Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Hop To
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
It would be nice to have checkboxes in the admin control panel that enable/disable certain features, like...

- threaded view
- [Re: ...] next to each post
- subject for replies
- post icons
- ...

- Kayjey -
www.fiatcoupe.net

Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
Hi!

I support this suggestion.

I would like to disable in CP:

- flat view
( i buyed UBBT because it is the best threaded forum )

- memberlist, users online, ...
( maximum privacy, no chance any new member take some bad name,... )

Kind regards
Soran

Miyu: Are you that bored?
[...] Now you're not bored anymore.

Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
Hi Kayjey-

I like this idea for UBB.threads, too.

Ted O'Neill
Infopop CEO

Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
More control panel options to disable features will be coming in the future. The main reason this hasn't been done at this point is the config editor is getting pretty crazy as it is. It's quite hard to find exactly what you're looking for. Heck, even I don't know where some of the stuff is <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="images/icons/smile.gif" /> So, before we go adding a whole bunch of new options to it, we need to restructure it so things are easier to find.

-------------------
Rick Baker
UBBThreads developer

Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
That's correct. After the major overhaul in Classic the Threads Control Panel doesn't shine out too much. Needs a redo.

Well I've just dug into the templates and disabled the post rating display, added another 5 % to the post subject column, added two non breaking spaces to get the number of replies centered correctly and I've done the who's online mod. Oh and I put last post and posted by on a single line. One of my major dislikes is the fact so many things take up so much space in threads. Splitting across multiple lines was really no good for quickly browsing the Forum.

Looking forward to seeing some things implemented. I think you should leave extra features aside a bit and focus on usability. As I posted elsewhere admins and moderators shouldn't be digging so deep to close, move,... a thread or reply. It's too much clicking at this point.

- Kayjey -
www.fiatcoupe.net

Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
I totally agree with Kayjey. Transitioning from Classic to Threads, administering the forums and system is hardly intuitive and time-consuming. Any improvements made for admin would be wonderful!

[]Joe@4x4Wire.com[/] | Beat up '94 Toyota 4WD | 4x4Wire Forums

Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
Great idea. I too would appreciate the ability to disable/enable (via the control panel) such features as threaded mode, thread/member ratings, the constantly repeating subject line, etc.

With regards to the CP itself, I think that most admins rarely make changes once the board is up and running, so it's only natural that with loads of options available... the admin might have to browse around a bit to find the option he or she is looking for.

---------
Go Cougs!

Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
Agree conrad - the cp is the least of my sorrows actually. Only the 'close boards' feature is totally in the wrong place. It should be somewhere really really really really obvious.

I'd be willing to fork out a new look for the control panel together with anyone interested, but I'm also not planning on working without anyone's consent and certainly not in parallel with infopop. They probably have a bunch of stuff on their desk and I'm 100% sure this must be one of them. I also know from experience that these things often get bypassed in favour of the more easy, less time- and brainconsuming things to be done. So no blame there. It's just pretty obvious there's a lot to be done. In fact, infopop has done the greatest thing going for a serious mySQL based board. And we all realise there's a lot of power in here and databases are THE way to go. Just needs to gets a bit more focus on optimisation, as well as internally as externally.

No need to worry though - we're on the right path. And I've put my trust in infopop since a good 6 years and they're never proven my wrong. Keep it up guys!

- Kayjey -
www.fiatcoupe.net

Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="">quote:</font><hr /><font size="" face="">Originally posted by Kayjey:
Just needs to gets a bit more focus on optimisation, as well as internally as externally.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="" face="">Very true. I reckon that all people who buy other bulletin board software instead of Threads do so simply because they don't like the design. I would say that this is Threads' weakest point.

Internally it's probably the best product out there, but externally it still leaves a lot to be desired. If Threads could look like Open Topic, I'm sure it would outsell competitive products by a mile.

Design really does matter. It's the same with cars, once you like how it looks on the outside, only then do you bother checking out the engine specs. I've yet to see a Threads board that looks great. Many look decent, but I don't think I've ever come across one where I said, "wow, this is what I want."

In general the software doesn't look as "professional" as it should. The simplest of things that should have been done a long time ago is a complete revamp of the posting icons (and other forum images). I mean this is the most basic of things that could have been done, especially since this has always been a strong point of Infopop.

Of course in this case it's quite easy to do one your own once you have the board installed, but how many first-timers (prospective customers) looked at a sample Threads board and thought to themselves, "Boy, this looks old and outdated."

---------
Go Cougs!

Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
The more I get into Threads, the less I like it. Admin is a nightmare - things are grouped logically by category (headers, footers, etc) but that is not, uh, logical.

Administering a forum should include everything for that forum: header, footer, includes. I hate having to go from section to section to change one forum.

