XF 2.4 general discussion, feedback, complaints, random off topic posts, etc.

[Opus X]

Like what??

like the site i am staff on.
from our staff area i have seen that the majority of inbound traffic is to most of the stuff other than the forum.
the resources, articles, gallery and reviews in that order get most of the traffic.
the owner said he wanted to offer a community of various content type and not just a forum.

 

[Arnox]

I'd explain but you've already made your mind up that core XF is good enough. And that's great for you.

No, I truly do want to know and am honestly asking. Also, I do use some third-party add-ons for the record. But none of them are what I would consider essential to my site goals.

like the site i am staff on.
from our staff area i have seen that the majority of inbound traffic is to most of the stuff other than the forum.
the resources, articles, gallery and reviews in that order get most of the traffic.
the owner said he wanted to offer a community of various content type and not just a forum.

And we've already gone over how resources, articles, media, and reviews are all already served by XF core. What major function of the site would not be served if you had to strip all third-party add-ons? Do you really believe that a large portion of your community would just leave?

 

[Opus X]

And we've already gone over how resources, articles, media, and reviews are all already served by XF core

but not well as well from what i have seen.

how can you get xf to do this?



making it part of a linked series and having a table of contents?
the link series is really neat idea to me.
will save me having to buy that plug in if i continue my site.

or a review like this?


i would not call the resource manager or the gallery core.
they are plug ins just like the above two things are.
they just happen to be sold by xenforo and not others.

Do you really believe that a large portion of your community would just leave?

i think a large part of the visitors are using those plug ins more than similar content posted in the forum on that site.
he posted some google information in our staff area and most were to other locations than the forum.

did you even visit that site and see the differences in what is offered here as articles and what is offered there?

 

[smallwheels]

I'd explain but you've already made your mind up that core XF is good enough. And that's great for you.

This.
And btw:

Your complaints were about third-party add-on support.

No. I did not complain about that but state that overall the add on eco system is a somewhat more unstable and risky world than it seems on first look which has consequences. This is not a complaint about support or single developers but hinting that the conditions that make the system could and maybe should be improved.

I'm not sure this is really something to actually be looking forward to yet... I'm a huge believer in a slow and stable release cadence.

We're probably in the same boat here. Personally, for a server software (if it runs stable and in a productive environment) I want as few updates as possible as every update changes the stable situation that was achieved until then, creates extra work and risk and may break something. Which is where the discussion about add ons comes from.

So I am wondering a bit what the people that request more frequent updates really mean: Do they really want more frequent updates or do they rather want something the'd call "progress"? And if so: What exactly would "progress" mean?

after start talking about how "real admins" run XF 1.5.x

You are beating a dead horse. Or parrot. This was a joke.

 

[Arnox]

how can you get xf to do this?

Put sections into separate titled spoilers. I do it all the time. Works pretty good.

or a review like this?

Add custom fields to the appropriate sub-forums. Here's an example of this in my own reviews sub-forum.

i would not call the resource manager or the gallery core.
they are plug ins just like the above two things are.
they just happen to be sold by xenforo and not others.

But they are still maintained and developed directly by the XF team, and they are updated as regularly as the XF base forum software. Sure, they cost more to get them as opposed to just buying the base forum software, but we're also not talking about price here.

This is not a complaint about support or single developers but hinting that the conditions that make the system could and maybe should be improved.

By doing what exactly?

 

[smallwheels]

By doing what exactly?

As (again ) already written earlier in this very thread: To decide on that is up to XF. Possibilities are i.e. (but not limited to):

• bring some of the functionality that is currently provided through add ons only into the core
• have some form of quality check for add ons (and make transparent which add ons passed them)
• have (optionally) some form of agreement with add on devs for a hand-over in case they step out (and make transparent if that's the case)
• have (automated) ways to detect conflicts between add ons (i.e. on test environments of XF)
• make it easier to gain knowledge about compatibility of add ons with a given XF version (i.e. batch check wether your installed add ons are compatible with a new XF version or not)
• don't strictly lock out add on compatiblity issues from XF support (as long as the points above have been passed)
• provide some bigger functionalities that have been asked often as part of XF or as official XF add on or as 3rd party add on that is officially co-supported by XF. This could i.e. be things like wiki, event manager or site builder or other bigger features or functionality.

It is probably essential to make these checks, agreements etc. easy and mainly optional for add on devs, not mandatory as else possibly the barrier would be too high for some to develop add ons or publically release add ons which they developed for their own purpose in the first hand. And it should (for the same reason) not need a financial invest by add on devs. However: If you had less need for "tweek" add ons for smaller functionalities (as these would be provided in the core), had at least a base layer quality check for some (if not all) add ons and the other points mentioned this would reduce complexity, workload and risk for forum admins dramatically. And this way make the whole add on and XF-upgrade situation tied to it less stressful, for the benefit of all players in the game.

