XF 2.3 ?

[Mendalla]

but things like feeds are standard in today's age

See, this I could see as an out-of-box feature, whereas the Wiki discussed earlier makes more sense as an add-on in my books. A social feed type structure is something any site can use; a Wiki is more for sites where they are providing some kind of documentation or information aside from discussions. My site could use a feed but not a Wiki.

 

[sbj]

My site could use a feed but not a Wiki.

Just curious, what's the niche of your site? I can't imagine a topic which can't make a use of a Wiki. I am not trying to change your mind or do have an agenda to infiltrate people's minds. Just trying to understand what possibly I am missing .

Also the social feed type structure, can you guys be more specific?

We already got the "What's new" page: https://xenforo.com/community/whats-new/

 

[MarenLBC]

See, this I could see as an out-of-box feature, whereas the Wiki discussed earlier makes more sense as an add-on in my books. A social feed type structure is something any site can use; a Wiki is more for sites where they are providing some kind of documentation or information aside from discussions. My site could use a feed but not a Wiki.

I agree. A social feed will be more impactful to more community managers than a wiki. If I had to prioritize features I'd come out with a feed before a wiki. I'd actually try to have a 3rd party developer create the wiki add-on to be honest.

What's new

xenforo.com

The what's new doesn't hold a candle to the Feeds everyone uses every day on IG, FB, Reddit, and etc. The feed needs to have a clean card design with infinite scroll.

 

[JamesBrown]

Will see what's in XF2.3 and see if it's worth being a customer after waiting 2.5 years.

What will need to be in it to make you worth-being/remaining a customer?

 

[Mendalla]

Just curious, what's the niche of your site? I can't imagine a topic which can't make a use of a Wiki. I am not trying to change your mind or do have an agenda to infiltrate people's minds. Just trying to understand what possibly I am missing .

We are pretty much purely a discussion site with religion as a focus, but not exclusively on that subject. We don't collect or host any kind of information or documentation. We host blogs for a few members, but that's article forum stuff, not a Wiki.

To my mind, a Wiki would be for something like site where you were actually maintaining some kind of documentation, or a site focused on a topic where you wanted to become a place for people to look for information on that topic. Something more "factual" in other words.

I mean, technically, I could start a theology Wiki or something like that but that is well-trodden ground at this point, and I can only think of a couple, maybe three, members who might even contribute, one of whom I absolutely do not want as the public face of the site (though he seems to have mellowed of late). It certainly isn't something that would be central to the site unless we make some kind of shift in focus.

 

[JamesBrown]

Xenforo has to evolve or it will be left behind. Forums have to take some feature of social media if it is to be relevant in today's market.

Is that true though. Looking at it, I see youtube and facebook trying and failing to add decent forum like features to their sites, are they trying to catch up with us

A social feed will be more impactful to more community managers than a wiki. If I had to prioritize features I'd come out with a feed before a wiki.

My Whats new sees around 1500 new posts every day. Clicking on any post takes you through to a threaded topic. IMO as is, its far better than Reddit and facebook. As a social feed What's New is awesome.

 

[Mendalla]

The what's new doesn't hold a candle to the Feeds everyone uses every day on IG, FB, Reddit, and etc. The feed needs to have a clean card design with infinite scroll.

I tried out some early versions of what Themehouse was developing and it was intriguing but not quite ready for prime time at that point. I suspect that What's New would be enough for some sites, others might want something more sophisticated.

 

[sbj]

The what's new doesn't hold a candle to the Feeds everyone uses every day on IG, FB, Reddit, and etc. The feed needs to have a clean card design with infinite scroll.

Ah, I see. Yeah, content delivery improvements are needed, too. I like reddit's layout options

Not a fan of the card design myself on desktops but on phones it is the way to go. A concise feed with filtering options (prefix, custom fields) and upvoting system would be a nice thing to have. Also said that in the past, I agree.

It certainly isn't something that would be central to the site unless we make some kind of shift in focus.

That is the question though. Not wanting is not the same as "can't make a use of that". I know that a Wiki is a tedious task, because we lack the tools, it must be more snappier so it feels like you create a discussion thread. Only then it would become natural, but since it is not like that, of course it looks like an addon only some would use. This is why I repeat over and over that it must be integrated into the thread system, not to be its own entity. Then nobody will use it. I posted an example above how it can be integrated.

Also about your niche, I mean doesn't it basically beg you to have at least the Bible verses ready? I can't imagine a religious forum (I assume the main one on your side of the world is Christianity) without having the basics ready. So, don't you ever have the need to quickly look up things when you discuss things?

Imagine you would have a Wiki, while you are discussing your daily stuff you don't do anything different than you would do. Just write new posts like you do always. You don't actively have to do anything, it works automatically. Imagine me and you talking about religion and I say to you that eye for an eye is not a good solution. (<- Now there I put the link myself, I needed to find it and insert the link. But if you had a Wiki item on your own referring to that, the system would automatically keyword link it. So when people are reading the comments bunch of your posts would be keyworded like that and they can quickly look over and see what that one verse means.) You see how valuable it can be?