The Infopop comment about this being a system you don't need to be a brain surgeon to install and admin is true. But a Masters or PhD in CompSci might help.

Overall I am very underwhelmed w/ Threads. As noted, the look and feel is lame, esp compared to Classic. The forum and post screens readers see are far too busy. I think we made a mistake transitioning our license.

[]Joe@4x4Wire.com[/] | Beat up '94 Toyota 4WD | 4x4Wire Forums

Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="">quote:</font><hr /><font size="" face="">Originally posted by little_joe:
As noted, the look and feel is lame, esp compared to Classic.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="" face="">Very true. I've checked out loads of different Threads boards and I've never come across one that had a professional look to it. If anything Threads still looks like freebie software, which is a shame.

There's a lot of talk about templates being such a powerful and easy-to-use feature, but the fact that nobody has been able to reproduce the Classic look clearly shows that you probably need that Masters or PhD in CompSci to handle this feature properly.

---------
Go Cougs!

Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
Conrad, that would be your opinion. I think threads looks very professional.

Templates are pretty much just HTML. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="images/icons/wink.gif" />

If you can handle HTML you can modify templates. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="images/icons/smile.gif" />

I'm thinking more along the lines that nobody has wanted their threads boards to look like Classic. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="images/icons/wink.gif" /> I find classic very disorienting.

The admin area in threads does need some reorganization - as right now too many featues have been added, and it's difficult to find what you need to do.

But usually removing an option is editing or commenting out our a line or two from the appropriate template.

For the record - I do not have Masters or PhD in anything. I never attended college for that matter. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="images/icons/wink.gif" />

Josh
www.joshuapettit.com
ThreadsDev.com Administrator | InfoPop Community Moderator
Register to see my How To/Site Help Library Forum at ThreadsDev.com.
My threads 'tweaking' abilities are for hire for upgrades, tweaks and modifications.

Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
In all fairness it's not just my opinion. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="images/icons/smile.gif" /> With regards to Classic users "upgrading" (only out of necessity, not personal choice) to Threads, I can't think of a single one who is doing so because Threads offers _anything_ better apart from a MySql database backbone. It's sad, but true. If Classic was based on a database... not a single Classic user would bother giving Threads a look. No chance at all.

Don't get me wrong - this is not just about Classic being so good. If I had to upgrade to Open Topic, I'd be more than glad to do so if I could run it on my own server (purchase the software). But Threads looks truly appaling, and as I've mentioned before, I've yet to find a Threads board that doesn't look "amateurish"...

Take a random count of 100 internet users and I'm certain most will say that Classic looks more professional. Compare Threads to Open Topic and you have a complete mismatch - OT looks light years ahead in terms of design.
Even in terms of functionality OT is on a different level, which makes me wonder why the people developing Threads don't copy some of the ideas to catch up and make Threads a professional product - not just from the inside, but also from the outside.

---------
Go Cougs!

Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
I had written a rather large response to this but couldn't get it finished without sounding defensive <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="images/icons/smile.gif" /> . So I'm trying again.

If every .classic user that has converted to .threads (and there has been alot of them) had a terrible experience and ended up with an "amatuerish" looking forum, we'd have a revolt on our hands. Not everyone is going to be happy, but obviously there are those that are but you just don't hear from the people that are satisfied and aren't having problems.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="">quote:</font><hr /><font size="" face="">
Take a random count of 100 internet users and I'm certain most will say that Classic looks more professional.
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="" face="">I like .classic as well. It looks great. But you are a .classic user. I'd guarantee you that a user that has been using .threads for the past several years would make the exact opposite statement. Honestly, if we changed .threads to look exactly like .classic there would be an uproar from the majority of current users because they are used to and like the way .threads looks and behaves.

In reality, it isn't a competition between .threads, .classic, Open Topic. All of the products grow and improve with what is being requested by the users. We are going to make things similar in design in a few areas to have some consistency throughout the product lines but each will maintain their own unique look in some areas.

-------------------
Rick Baker
UBBThreads developer

[This message was edited by Rick Baker on July 01, 2003 at 01:43 PM.]

[This message was edited by Rick Baker on July 01, 2003 at 02:21 PM.]

Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
I guess I'll put my 2 cents worth in here. I started with UBB prior to the implementation of .classic. I was looking for something that offered more flexibility and speed. I found that in Threads. After I switched, I had many, many users post messages on how they loved the new look, the ability to view "threaded" messages and how much faster it loaded. I for one would hate to revert to .classic.

Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
Hi Rick,

As far as Classic users upgrading to Threads are concerned, I think that most (or should I say all) do so simply because they need to switch to a database-driven solution. I don't think we'll find a single person here who has switched for any other reason. This is why so many people upgrading from Classic leave Infopop and look elsewhere

With regards to the forums looking "amateurish" upon conversion, I have to say that I'll hold on to my accusation here. My friends at Bettorsworld.com needed to upgrade from Classic, as did my colleagues from Majorwager.com. Unfortunately neither found a suitable solution with Infopop and chose to move elsewhere, which is a shame. I, on the other hand, bought out a 'Gold' Threads license simply because I believed that this was the right thing to do. To be honest I trusted all the talk about the possibility of a template being brought out which could make Threads look like Classic (optional template), but to this day I have yet to see such a template... or a Threads board that looks as professional as a Classic one.

I think the area where we disagree most is the look of the bulletin board. I'm not saying that Threads should look identical to Classic - but since it's an Infopop product I don't see why Threads should look "alien" compared to Classic, or Open Topic for that matter. Surely there should be some resemblance in the product line, especially since this has always been a trademark of Infopop's success. Just the fact that the post icons look a decade old in Threads is a bad sign indeed... <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="images/icons/wink.gif" />

I believe that the choice between Classic, Threads, and Open Topic should be based on the technical solution that one seeks. Don't have MySql access - take Classic. Want a database-driven solution - choose Threads. Prefer a full package including hosting and maintenance - go for Open Topic. After all, this is the main decision that a prospective client has to take.

It's somewhat understandable that the three products might look and act a bit different, but the fact that many options are handled differently in the Infopop product range is illogical and silly to say the least. If someone can give me a decent answer as to why the censor feature is handled differently in Classic/OT and Threads, then please fire away... I for sure can't find any justification. There's no reason why all three products shouldn't handle this feature in the same, identical way.

Being a Classic user who has converted his license to Threads (but has yet to convert the forums after over a year's wait...), you have to understand that I'm somewhat disappointed. Don't get me wrong, Rick - you've done a fantastic job ever since you've come on board. You've turned Threads into an ultra-efficient product that runs better than competitive products, and you've implemented many new features in the process. But the design area has been neglected during this time, and Threads still looks "old" compared to the professional look that Open Topic holds for instance. Surely there has to be someone at Infopop who can create a template or two that could bring Threads to the same design level of OT.

Apart from the neglected look and the lack of a common policy with regards to certain features - such as the censor aspect - (no excuse for this), I think that Threads has indeed come a long way. Provide other Infopop clients with more administrative options (such as the _OPTION_ to switch off threaded view - something which has been bypased by all other Infopop products), and Threads would be a much more friendlier and popular product. As it stands it seems that Threads is a rogue development that is taking clients away from Infopop's "pipeline" based on the Classic > Threads > Open Topic route. I can't think of a single person I know who was capable of bypassing Threads and going straight from Classic to Open Topic, and subsequently they all decided that Threads wasn't a good choice for them... so they left Infopop altogether. This is a real shame, and it should never been allowed to happen. Totally unprofessional if you ask me...

Personally I'm going to hang around hoping that Infopop actually has a management structure which can get some sort of cooperation going between the different "factions" developing its software. I mean how many more clients do you need to lose before someone wakes up and sees what's going on? Why is nobody aware that other companies are acting like vultures on Classic users wanting to upgrade, even offering them better and more professional upgrade modules than those offered to future Threads users? Does it get any more evident than this? Classic users are the weak spot that the competition is targetting. They're (or rather we're) the ones that are being cornered because the very company we trusted has partially abandoned us to a rogue development that has little to do with the 'look&feel' that we have always associated with the Infopop brand name.

Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
Like I said, we are going to have some consistency between the products. Which is why in 6.4 you'll find the .classic style polls. The censoring feature will probably get an overhaul in that version or the version after as well.

There is an evolution plan in place for .threads. However since version 6, a good majority of the development time has been devoted to backend stuff, moving to userid's for everything and such with not too much time being devoted to other things. With that stuff done and out of the way we can move on to other things.

-------------------
Rick Baker
UBBThreads developer

Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
some observations from a new user:

1 - we chose "threads" because it offered a threaded view, necessary for users to parse complex, interleaved discussions. (It WOULD be nice if it could somehow be made easier for someone who hasn't used threaded views, to understand how they work!)