Just some rough ideas what could be possible to improve the situation - neither comprehensive nor mandatory nor necessarily even good ideas. And yes: This would need more staff on XF's side. Which has been written earlier as well.

 

[Arnox]

bring some of the functionality that is currently provided through add ons only into the core

They are doing that somewhat, you know. It's not like they're completely ignoring the add-on space.

have some form of quality check for add ons (and make transparent which add ons passed them)

How would you automate that? You can't. So a programmer from XF has to sit down and review every single line of code from every single add-on. Not practical at all. I mean... A company the size of Microsoft could certainly do it, but XF? No.

have (optionally) some form of agreement with add on devs for a hand-over in case they step out (and make transparent if that's the case)

Nothing stopping them from doing that now. Unless you mean handing the add-ons off to the XF team, in which case, we're back to potential feature creep and more work and money and time required of the XF team for this.

have (automated) ways to detect conflicts between add ons (i.e. on test environments of XF)

This isn't a bad idea actually. XF could do a super simple file check and see which files from a potential add-on overwrite what and compare that to the list of files that have already been modified by other add-ons.

make it easier to gain knowledge about compatibility of add ons with a given XF version (i.e. batch check wether your installed add ons are compatible with a new XF version or not)

No easy way to do that, though all add-ons do already report what XF versions they're compatible with.

provide some bigger functionalities that have been asked often as part of XF or as official XF add on or as 3rd party add on that is officially co-supported by XF. This could i.e. be things like wiki, event manager or site builder or other bigger features or functionality.

And once again, we're getting into potential feature creep.

XF is a very big piece of software and touches on just about every single internet-related service. We could think of features XF could use until the heat death of the universe. So, we need to be really smart and also kinda merciless on what features we want to drop and which ones we want to prioritize. You've said that you understand all these suggestions are not the best or are even very impractical. Alright, fair enough, but why, then, are we even complaining about this to the XF devs if we don't actually intend for them to implement anything we talk about?

In the end though, this all goes back to what I said. XF is far past the point where it can fairly be blamed for a websites demise or stagnation. The admin(s) must provide another compelling reason for users to join and be part of the community besides just, "We have a forum!" or even, "We have a media gallery and resource manager!" Usually that compelling reason is content, but it can also be something else like an online service or other sold product.

 

[Arantor]

No, I truly do want to know and am honestly asking. Also, I do use some third-party add-ons for the record. But none of them are what I would consider essential to my site goals.



And we've already gone over how resources, articles, media, and reviews are all already served by XF core. What major function of the site would not be served if you had to strip all third-party add-ons? Do you really believe that a large portion of your community would just leave?

Tell you what, let’s scrap the media gallery entirely and use forum attachments, that’s good enough. Also ditch the RM and use forum threads with attachments, that’s good enough.

What? It’s not good enough and you might need to do things like categorisation over and above forum boards for content? And you might want to consider pagination for long form content? No, that’s all entirely unnecessary, obviously.

I think you’re missing a much larger question here. You frame the world in terms of what you have and make everything fit that. It’s a completely valid strategy. But I look at my career, I look at the sites my company builds every day in WordPress and think that the world is infinitely more complex. Maybe that’s what I should tell my customers, that they don’t want my services after all and I should just give them a basic WordPress, ACF (WP custom fields and post types manager) and if I were feeling generous, Elementor. They could do everything they wanted with that…

…or, actually not. Because while the content is important, how you present that content is important too. You say “just use custom fields” but what if I want to do some presentation with those custom fields that it doesn’t support?

This is the part where you have a reaction of “too prissy about presentation” but good presentation makes a huge difference.

Simple but trite example, let’s say I wanted to be able to make a recipes collection. I want all the recipes to be structured similarly (ingredients, required implements, time to prepare, instructions), I want to be able to categorise the recipes (meat, fish, vegetarian, vegan as one set of categories, I might want to flag allergy items)

Now I can do all this in a forum thread. It’ll look meh at best, especially if I use custom fields to do it, but I can do it.

Or I could have a CMS do this. There’s a little setup, sure, but any CMS can define a content model of a list of fields, and let you present them in a consistent way. Many of them will also let you do filtering and ease arching in a nice way.

Then I remember that Invision has this out of the box in both the self hosted and almost all of the cloud plans. They call it a Database but the feature set stands. I’m not even kidding about this: they have a guide on how to make a recipe section that hits at all the things I just said without writing a line of code (and it doesn’t look super amazing but it’s the basic tutorial) - https://invisioncommunity.com/4guid...lding-a-recipe-section_360/introduction-r155/

This is something I think is massive - you build this, and anyone can set up this stuff for all sorts of things. Just because you can’t see a use for this functionality doesn’t mean the rest of us can’t.