Again, I am not trying to persuade the majority here. If you think it is a bad idea, fine. But I disagree with anyone who says that a Wiki would not fit any forum. Again, I can't think of one topic, one niche, one forum which would not be able to make a use of it. It really does apply to any topic, I can guarantee it. But again, it takes a lot of effort to have it going ofc which is the main problem I am also complaining about.

 

[eL_]

​

 

[Mendalla]

I mean doesn't it basically beg you to have at least the Bible verses ready?

Why, when we have BibleGateway, which has a vast list of translations available and is very link-friendly (unfurls nicely and everything)? Not everyone favours the same version (though most on my site are good with NRSV). When someone is initiating a discussion of a Bible verse, as in my Bible Passage of The Week forum, I encourage them to post a link to their preferred translation on BibleGateway. IOW, there's an excellent resource available that addresses the need far better than an onsite wiki could.

But if you had a Wiki item on your own referring to that, the system would automatically keyword link it.

That's going to be a helluva dev project if you're wanting things like automatic keyword linking. Which just screams add-on, so they have a separate revenue stream to pay for and properly maintain it without impacting the cost of core.

Bottom line:

Would we use it if it existed? Maybe.

Is it something we would prioritize for core? Probably not.

Would we pay for it if it was an add-on? Nope.

It took serious prompting from me to even get article forums going. And other 2.2 features are barely used if they are at all, in spite of me doing a localized mini-version of HYS in the lead-up to the upgrade. I removed Xenporta because I was about the only one putting in effort to keep the portal page up to date. Wiki forums (or whatever the feature was called) would be another feature that would just languish, most likely.

 

[Suzanne O]

 

[Mr Lucky]

But I disagree with anyone who says that a Wiki would not fit any forum.

I thought a wiki is an article that is open to editing by various different people. I may be wrong but that sounds like a recipe for disaster and conflict.

I see people quote Wikipedia as if it’s an authority but basically it is whoever shouts the loudest (who are often just wannabes) so the real experts just throw their hands in the air and get on with being professional.

 

[Mendalla]

I see people quote Wikipedia as if it’s an authority but basically it is whoever shouts the loudest (who are often just wannabes) so the real experts just throw their hands in the air and get on with being professional.

My understanding is that mostly happens with controversial topics. Things like basic science are well-monitored and edited by editors with backgrounds in the relevant fields. But, yeah, crowdsourcing knowledge introduces the problem of which crowd's knowledge gets sourced.

I thought a wiki is an article that is open to editing by various different people. I may be wrong but that sounds like a recipe for disaster and conflict.

Which is another possible issue for a Wiki in my area. Good luck getting two Christians to agree on particular doctrines or interpretations of scripture. And that's before you factor in that we technically aren't Christian but interfaith so could have other perspectives present.

 

[Mr Lucky]

What will need to be in it to make you worth-being/remaining a customer?

I think the answer to that is easy: new features.

 

[MarenLBC]

What will need to be in it to make you worth-being/remaining a customer?

They need to make it funky Mr. Brown.

 

[Suzanne O]

@sbj
if you used wikipedia in your life you will notice that anyone can edit your work.
Hence why it would be hopeless as a forum software.
Wikipedia is not coded software.
Both vBulletin and xenforo are coded software.

 

[Suzanne O]

My understanding is that mostly happens with controversial topics. Things like basic science are well-monitored and edited by editors with backgrounds in the relevant fields. But, yeah, crowdsourcing knowledge introduces the problem of which crowd's knowledge gets sourced.


Which is another possible issue for a Wiki in my area. Good luck getting two Christians to agree on particular doctrines or interpretations of scripture. And that's before you factor in that we technically aren't Christian but interfaith so could have other perspectives present.

All forums use coded software.
Wiki is more of a journal based software.

 

[Wing]

We use wiki posts as a collaborative database for somethings just fine... https://www.v303rdfightergroup.com/index.php?forums/-/wikipost

 

[Mendalla]

I think the answer to that is easy: new features.

Whereas for me, continuing to provide a stable, solid platform for a site remains paramount. New features are a bonus at this point and they need to be done so as not to affect the stability of the platform.

All forums use coded software.
Wiki is more of a journal based software.

Not sure what that has to do with my post?

 

[Forsaken]

I thought a wiki is an article that is open to editing by various different people. I may be wrong but that sounds like a recipe for disaster and conflict.

I see people quote Wikipedia as if it’s an authority but basically it is whoever shouts the loudest (who are often just wannabes) so the real experts just throw their hands in the air and get on with being professional.

There is a lot more to a wiki than just the collaborative writing aspect, and most of that comes down to the tools it provides. A wiki without templates and variables is completely useless to me for example. VaultWiki has both, but the bugs make it unusable as I cannot risk customer data or transactions. Wikimedia has templates, but lacks proper variables (at least the same as VaultWiki).

Bob was considering looking at doing a wiki at one point... But the sheer number of features and the fact that everyone wants something different turned him away from it.

I wish we could ignore threads.

https://xenforo.com/community/threads/ignore-filter-system.1841/ One of oldest suggestions on XF .