2 - I really agree that the admin panel needs some reorganization and additions (like clicks to enable/disable options) - I get embarassed that I saw something somewhere, and then can't find it again

3 - as to design, I hope Josh doesn't mind if I diasgree with his statement that "it's just html". Based on my limited experience, 1t's actually a pretty complicated interaction between templates and stylesheets, and that's getting into the second or third volume of html, as far as I'm concerned! I've had a couple of experiences in trying to change or alter templates that have foundered when I couldn't figure out the interaction between templates and stylesheets, though fortunately people like Josh and Dalantech have been available to help. But when it takes and hour or two a day over several days to solve one modest problem, that's not trivial. I'm sure that in a year or so, at this rate of time expenditure, I'll be a bit better at it, but meanwhile I'm half-way through the couple of months I have to get this board up, and still have several problems to solve (not counting getting some content, e.g., tips, in the board so our users will have a better idea of where stuff is and how to use the board). By the way, one trivial thing would be to have a page explaining what page or screen, or perhaps part of screen, each of the templates covers...I've come to understand more or less what a quarter of them are related to, but a guide would be handy for the would-be template editor who is trying to alter something.)

I did a lot of computer programming a long time ago, as part of my research, and I've had - in the last several years - a couple of minor interactions with html...it's one thing to remove a couple of line breaks from one of these templates, but figuring out how the details work - which you have to do if you want to make a modification - is another thing entirely, IM(very)HO.

Anyway, I'd encourage improvements in the CP, as suggested, plus some work on design (I found I was trying to get some of the look of ubb.x, but with great difficulty), and perhaps other things that make changes in design and options more accessible to people with less experience than Josh or DLT

Thanks - Tony <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="images/icons/smile.gif" />

PS: As for specific suggestions of changes, I have a few that I have mentioned recently on other occasions, e.g., -

- have an option (mostly for the convenience of moderators) where a user CAN get email of new posts in their "favorite" forums - an option that IS mentioned, as I read it, in one of the documents, but doesn't exist. This is so that, if they really are moderating, they don't have to keep checking the board, and - alternatively - they don't have to wait a whole day or so for a subscription to know that there is something they should respond to. (Actually, maybe they do get emails if post approval is required; if so, it wouldn't be hard to modify this so they have the option of getting the email even if approval ISN'T required);

- if registration approval is required, the resulting email ought to have the details that the registrant entered or a link to wherever that is!

Related to this, it would really be nice if it were possible to add fields to what a user has to fill out on registration, so you can really know if the person qualifies (e.g., details to determine whether he/she is a member of our association, in the event we have to adopt that requirement); and the add-field option ought to include any required changes to the database. Now that I think about it, the 4 empty fields already available, but not required for registrtion, must already have places specified in the database (???) So all we need is a second set of such fields that are available for the registration process, but that don't show up if the field names are empty...?

- I really think there should be an option to have the category descriptions displayed on the main page, even when the forums are also displayed, and, like, ubb.x that it should be possible to include a link (i.e., html); J.C. and Dalantech helped me make this change. (However, I have to make it again, now that I've installed DLT's facelift..This may be trivial, but may not be, because I didn't understand one of the changes. So I'm hoping I can just find that last change and copy it over to the new ubbthreads.tmpl, and that it won't intereact with any of the changes in the facelift...)

Enough, already!

Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
Listen to your customers, please.

I've put +30 hrs of setup into Threads (templates, options, navigating, etc) and feel I have a forum that is awful compared to the Classic board that took us maybe 6 hrs total to set up. I haven't even tried the Classic import yet either.

As Conrad alluded to, Threads' look is IMHO cheap, amateurish.

So far I am extremely underwhelmed by this product and overwhelmed by how much time it takes to config and admin, all resulting in a look and feel we simply cannot stand. We are beginning to think we made a mistake "upgrading" to a Threads license, but fortunately we still have a rock-solid Classic. In fact, I am off to look at the most recent Classic notes and upcoming changes and decide if it wouldn't be better to just stick with it.

FWIW vBB "feels" just as bad as Threads. I have yet to visit a single Threads or vBB forum that has that substantive feel, which is hard to quantify, of Classic or OT. And I've been on forums since they first came out.

[]Joe@4x4Wire.com[/] | Beat up '94 Toyota 4WD | 4x4Wire Forums

Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
BTW, we feel the db backend of Threads is the most significant improvement over Classic and motivated our transition. This is a huge differentiator. If there were any way to formally re-engineer Classic w/a db a la Hostboard, IMHO there would be no need for Threads. Then there'd be two excellent developers - Rick and Charles - working on a single product, which I would think would be a huge win for Infopop customers.

[]Joe@4x4Wire.com[/] | Beat up '94 Toyota 4WD | 4x4Wire Forums

Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
"I believe that the choice between Classic, Threads, and Open Topic should be based on the technical solution that one seeks. Don't have MySql access - take Classic. Want a database-driven solution - choose Threads. Prefer a full package including hosting and maintenance - go for Open Topic. After all, this is the main decision that a prospective client has to take."


That's the crux of it right there.