 

[smallwheels]

How would you automate that? You can't. So a programmer from XF has to sit down and review every single line of code from every single add-on. Not practical at all. I mean... A company the size of Microsoft could certainly do it, but XF? No.

We are at the end of 2024. What you wrote may have been true 20 years ago but no longer today. It does not matter anyway: Either it is a proper and relevant way to solve a relevant issue and it makes a massive difference to the better - then it should be done, no matter if is difficult or not, as it is a necessary investment if you want a professional eco system. Or it is not a proper solution or a relevant criteria, then there's no need to even think about it. All you are seeking is excuses why things would not work (and therefor cannot be done) rather than thinking about how one could make things work.

In the end though, this all goes back to what I said. XF is far past the point where it can fairly be blamed for a websites demise or stagnation.

Well, your world seems to be pretty black and white and you seem do have difficulties to recognize and accept that your needs may not be identical to those of everyone else and accepting that there are other needs, platforms strategies, desires and opinions than your's and that those are valid, too.

Instead you make an argument from every need, opinion and idea that does not fit your own ones. Makes no sense at all to discuss like that. You'll probably never accept any opinion other than the one you already have, so any discussion is fruitless.

 

[smallwheels]

I should just give them a basic WordPress, ACF (WP custom fields and post types manager) and if I were feeling generous, Elementor. They could do everything they wanted with that…

That's way over the top! A generic text editor should to. If you are generous one that supports syntax highlighting. And if you are really generous a system that supports markup, but that would really be unnecessary luxury.

 

[Arantor]

Oh, I missed the bit about reviewing. Worth noting that SMF reviews all plugins the first time they go on to the site, and Invision used to when they had a marketplace (though they were also taking a cut of sales). Invision’s team is bigger than XF but it’s not hundreds of people (I believe they have 6 or 7 devs, but they also only get the devs doing cloud stuff and/or support when needed)

I also have a memory that Woltlab does reviews too, so it’s definitely achievable for a modest sized company to do.

 

[Arnox]

Tell you what, let’s scrap the media gallery entirely and use forum attachments, that’s good enough.

I mean... You actually could. The core forum software is built out enough for it. You might be missing a few features that the MG has here and there, but beyond that...

Also ditch the RM and use forum threads with attachments, that’s good enough.

Again, you actually could totally do that with just a few features missed.

What? It’s not good enough and you might need to do things like categorisation over and above forum boards for content?

So use the prefix system with the filtering options and site search.

And you might want to consider pagination for long form content?

If you can fit the content into a single post, why NOT do that? I'd actually argue that it's BETTER to do that as it allows users to more easily do a Ctrl+F search on the content itself should they desire to do so. Pagination also leads to more clicks needed from the user and more waiting for loading. If you need text breaks more substantial than a line break, then just do

-

or equivalent.

No, that’s all entirely unnecessary, obviously.

Not necessarily unnecessary, but usually covered by just doing something else as I already covered above.

You frame the world in terms of what you have and make everything fit that.

I suppose that's fair. When you're not given much, you have to be particularly resourceful. But with that said, I also ironically think that on a website full of forum administrators, we seem to be greatly underestimating the sheer power of basic forum software.

But I look at my career, I look at the sites my company builds every day in WordPress and think that the world is infinitely more complex.

Ahhhhh, see that's different. That's the corporate world. Someone there is paying YOU money to make things easier for them. The customer knows they could do all this themselves technically, but they're paying you so they don't have to, or at least, have an easier time of doing it. And it may not even just be that. Perhaps due to the sheer volume of work that you're commissioned for, you, in fact, DO need a particular add-on to streamline your work and make it easier on you. But yes, I was not talking about enterprise needs. I was talking about the solo administrators like me.

This is the part where you have a reaction of “too prissy about presentation” but good presentation makes a huge difference.

Again though, everything flips on its head when you're talking about the corporate world. For Invision specifically, they focus on quantity over quality, generally. But in all fairness to them, they do win the CMS game by default simply by HAVING one where XF does not. XF has a tighter focus. Less tools but better ones. But again, in fairness to you, the corporate world doesn't care and wants boxes checked, and Invision checks the corporate boxes.

Worth noting that SMF reviews all plugins the first time they go on to the site

Are they just seeing that it runs or are they actually inspecting the code?

 

[Arantor]

So use the prefix system with the filtering options and site search.

So things can only go in one category? Oops, that’s a plug-in I need now.

Again though, everything flips on its head when you're talking about the corporate world.

And a considerable number of XF people run their sites as businesses. Which makes them corporate clients.

But you pretend cases like Tracy don’t exist: folks that do care about presentation, and ease of use for management of things, but aren’t corporate/business. (Which means my original assertion stands, you aren’t interested in looking at other peoples’ use cases unless it fits your world view, which is demonstrably and uncomfortably narrow.)

XF would do itself favours if it had a first party CMS. It would curtail some of the bridge-WordPress need, and be vastly more competitive with Invision.

