in my case. Personally I've been caught writing a long post only to have my computer lock-up, etc. so it would be nice if you could save it as you go along just in case something happened.
  11. [quote name='bc.' post='1313121' date='Nov 6 2005, 03:40 AM']Erm, IPB already has a save-post feature should your window have any problems. [/quote] I'm certainly not seeing this. I was originally interested in an auto-save but if a user could clik "save" for instance that would be just fine for me but I don't see that option anywhere. I'm using v2.1.6.