I'm absolutely sorry if you bought a .threads board thinking that it was UBB.classic on MySQL, but it is not. That's selling it short, actually. It isn't now and isn't going to be UBB.classic on MySQL. It has it's own feel, it's own model. It's smaller, lighter. It's threaded.

It is a lot of things but it isn't UBB.classic size medium.

If you are buying on of our products based on "small meduim or large" I submit to you that either your using the wrong basis for your decision or I've done a bad job on our product pages relating the fact that UBB.threads is NOT UBB.classic size medium.

Could the UBB.threads interface use some refinement? Sure, certainly. Will it turn into UBB.classic? I don't foresee it.

<img src="http://navaho.infopop.cc/golf.gif" alt=" - " />

Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
With all due respect I don't think this is about making Threads look like Classic. It's about making Threads look like a decent, professional bulletin board. Unfortunately at the moment it still resembles an open source 'freebie'.

Instead of making Threads look like UBBC, why don't we make it look... better? Forget Classic, let's find a better benchmark. Why not make it look as neat and sophisticated as Open Topic? This product is miles ahead of Threads (and Classic) in terms of design, and with the "blueprint" already out there and looking great... most of the work is already done, right?

It's amazing how long the Threads design has been overlooked while Rick has been working hard to fine-tune the engine. What's even more surprising is the lack of cooperation between the different "factions" at Infopop.

Why aren't ideas and options shared more often? What makes a function/feature good enough to be implemented in one of the boards... but not the other/s? Why doesn't everyone sit down and discuss the censor function for instance, and then decide on a common way of handling this feature on all products? By the look of things Threads, Classic, and Open Topic might just as well be developed by three separate companies, as there doesn't seem to be much similarity between these products... (especially between Threads and the rest)

---------
Go Cougs!

Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
'course you wouldn't have a threaded view, which is needed for some kinds of boards!!! (Isn't that whay it's called threads???)

Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
Yeah... The whole point of "UBB.Threads" is it's threaded capability. All the other PHP/MySQL stuff just does a Flat view. It's kind of like buying a hair dryer and wanting to disable the feature to dry your hair. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="images/icons/grin.gif" />

Conrad - your opininion that threads doesn't look as good as others is your opinion. And you are entitled to it. It doesn't make it law for the rest of us. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="images/icons/wink.gif" />
I work with dozens upon dozens of clients who want me to hook them up with threads - because they love it. They love the way it looks, and the way it works. And a good many of them have been classic converts. I'd give you a dozen "converts" off the top of my head that love their Threads board compared to Classic. But again, their opinions are their opinions. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="images/icons/wink.gif" /> They don't have to match yours.

I know you think you have a pulse on what the universe thinks - but, given it's what I do, I dare say that I come in contact with more people on a daily basis who have chosen threads over many other products for various reasons.

You also have to keep in mind that existing users don't like change. They panic at new features and when features change from version to version - even though the transition is slow. If you blew out 6.4 with a Totally different look - you'd have an uprising of Thousands and thousands of threads board owners - who currently like it the way it is. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="images/icons/wink.gif" /> Thus I guarantee you that all changes made, are made very slowly, little by little. When working with a product like this - you have to cater to your existing clients first.

I do love the new Open Topic. It does have a nice look for it. And it works great.... if I'm using Internet Explorer. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Razz]" src="images/icons/tongue.gif" /> If I'm using Safari or OmniWeb I can't access half the features. And I cannot view someone's profile here unless I switch to my PC. So while it's pretty to look at - I'm glad that threads isn't so cutting edge that it actually works for me. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="images/icons/wink.gif" />

Stuff you want and would like other people may not. Choose what you like to use and go with it. I wouldn't buy a product then expect it to change for me. Reading the same exact comments from you over and over is mega-tiring.

The points you have questioned have been asked and answered repeatedly - yet you still never read the answer before re-voicing your opinion.

You said the interface could use some refining. Dave responded agreeing with you, yet you continue to point the same out over and over again.

You say the design not decent - and you're entitled to tha opinion. But it doesn't mean that everyone else agrees with you.

You've mentioned the censor feature on at least 3 other occations. They have said, over and over, that the products will slowly begin to work and look somewhat alike. Not overnight. Yet again you mention the censor feature.

Either you never read the replies you get - or you totally fail to grasp them. I'll never know. But I know you probably lose credibility repeating the same things over and over. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="images/icons/wink.gif" />

Josh
www.joshuapettit.com
ThreadsDev.com Administrator | InfoPop Community Moderator
Register to see my How To/Site Help Library Forum at ThreadsDev.com.
My threads 'tweaking' abilities are for hire for upgrades, tweaks and modifications.

Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
Josh, forget threaded view. There are Classic users here who are converting to Threads NOT because of threaded view, but because of MySQL. In fact there have been calls for an option to switch off threaded view... I thought you were aware of that... <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="images/icons/wink.gif" /> Plus threaded view is just a feature - my only qualms with Threads are to do with design.

Sure that my opinion is just my opinion. I don't hide the fact that I think that Threads looks mediocre in terms of style. Let's get one thing straight: I love Infopop, and I love my Classic board. As for Open Topic, it looks better than any other product on the market. I've been an Infopop client for a while now, and I've even bought out a gold license for a future Threads upgrade - sounds almost like an oxymoron <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="images/icons/wink.gif" /> .

The one thing that worries me is that although Infopop purchased a great and promising product in Threads, some people still prefer to make it look like the ugly duckling in the Infopop family. I mean you can't seriously compare Threads to Open Topic at the moment, right? Not unless you want to play the role of 'Comical Ali'... <img border="0" title="" alt="[Roll Eyes]" src="images/icons/rolleyes.gif" />

Leaving everything else aside at the moment, the only thing I hope for is that someone starts treating the stylistic element of Threads more seriously. I understand that you and JC do a lot of tweaking, which is not surprising considering how the board looks upon installation. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="images/icons/wink.gif" />

On a side note, can you provide a url or two of the most professional-looking Threads boards that you've tweaked? I'm really eager to see a Threads board that has a professional look to it - at least I'll start believing that it can be done.

---------
Go Cougs!

Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
sorry... just had to comment that I was laughing to myself thinking this .threads != .classic horse was kicked to death a while back, didn't know it was still being kicked. grin


~Dave
ChattersOnline.com

Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
Asked and answered. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="images/icons/wink.gif" />

You repeatedly do not read the answers myself or anyone gives you... and keep restating the same questions/comments like a broken record.

I will not further restate what has been said before. You've already received responses for everything you asked. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="images/icons/wink.gif" />

Josh
www.joshuapettit.com
ThreadsDev.com Administrator | InfoPop Community Moderator
Register to see my How To/Site Help Library Forum at ThreadsDev.com.
My threads 'tweaking' abilities are for hire for upgrades, tweaks and modifications.

Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
Nice dodge, Josh. Reminds me of the much-abused "Threads will never be Classic" response. I don't see where some of you get this Threads-Classic paranoia from. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="images/icons/wink.gif" />

As I stated, I only want Threads to look better than it looks right now, and I welcome David Dreezer's comment about the user interface needing some refinement. End of story. And before you ask - no, I don't want Threads to look like Classic. Only better. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="images/icons/wink.gif" />

Right now a new installation of Threads looks very bland to say the least. Any chance of making the basic setup look respctable (adding a few neat templates/stylesheets to the base package)? Or does that mean less side-work (income) for you guys? Hmm, maybe this is what it's all about.

BTW, I'll give you kudos for making Threadsdev look nice and professional. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="images/icons/smile.gif" /> On the other hand http://rcmodeling.com/photopost/index.php could do with some renovation...

P.S. Keep up the good work guys, looking forward to 6.4!

---------
Go Cougs!

Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
That's not a dodge. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="images/icons/wink.gif" /> You said you want it to look better. They said slowly things will merge. But they aren't going to change it overnight when there's an existing user base and hundreds of thousands of users who would be in shock if things looked and worked differently overnight. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="images/icons/wink.gif" /> People don't like change - so it must evolve slowly.

That's been answered to you over and over again. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="images/icons/wink.gif" />

I did do the stuff at Threadsdev. We're using Dalantech's templates there and a stylesheet I created. Although I typically don't do much "design" work. 99% of what I do is code modification and integrating threads with other stuff.

So a good portion of the sites that I list on my home page are sites that I've added modifications or feature integrations for.

So threads improvements won't cut into what I do much. Most people are happy with how it looks out of the gate (they looked at it before they bought it <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="images/icons/wink.gif" /> ). Or they want the colors tweaked a bit to match the rest of their site. But the Stuff I do is pretty specialized.
I've just done a news system and a "this day in history" modification for Motley Crue. I've done some deep integration for a travel agency - using threads as the backend for their specials and travel deals. And I'm currently working with biketrip.com building a detailed database of bike trails and trips all over the world. Most of those types of things wouldn't ever be included in the standard threads. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="images/icons/smile.gif" />

Dalantech and JC are the big "design" wizzards around here. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="images/icons/smile.gif" />

PS - If you'd like to start complaining about Photopost (as the link you posted above) - that would be www.photopost.com - it's not an Infopop product. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="images/icons/wink.gif" />

Josh
www.joshuapettit.com
ThreadsDev.com Administrator | InfoPop Community Moderator
Register to see my How To/Site Help Library Forum at ThreadsDev.com.
My threads 'tweaking' abilities are for hire for upgrades, tweaks and modifications.

Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
David, take this as constructive criticism. Threads is clearly positioned - or maybe perceived is better - as the mid-tier product in your lineup.

Classic is the starter package, when your boards, user base, and needs grow, go to Threads.

So the perception is Threads is an upgrade from Classic.

As a very recent Threads convert, my frustration is based on this positioning/perception. This is all I heard when considering moving to Threads - it's an upgrade. There are numerous features Classic has that Threads is missing; along with usability. Of course, Threads has plenty of features over Classic. But based on P/P, Threads should have +90% of Classic plus it's own unique feature set. So my expectations were very high when we went through with the "upgraded license".

This positioning is obvious to me in official Infopop material, on the Classic support boards (e.g. "I'm killing my server, help!" A: "Upgrade to Threads"), and among the complementary sites such as UBBDev and ThreadsDev. I realize you can't manage non-Infopop people acting as proxies for you, but more than anything they are spreading this misconception.

FWIW, YMMV, and all that...........

[]Joe@4x4Wire.com[/] | Beat up '94 Toyota 4WD | 4x4Wire Forums

Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
I think the key to everything is simple: OPTIONS.

When it comes to small things, this might not be as important... but certain features can be cumbersome and frustrating if they can't be switched off via the admin CP. The main one that comes to mind is threaded view. Some users could do without this, and the inability to disable something as structurally-important as this leads to unnecessary problems.

Another option which would be nice to have is for icons to signify new posts (as opposed to alternating background colours). Since all other Infopop products work this way, an admin option to set the board this way would be most welcome.

---------
Go Cougs!

Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
Lil history lesson is called for. Classic â„¢ existed for several years prior to the aquisition of wwthreads. It is indeed being upgraded as we speak (I'm a beta tester). To compare them to each other currently is not really fair. As for features missing in threads that Classic â„¢ has, some will be added, some won't, in as much as there are certains things you can do in perl that are not as easy in php/mysql. That said, Threads â„¢ is the other white meat, in that it offers more in the way of load handling as well as upward mobility. Both serve their intended purpose, but just like trading in the old two seater for a mini van happens to families, so it follows that there will come a time to upgrade to Threads â„¢ or Open Topic â„¢ etc..

--
UBBDesign.com: UBB â„¢ customizer, webdesigner and custom graphics creator.
Creator of the JCTemplates used in the ubb.classic â„¢ software. Addons & Graphics
Installation services and custom add-on creation available. Contact me

Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="">quote:</font><hr /><font size="" face="">The main one that comes to mind is threaded view. Some users could do without this, and the inability to disable something as structurally-important as this leads to unnecessary problems.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="" face="">You are correct in that threaded view is structurally-important, but on the software side of it. Options are great, and we are definitely going to add more. Like I said earlier, the admin area needs to be overhauled before we add more options because it's hard to find where things are with just what is currently there.

But, an option to switch off threaded view probably isn't going to happen because it is structurally-important. The whole program is based around posts being in reply to an individual post not the entire thread. So, I'll tell you why adding this as an option presents a problem.

Right now, when you delete a post and it has replies to it, the subject of the reply gets set to *Deleted*, so the threading of the topic remains intact. And this leads to a common question as to how to totally remove the post instead of having the subject set to *Deleted*. In order to do this the admin/mod has to delete all the replies to that post as well.

Say, we add in that option to disable threaded mode. And then we give the common answer on how to totally delete a post. If the user has disabled threaded mode, then obviously they would say, well I don't use threaded mode so there is no need to have it say *Deleted* because the threading doesn't need to be preserved. So, this would lead conditional code depending on the option.

Then, we would also come to the next step in that there wouldn't need to be a reply button next to each post but only one for the topic. So, that would lead to more conditional code, and more complex templates to place the reply button in it's position depending on if threading was disabled.

These are only a comple of examples. Like I said, .threads is built around threaded discussion. Options are great, but in some cases the code bloat to add an option just doesn't make sense. That's the big point of writing and developing software. It's not if the developer likes the idea of an feature/options, it's if the feature makes sense. And in the case of having an option to disable threaded mode, it just doesn't make sense since for the reason stated above which is why it's called .threads <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="images/icons/wink.gif" />

But really, this whole thread has been beaten to death. Every feature request posted here is read and we have a list that contains every requested feature. As the product develops, features are added. To repeat myself again, the last 4 versions, 6.0, 6.1, 6.2 and 6.3 have been mostly related to improving how the .threads functions, database changes, language file changes, etc. These are done and out of the way so we can move on to other things that will be much more noticeable.

