crabpaws

+Clients
  • Content count

    519
  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About crabpaws

  • Rank
    Curiouser and curiouser

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  1. But how would they know to even come back to the site to log in?
  2. I don't use any 3rd-party login handlers. Lindy, are you saying the user with an incomplete registration can log in? How is that possible, do they get a validation e-mail?
  3. This is present in 3.4.x but IPS support says it's "by design" so I'm going to presume it's present in 4.1 as well. EDIT Here's a topic reporting it in 4.1 When a user registers with an error in the Display Name field, such as entering a name that's already in use, the system will present a message that the name is in use yet somehow still save the registration as Incomplete. As near as I can tell, saving a registration as Incomplete when it has an invalid Display Name field does no good for anyone. The user doesn't realize the registration is useless and can't log in, generating complaints that are work for the admin. If the admin should look in ACP > Members > Incomplete, the only way to resolve these registrations is by initiating an e-mail correspondence -- also unnecessary work. I suggest when there is an invalid entry in the Display Name field (or any field), the system NOT save the registration at all. Saving it as incomplete is not helpful to anyone. There should be no category of registrations as "Incomplete" to create more work for admins. This was suggested in 2012 (as well as other times): Instead, an error message should be inserted requesting the user to complete all fields and not permit saving of the registration until this happens. I see this issue with "Incomplete" registrations has been reported as a bug for many years. If it's "by design," what is the benefit intended by the design?
  4. That would be very nice indeed. But a simple sort by IP added to Users Online would be a significant improvement that would take a minimum of IPS investment and processing power.
  5. Excellent question, Mopar1973Man. Would sorting by IP address utilize more server power than sorting by Member Name (or Last Click -- whaa???)? I was thinking of a way to facilitate Blocking Bad Bots via htaccess
  6. The user list can be sorted by Member Name (and Last Click -- sort of useless) and filtered by Registered vs Guests, why not enable sorting by IP address?
  7. This is still a problem in 3.4.8. At least one of them I've seen is because a screen name was entered that was already a member name. I have no idea if Facebook or Twitter is involved, but I have quite a few incomplete registrations. There is no reason to even have this functionality. If any of the fields are invalid, the system should be rejecting these attempted registrations with a simple error message: "Please complete all fields."
  8. That plug-in is not what I meant. What I'm looking for is an easier way to spot suspicious aggregations of IP addresses or IPs with multiple sessions open. Many of these would not identify themselves as USER-AGENTS. They are spam bots or some other nefarious waste of server load.
  9. I don't have anything in my Followed Content, yet I've had these settings set to On forever. Is this working or not?
  10. No interest? I'm sure this is of concern to many admins.
  11. Any possibility this might be adopted in the next version tweak?
  12. Statcounter surveys screen resolutions http://gs.statcounter.com/#resolution-na-monthly-201312-201412-bar Their methodology seems fairly sound, subject to bias of their member sites, which have not been characterized in detail. (If they were tech-oriented, the data might be slanted.) "Our tracking code is installed on more than 3 million sites globally. These sites cover various activities and geographic locations." These stats are for North America, Dec 2013 to 2014: 1024 x 768 is represented twice, by 1024 x 768 and 768 x 1024, for a total of about 16%. Same parameters for Europe, showing 1024 x 768 usage of about 12%:
  13. How the heck would I know I'm seeing the mobile view when you're field testing a beta, Charles? For all I know, this is the new universal view. Or maybe it's buggy. Aside from that, I'd like to discuss the navigation in the mobile view. Ironically, my resolutions limitations allow me to check that out, too.
  14. ​According to the introduction on the page to which you referred, http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_Display.asp: "W3Schools.com is for people with an interest for web technologies. This fact indicates that the numbers below might not be 100% true for the average internet users. The average internet-user might have a lower screen resolution." Visitors to W3Schools.com are probably tech professionals, tech students, or tech hobbyists. Believe it or not, these do not constitute a majority of the population in any part of the world except Silicon Valley. This is yet another case of tech looking at its own belly button and seeing worlds therein. ​I don't think that's so, Charles. The smaller desktop monitors are still widely available, from major manufacturers. I doubt that I am way outside the norm. I gather IPS hasn't done user testing among a random population of users who are not employed in software development or habitues of IPS support forums? That would be a better way to identify the norm. ​Yes, my site's visitors are a general population, some using quite old equipment (and some on mobile). (Macs can last a long time ) I fully expect a large number of my users would have difficulty with the resolution requirements of IPB 4.0. Personally, I don't intend to replace my monitor until it croaks. Reduce, reuse, recycle. Pretty soon this will make sense to everyone. ​I think we all need to accommodate mobile users as well as desktop users. To me, this indicates an admin option to have two skins, as we have now, or the adaptive option.