Implemented Attachments for PC

[Racket]

I was just wondering if you could add PM Attachment Support? I have been looking for a solid product to offer this feature, however, the only product I could find was IPB.

Please let me know.

Thanks

 

[dutchbb]

If you don't need it, simply disable it in the admin panel. This way everyone wins.

It depends on the number of people wanting this feature. Let's say 95% do not want it (or do not need it). That would be 95% with a disabled admin option, creating more clutter in the ACP and extra code that has the potential for bugs. Now if 25% wants it, that would be enough reason to add it.

 

[Lojo]

It depends on the number of people wanting this feature. Let's say 95% do not want it (or do not need it). That would be 95% with a disabled admin option, creating more clutter in the ACP and extra code that has the potential for bugs. Now if 25% wants it, that would be enough reason to add it.

It does not matter how many people want it or don't want it, at least everyone is going to be happy.

I have no intention in purchasing XenForo if it does not include this feature, as the script I currently use support this feature and it is a must for me.

 

[Paul B]

I tend to use this quite a lot on my existing forum so it would be useful.

 

[dutchbb]

It does not matter how many people want it or don't want it, at least everyone is going to be happy.

Well that's the philosophy of XF. They want to have as little options as possible. Only if something is really popular its going to be added.

 

[Lojo]

Well that's the philosophy of XF. They want to have as little options as possible. Only if something is really popular its going to be added.

Read through this thread and you will see that this feature is really wanted by the community.

 

[dutchbb]

I believe they mostly look at the likes, but with 13 likes atm there's a good chance they will consider adding it.

 

[James]

Primary research guys! Conduct a poll to get accurate results of the % of people who want it. I can see its uses but I'm not sure it'd be extensively used on my forum.

 

[Shanj]

Well that's the philosophy of XF. They want to have as little options as possible. Only if something is really popular its going to be added.

Really? It doesnt come across to me like that.
Or at least perhaps we see "really popular" differently. That might work if "really popular" was around 20 - 25%.

Maybe what it comes to is how XF works with mods.
If the XF team works closely with mods in terms of making the code welcoming to adding in chunks of other stuff, then I could see building the core around the "really popular" stuff as in 60%.

One or the other. Either the core code covers a lot of needs or it accommodates modding comfortably.
Because one of the main reasons why people choose a script is - does it do all the jobs AND the tweaks I want?

When I first chose a forum script years ago (and I'd do the same today) I looked at several and made lists of what they could do. The one that offered lots of functions won.
I can remember going through all the mods available and happily making a list of what I'd use. It was great fun.
So something that just covers the main things that the general crowd wants would lose a lot of buyers looking for their particular needs.

 

[dutchbb]

Really? It doesnt come across to me like that.

Isn't it obvious? Look at the user control panel... it's not stuffed with options and their long descriptions like vB is. It just has what people really need. This is the philosophy of XF.

Or at least perhaps we see "really popular" differently. That might work if "really popular" was around 20 - 25%.

Maybe what it comes to is how XF works with mods.
If the XF team works closely with mods in terms of making the code welcoming to adding in chunks of other stuff, then I could see building the core around the "really popular" stuff as in 60%.

One or the other. Either the core code covers a lot of needs or it accommodates modding comfortably.
Because one of the main reasons why people choose a script is - does it do all the jobs AND the tweaks I want?

When I first chose a forum script years ago (and I'd do the same today) I looked at several and made lists of what they could do. The one that offered lots of functions won.
I can remember going through all the mods available and happily making a list of what I'd use. It was great fun.
So something that just covers the main things that the general crowd wants would lose a lot of buyers looking for their particular needs.

It's very flexible in it's plugin system so you'll see a lot of mods come out shortly after release. And let's not forget this is v 1.x so you can't expect them to offer all options you want in the core product the first time.

 

[grant sarver]

I do. How do I pass a document or diagram image to one of my mods?
How do I exchange a pic with an individual friend or draft text for consultation with a colleague?
How do I maintain confidentiality on something sensitive in user support which needs to pass across a guide document?

I use private forums (OP and admin only) for most of the above kind of stuff.

 

[Dean]

I use private forums (OP and admin only) for most of the above kind of stuff.

That function does not exist in xf at this time, as per Mike. I have thousands of posts in forums setup like that on my current forum.

 

[grant sarver]

That's a shame. Common way of doing paid requests and other private postings.

 

[Dean]

That's a shame. Common way of doing paid requests and other private postings.

I agree.

But right now I have thousands of posts in forums like that, and parallel discussions with PMs and emails. I am trying to remove some of those paths of information.