So, just hold on for a version or 2. Keep the suggestions coming, just realize there isn't a need to beat em into the ground <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="images/icons/smile.gif" /> If it's a good suggestion it will get added at some point if possible even if the post is simple as:

You know, it would be cool if we could have xxxx.

-------------------
Rick Baker
UBBThreads developer

Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="">quote:</font><hr /><font size="" face="">Originally posted by Rick Baker:
[QUOTE]And in the case of having an option to disable threaded mode, it just doesn't make sense since for the reason stated above which is why it's called .threads <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="images/icons/wink.gif" /> </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="" face="">Hi Rick, many thanks for the reply. With regards to Threadsd view, I understand that it's quite a unique feature to this software, but Threads is also the middle product between Classic and Open Topic.

When Classic users upgrade to Threads they are forced to use this "strange" (for some people...) threaded-setup with topics going in all sorts of directions. Then when they upgrade from Threads to Open Topic... they lose this feature altogether. For that reason I would rather not use a feature that I will simply have to take away from my users during the next "big step".

I think some users are so desperate about switching this off, that in addition to posting requests about this they've also experimented with templates to disable this feature. Should such a template be properly done and endorsed by Infopop/yourself, things would be so much easier for many of us.

Nobody knows the technical aspects of Threads better than you, so here goes... <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="images/icons/wink.gif" /> Wouldn't it be possible to make a template where there would be one reply button that would either A) make each reply to the first message of the thread -OR- B) make each reply to the last message in the thread (depending on which way is better - probably the first because post deletion would be easier, no - or is it the other way around?). Also, the post message template would not include the subject field, so users will not be able to change it when replying to someone's topic.

This would of course be just an additional template available with the software, and would in no way have an impact on existing Threads users who utilize this feature.

---------
Go Cougs!

Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
To jump back in then - you really need a .classic.database-based.

It would be the most succesful infopop product.

- Kayjey -
www.fiatcoupe.net

Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
Yes, that was exactly my thought when I pointed out the "hole" in Infopop's product line some time ago. I mentioned that Classic users were often forced to look elsewhere (beyond Infopop) when their Classic board needed upgrading to MySQL. I then received numerous replies about Threads actually being the next, natural step up for Classic users, and that Infopop is thinking of releasing an official Classic-look template to make things easier for those upgrading and choosing to stay with Infopop.

The template never arrived, and it was then pointed out that this was nothing definite/promised, but just a thought that never materialized.

To this day I'm not sure whether Threads is a viable option for Classic users on the verge of upgrading. Two sites I frequent very often (majorwager and bettorsworld) have both gone in different directions when their Classic board began hogging system resources. Maybe Infopop should do something about this, because the pipeline that's supposed to carry Classic users to Open Topic (via Threads) is burst and is leaking customers away...

Now before someone comes back with the usual "threads will never be classic" dodge, my only thought is this: since Threads has become an Infopop product, it now has certain obligations that go beyond its previous customer base - you could say that it has become the stepping stone between Classic and Open Topic. The only problem is that Classic users have been neglected during this last year, regardless of the fact that Threads should also cater to us as Infopop clients - especially if the company wants us to stay.

Maybe someone in management should make up their mind. If Threads is supposed to be Infopop's solution to Classic users requiring an upgrade, then do something about it for crying out loud! <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="images/icons/wink.gif" /> Otherwise just be honest with us and say "Threads is a quite different product, so if you need to upgrade then maybe you should give our competitors a look."

Don't get me wrong - we don't want to force any changes on anyone. All we're after is OPTIONS. And why not have a Classic-look template along with a professional import module (not sure what the current status is) to ease the process for fellow "Infopop family" members?

---------
Go Cougs!

[This message was edited by Conrad on July 11, 2003 at 01:41 AM.]

Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
Conrad, I've had it.

This is beyond repetitive and tedious.
We have been consistent in our answers to you, but for some reason you start this diatribe over and over and over again. It's old and my answers are not going to change very soon.

<img src="http://navaho.infopop.cc/golf.gif" alt=" - " />


Link Copied to Clipboard
ShoutChat
Comment Guidelines: Do post respectful and insightful comments. Don't flame, hate, spam.
Recent Topics
RSS not working
by jsteinborn - 04/18/2022 2:46 PM
Largest UBB.threads forum
by Aaron101 - 04/06/2022 8:38 AM
News Block
by Aaron101 - 04/05/2022 6:48 PM
Who's Online Now
1 members (Morgan), 48 guests, and 59 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Random Gallery Image
Latest Gallery Images
gallery test
gallery test
by Mors, September 23
Los Angeles
Los Angeles
by isaac, August 6
3D Creations
3D Creations
by JAISP, December 30
Artistic structures
Artistic structures
by isaac, August 29
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5