XF 2.1 Unfurling URLs, Emoji enhancements and video uploads

Here we go! We're four HYS threads in already and you might be wondering just how many there are left. Well, I can't tell you But what I can tell you is - we're not even half way through yet! In case you've not yet seen the previous entries, you can check them out here.

As ever, to ensure you're kept up to date, we strongly recommend caressing that "Watch forum" link and make sure you enable email notifications if you haven't done so already

 

[Mr Lucky]

it could be monetized, for one thing, only allowing subscribed members to upload vids, etc. - but I guess this was just the easier route for now. Mind you, though, that I'm not personally that upset about it, since it's not something that important to me.

Yes exactly. Uploading videos of 100MB plus is huge for many hosting packages, I wouldn't inflict t that on @MattW but if it was restricted to usergroups who had paid via upgrades then it's a different matter. If people want upload huge files, they pay for the privilege and we can then pay more for hosting.

 

[Wildcat Media]

Mind you, though, that I'm not personally that upset about it, since it's not something that important to me.

Me neither, actually. We limited attachment types globally and that was the end of it.

For me, it used to be an issue with attachments in general, and I've given up on that myself as well. I just disabled attachments for everyone except staff since it's a poor idea to have attachments without a quota system in place (and a way for members to curate their own attachments), especially with larger forums. Our visitors proved they can't be trusted by not wasting space, and we aren't fb, YouTube or Instagram with bottomless deep pockets to pay for all of that extra storage. Our members are now used to not having attachments, so yeah, it's low down on my list now.

That is probably the only essential vB feature I miss not having on XF; as for everything else, XF makes vB feel like the dark ages of computing. A few automotive forum groups still use vB and I cringe any time I have to post. (It's kind of telling that they are all still on vB 3.x, too. )

 

[Wildcat Media]

All in all.. I am just happy to be part of all this. It was a good choice.

Same here! I got my first license while 1.0 was still in beta. And it was so promising that I ended upgrading others. It was a "merely interesting" forum package until I saw the developers behind it--realizing they were behind vB in the past, that made me more confident I could hop on board and not be disappointed like I had been with a few others I had tried (especially the free forum packages out there). They may not have every feature we could ever want, but it's solid and reliable, well built, actively supported. That wins more points with me than featuritis.

 

[Kerby]

featuritis

Thats business of third party addon developers

 

[Chris D]

https://fontawesome.com/icons?d=gallery&c=emoji

Not quite the same selection though

I called Saul, is that enough?

 

[imno007]

Yes exactly. Uploading videos of 100MB plus is huge for many hosting packages, I wouldn't inflict t that on @MattW but if it was restricted to usergroups who had paid via upgrades then it's a different matter. If people want upload huge files, they pay for the privilege and we can then pay more for hosting.

Well, look at this way: you'll probably be able to pay a third-party developer however much per year so that you can monetize your video uploads and hopefully also cover the costs of the addon. I guess that's looking at it in a positive way.

 

[MattW]

Yes exactly. Uploading videos of 100MB plus is huge for many hosting packages, I wouldn't inflict t that on @MattW but if it was restricted to usergroups who had paid via upgrades then it's a different matter. If people want upload huge files, they pay for the privilege and we can then pay more for hosting.

I'd like to see the core software provide an easy way (that doesn't need an addon or something extending) that would allow the attachments to be offloaded onto S3 or an S3 compatible storage solution (Digital Ocean spaces has 1TB of bandwidth and 250GB of storage for $5 a month). IPS has this built into the core.

 

[The Dark Wizard]

I'd like to see the core software provide an easy way (that doesn't need an addon or something extending) that would allow the attachments to be offloaded onto S3 or an S3 compatible storage solution (Digital Ocean spaces has 1TB of bandwidth and 250GB of storage for $5 a month). IPS has this built into the core.

Backblaze and their pricing is very popular as well.

https://www.backblaze.com/b2/cloud-storage-pricing.html

 

[TPerry]

I've complained about this non stop for years and the same problem still exists and no one seems to give a crap about fixing it; XenForo makes reusing existing content a nightmare.

I do have to agree with this... IPS does allow the re-use of existing content and it works out fairly well. Not being able to re-use content like this just takes up valuable storage space - even though it's cheap, it will eventually add up.

This implementation does not have a simple "click to re-use" capability. One has to find the URL to reuse the image.

 

[TPerry]

Any images uploaded to posts automatically have their own album created and stored there.

Issue you now have with that philosophy is that the admin is now required to also purchase the Media Gallery in addition to the base forum script. A simple uploaded media browser would be the better solution IMHO.

 

[Alpha1]

An album does not equal a media gallery. It would be possible to make a function that puts all media by a user in an album. If you browse the album then you have a media browser. If the site has a media gallery then display the album there.

 

[Alfonse]

Looks very good

 

[TPerry]

An album does not equal a media gallery. It would be possible to make a function that puts all media by a user in an album. If you browse the album then you have a media browser. If the site has a media gallery then display the album there.

Then you will most likely have conflicts with people that actually use the Media Gallery for user albums. I guess they could "import" any forum only related albums into it.... but I can foresee a slight mess there. A lot of the suggestions (improvements actually) I see suggested are not necessarily minor to implement.

 

[Alpha1]

Then you will most likely have conflicts with people that actually use the Media Gallery for user albums.

One does not exclude the other. Members would simply get an extra album. I dont see why that would create conflict.

 

[TPerry]

One does not exclude the other. Members would simply get an extra album. I dont see why that would create conflict.

I thought we were trying to eliminate the confusion aspect for users with stuff in multiple places. In that case, simply get XFMG and use it.

 

[Mike]

I believe there's already a suggestion relating to the attachment-media gallery connection. It's not particularly strongly related to this feature, so it's probably best to continue that discussion there (as there certainly are a number of nuances with it).

 

[Ozzy47]

I believe there's already a suggestion relating to the attachment-media gallery connection. It's not particularly strongly related to this feature, so it's probably best to continue that discussion there (as there certainly are a number of nuances with it).

There is this, https://xenforo.com/community/threads/view-pictures-across-site-on-media-gallery.86871/ and this one, https://xenforo.com/community/threa...all-post-attachments-to-media-gallery.149470/

 

[RobinHood]

Things got out of hand on one of our forums just by allowing image uploads. The helpful images weren't a problem, but we had rashes of users uploading GIFs just for some silly/stupid reaction to a post above theirs

 

[tommydamic68]

I'd like to see the core software provide an easy way (that doesn't need an addon or something extending) that would allow the attachments to be offloaded onto S3 or an S3 compatible storage solution (Digital Ocean spaces has 1TB of bandwidth and 250GB of storage for $5 a month). IPS has this built into the core.

Thats a great idea! I just had to add 5 gigs of space to my current hosting plan for another 5 bucks a month, second time I have had to do this.

 

[Martok]

There are no fancy HTML5 video players, there's no complex dependencies, and there's no performance taxing transcoding process. Everything above is totally native to the browser and OS that you're using.

As a result, it is theoretically possible that certain video formats may not display correctly on certain devices, but realistically here we're talking about extremely old videos or extremely old devices. Most browsers can support MP4, WEBM and OGG files and most devices that XF actively supports have been outputting videos in MP4 for years.

If XenForo 2.1 will be supporting video playback as it is native to the browser and OS that you are using, will it also support audio uploads?