The entire reason emails are needed & forums set up such as you are referring to exist, is because PMs cannot have attachments.

edit: I mean the entire reason they exist on our forums.

 

[grant sarver]

The entire reason emails are needed & forums set up such as you are referring to exist, is because PMs cannot have attachments.

I don't agree. Even if I had a choice of one or the other, I would certainly stay with the private forums. I hate PM's. I think people feel more free to post on a forum, but feel much less inclined to make a PM.

 

[Enigma]

Three reasons I can think of right away.

1) illegal files. We sell ebooks on the site, we don't want users sharing these on the forum. Of course if they really want to they can e-mail them anyway, but I don't want to make it easy for them by offering the option on the forum.
2) attachments take up disk space. I want to control this and keep an eye on them. I don't like the fact that users can attach files through PM without me knowing about it.
3) why should I provide disk space for their files? Disk space costs money, if they want to send files to friends there's Rapidshare, e-mail or messenger. Also once the PM is send, these files sit there on my server doing nothing but taking up space. Public attachments can serve a purpose for anyone visiting the site, private attachments just take up space and are worthless to me or any visitor.

1. Fair point.
2 & 3. You could have quotas and limits on attached files, and they wouldn't have to be kept forever either. The flip side of your wasted disk space argument, is that you're providing a better service to your members, which ultimately benefits you as a site owner.

 

[dutchbb]

1. Fair point.
2 & 3. You could have quotas and limits on attached files, and they wouldn't have to be kept forever either. The flip side of your wasted disk space argument, is that you're providing a better service to your members, which ultimately benefits you as a site owner.

We have an ideas/feedback forum for 8 years. There's never been one question for this.

Since point 1 is still fair, there's absolutely no reason for me to want this.

 

[Shanj]

I don't see why some of us who want this feature can't have it because others don't.
If it's there as an admin option then those that don't find it useful can disable it.

As for using private forums for private/ confidential/ sensitive/ draft/ or specialised documents or images ... yes this can be done to some extent with usergroups. I have forums like that.
But some stuff I don't want dumped on the entire usergroup when only one, or a few need it - that generates annoyingly unnecessary notifications for a lot of the rest.

Secondly I don't want to have to create a private forum every time I want to transmit a series of work docs or personal stuff with a single user who isn't in a usergroup with a relevant forum.
I don#'t get the resistance here. I can understand the admins saying no way I'm not having private attachments. I strongly disagree but hey being an admin is about selecting options for your own board. So OK accepted some don't want this.

But please just let the rest of us who DO want it to have it. If it's an unused option on your board it won't cause much bloat. I expect you could even mod it out.

Actually it would be helpful to understand more about how admincp options cause bloat as that is what sets up resistance to options I think. I'll post separately about this.

 

[Elizabeth]

I don't see why some of us who want this feature can't have it because others don't.
If it's there as an admin option then those that don't find it useful can disable it.

As for using private forums for private/ confidential/ sensitive/ draft/ or specialised documents or images ... yes this can be done to some extent with usergroups. I have forums like that.
But some stuff I don't want dumped on the entire usergroup when only one, or a few need it - that generates annoyingly unnecessary notifications for a lot of the rest.

Secondly I don't want to have to create a private forum every time I want to transmit a series of work docs or personal stuff with a single user who isn't in a usergroup with a relevant forum.
I don#'t get the resistance here. I can understand the admins saying no way I'm not having private attachments. I strongly disagree but hey being an admin is about selecting options for your own board. So OK accepted some don't want this.

But please just let the rest of us who DO want it to have it. If it's an unused option on your board it won't cause much bloat. I expect you could even mod it out.

Actually it would be helpful to understand more about how admincp options cause bloat as that is what sets up resistance to options I think. I'll post separately about this.

Is it possible this could be put in the "add on as a plug in" stack? That way those who could find it useful would download it and others would not have to bother.

 

[Paul B]

Actually it would be helpful to understand more about how admincp options cause bloat as that is what sets up resistance to options I think. I'll post separately about this.

If it's an ACP option which, when disabled, removes all trace of it from the forum to regular users then it's only code bloat and I can't see why that would bother anyone.

Yes it might take a few more bytes of hard drive space but it's not going to affect the operation or look of the forum.

With regards to the default features/add-ons argument, I've said it before - one person's feature is another person's option.

 

[Spenser]

After all: because PN are done in a quite conversation-like way (where user restrictions are implemented), it shouldn't very hard to implement. Limits can be implemented later. If an admin doesn't like attachments in PC, he/she can disable the whole thing.
In my opinion attachments in PC are essential. This is one of the main reasons why I haven't upgraded to vb4 yet BTW.