But in all fairness to them, they do win the CMS game by default simply by HAVING one where XF does not.

Yes and Invision has won clients for this reason. People that otherwise would have been happy to use XF if a comparable solution existed.

Are they just seeing that it runs or are they actually inspecting the code

Inspecting the code. I nearly ended up being the team lead of the mod review team at one point, as it happened. A good number of mods for SMF never make it past review for one reason or another, and I certainly vetoed (and/or helped rewrite) addons for performance reasons.

 

[Arnox]

So things can only go in one category?

Yeah, not being able to use multiple prefixes seems an arbitrary limitation, I'll grant you that. But I also can't imagine a scenario where it would be absolutely needed for categorization.

folks that do care about presentation, and ease of use for management of things, but aren’t corporate/business.

Look... Let's say you're just an independent forum admin with full control over everything. Don't you think it's at least a little bit silly to completely crap on XF for not having a CMS when the forum itself already does such a damn good job? Hell, many people are now cursing modern design and popular social media and wanting to go back to old-school forums, and search engines are now desperately trying to prioritize anything in their search results that is even somewhat like a forum because they've shown to be more reliable, easy to parse, have much more human oversight, and better content quality control. Kurzgesagt even published a video recently arguing directly in favor of going back to forums.

Why are we as independent forum admins at XF trying to get away from that if we have a choice? Forums are clearly standing up to the test of time and wrecking the competition of AI-generated slop and heavy-handed corporate-controlled blandness, and now, us forum admins are saying forums aren't good enough. Really?

Now, with all that said, I certainly wouldn't say no to XF making a CMS, and it would be great to pull more of that corporate money back into XF. I totally agree. But if we don't get one, is it really the end of the world? I hardly think so.

Yes and Invision has won clients for this reason. People that otherwise would have been happy to use XF if a comparable solution existed.

Yeah... Cold hard truth. Can't argue with that.

Inspecting the code. I nearly ended up being the team lead of the mod review team at one point, as it happened. A good number of mods for SMF never make it past review for one reason or another, and I certainly vetoed (and/or helped rewrite) addons for performance reasons.

Well, that just makes me even more impressed by SMF honestly. I really do think they got the short end of the stick in terms of popularity and I have no idea why. Maybe super long development times if I had to guess...

 

[smallwheels]

Now, with all that said, I certainly wouldn't say no to XF making a CMS, and it would be great to pull more of that corporate money back into XF. I totally agree.

I wonder what kind of "corporates" you are talking about. A CMS, that is integrated in XF would obviously have the intention and purpose to use the XF stack as a portal, so a fully fledged homepage. This may work for some small businesses, that are centered around having a community. It will not work for corporates where a community is just a (side)element for their customers. They will want more from a CMS than an integrated one can deliver. Seme goes for enterprises.
A sitebuilder or CMS would - as again has been written countless times in this thread already - help communities, especially smaller and non-corperate ones, with publishing and organzing information better, that does not fit well into a forum structure. Basically what AMS or XenPorta do today.
For some it might open the opportunity to get rid of wordpress, for others wordpress with it's own ecosystems of plugins that massively extend the functionality from eCommerce to events will not be replacable. And while WP is the most used CMS worldwide is isn't actually a CMS but rather a blogsystem with pretty stinky sourcecode that many "misuse" as a CMS while a lot of others (for good reasons) comletely deny to even touch it.

 

[Opus X]

Put sections into separate titled spoilers. I do it all the time. Works pretty good.

not the same thing and way more work.

Add custom fields to the appropriate sub-forums. Here's an example of this in my own reviews sub-forum.

same thing is used but displayed totally different.
if you can not see the difference then i will not take the time to point it out to you.

apparently you prefer a simple and basic offering.
others want more.

 

[Opus X]

What you wrote may have been true 20 years ago but no longer today. It does not matter anyway

from discussions with others that I know that are running sites this seems to be a major issue with some.
they are stuck in the past and seem to not be able to move into the now or the future.

 

[Paul B]

So, about 2.4 ...

 

[Opus X]

But you pretend cases like Tracy don’t exist: folks that do care about presentation, and ease of use for management of things, but aren’t corporate/business.

i think that this is the disconnect some have.
he wants to try to present information in the friendliest possible format.
as he commented, shoehorning it into the core xenforo is not acceptable to him.
that is why he uses the plug ins he does.
and if i stay with xf eventually i will probably do so also.

So, about 2.4 ...

maybe it will offer some of these features.

 

[frm]

So, about 2.4 ...

"XF 2.4 general discussion, feedback, complaints, random off topic posts, etc."

There's only one reason why I'm holding back on anything because it seems like it should be:

"XF 2.4 general discussion"

As feedback, complaints, and random off topic posts, etc., aren't really anything that XF is interested in hearing.