New forum software is driving me crazy!

[bjanes]

Perhaps I don't know how to use the new hosting software on this forum, but the apparent lack of previously available features is driving me crazy. For Example, one could previously upload an image to the forum and have it appear as a thumbnail in the post. In the new software, the insert image icon merely enables placing a link to an image uploaded elsewhere in the post. Apparently, one has to upload images to another site and then link them in the post.

Also, the insert hyperlink icon merely inserts the URL into the post and does not allow a tag. Clicking on help take you to a help page apparently from the software developer, and features available in this forum are not addressed.

Are other users experiencing similar frustration?

Bill

[mguertin]

For details on how to upload an image please ready the pinned post here: New Forum Tips

For the URL's I think this is what you're after .. here's the syntax I used in the above url post:

[url=http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=45410.0]New Forum Tips[/url]

Also, just to let you know, the help page does specifically address this forum software and is fairly comprehensive -- we don't really have any additional features (at this date) that are not part of the main forum software.  Answers to both of these questions are available within the help area (plus a whole lore more useful info).

[bjanes]

For details on how to upload an image please ready the pinned post here: New Forum Tips

For the URL's I think this is what you're after .. here's the syntax I used in the above url post:

[url=http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=45410.0]New Forum Tips[/url]

Mark,

Thanks for the info. The hyperlink tag insertion that you describe is rather cumbersome. The old method was much easier: click on the hyperlink button, past in the URL and then add the text tag in the box. The additional options does allow easy uploading of images, but I was looking in the wrong place.

Regards,

Bill

[feppe]

Thanks for the info. The hyperlink tag insertion that you describe is rather cumbersome.

Hyperlink is certainly not as easy, but somebody here gave me a good tip: highlight the text you want to linkify, and insert a "=" followed by the URL between the first "l" and "]".

[Rob C]

Hyperlink is certainly not as easy, but somebody here gave me a good tip: highlight the text you want to linkify, and instert a "=" followed by the URL between the first "l" and "]".

Holy shit! What happened to straightforward?

Rob C

[feppe]

Holy shit! What happened to straightforward?

You get what you pay for; SMF (the software behind the forum) is free.

[michael]

It also is the only available forum software that supports the new custom features that we're going to be rolling out in the days ahead.

Free has nothing to do with it.

Michael

[mguertin]

You get what you pay for; SMF (the software behind the forum) is free.

Yes, SMF might be free software, but I do have to say that it does circles performance wise around the previous forum software, which was commercial software.  This version of the forums is much snappier and handles the load without issue.  Yes the url building is a little less friendly but c'est la vie.

[Rob C]

Yes, SMF might be free software, but I do have to say that it does circles performance wise around the previous forum software, which was commercial software.  This version of the forums is much snappier and handles the load without issue.  Yes the url building is a little less friendly but c'est la vie.

Yep, you know and I do not; and that's much the problem here. You are extending computer savvy much wider than it probably is. I had problems learning how to post images in the previous system, now I can't even get thumbnails to show - to see anything means the viewer has to go through several different stages of clicking or, perhaps better, idiots such as I should refrain from trying. Where's the fun today? Obviously there's a way to do it - I can see other people doing so, but it takes us back to square one: computer interest which is NOT photography interest at all. Even writing a considered response to anything means I have to go to Word and then a process of copy/paste, which incurrs a constant leaping from one programme to another in order to refer to the post to which I seek to reply, because there isn't holdable space in the basic writing box.

Rob C

[feppe]

Yes, SMF might be free software, but I do have to say that it does circles performance wise around the previous forum software, which was commercial software.  This version of the forums is much snappier and handles the load without issue.  Yes the url building is a little less friendly but c'est la vie.

My throwaway point about free software is mainly about UI quality. I favor free software whenever I can; I used to have Ubuntu as my only OS, and I'd still use it if it ran LR, PS and iTunes*, and am waiting impatiently for GIMP to get 16-bit editing. Free and OSS software packages generally have weak, poor or atrocious UI, unfortunately. Many of the projects start as one-man operations, and UI becomes an issue only late in development - and it seems that not too many UI and usability experts work on OSS projects. Same with artists but that's another discussion.

SMF is quite good when it comes to free forum software, but as is clear some people do find it clunky.

* yes I know about WINE but it seems like a lot of hassle, uncertain functionality, and a significant performance hit especially with PS and LR.

[Kirk Gittings]

It also is the only available forum software that supports the new custom features that we're going to be rolling out in the days ahead.

Great, because so far it just seems like a PITB.

[DarkPenguin]

Oh, it's fine except for the photo thing.  And how often do you need to post images on a photography forum?

Does any of the smf mods ease image uploading?  Seems like someone would have taken the time to fix it.

[Nill Toulme]

The URL thing really is braindead.  I'm glad somebody else complained about it.  ;-)

Nill

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Yes, SMF might be free software, but I do have to say that it does circles performance wise around the previous forum software, which was commercial software.  This version of the forums is much snappier and handles the load without issue.  Yes the url building is a little less friendly but c'est la vie.

I am glad it all works for you on that side. I just wanted to join the chorus of other users who think the new software simply sucks for user friendliness on our side (and it is not just url building). And yes, I understand the site is free, hence I have no right to complain.

[mguertin]

Oh, it's fine except for the photo thing.  And how often do you need to post images on a photography forum?

Does any of the smf mods ease image uploading?  Seems like someone would have taken the time to fix it.

"the photo thing?"  I don't understand what you mean by this.  Are you unable to post photos?  I've seen a lot of attachments posted since this forum software went live ... how much easier can it get than press a button, select a photo and submit?

I am glad it all works for you on that side. I just wanted to join the chorus of other users who think the new software simply sucks for user friendliness on our side (and it is not just url building). And yes, I understand the site is free, hence I have no right to complain.

I also really don't understand "simply sucks for user friendliness" exactly either, aside from having to do a bit of work to do some BBCode formatting, learning where a few links are now located -- and one missing view that consensus seems to point to the fact that very few people used or liked.

Lastly what parts do people find clunky?  This forum software works like 95% of any forum software I've ever used online so I'm not really understanding this problem.  Is it the old software layout?  No, it's different software.  It's got mostly all the same stuff in it, sometimes you just have to click in a different place ...

[Jeremy Roussak]

Mark, I've suggested a few things elsewhere that I imagine could be reasonably easily implement and which would improve things but I've had no response, so here they are again:

1. Relax the upper limit on attachment sizes. 1Mb is pretty small. This is a site for photographs. All seemed well before and, as Michael repeatedly observes, disk space is cheap.

2. Have the "Additional options" tab open by default when posting. Why not? It takes very little space and it's at the bottom of the screen anyway. Why force an additional click?

3. Fix the "insert url" button so that it works properly, as it did on the old site. The number of mal-formatted URLs which have been posted since the new software was introduced indicates that something is wrong (or that we're  all idiots).

4. Restore the "your last visit was at" information: it's very handy for those of us who, like me, routinely use "show unread posts since last visit" to read the site (or am I the only one?). Similarly, putting that action into a button in the button bar would make life a bit easier.

I realise some of this is an attempt to persuade you to make the new board look and feel like the old one but what's wrong with that?

Jeremy

[stamper]

I don't see how raising the upper limit to attachments would be helpful unless someone doesn't want to be bothered about resizing their image's? An image viewed at 1 MB isn't any different from if it was at 500kb's? As to adding an image via the browse button I did it the other day and found it simpler than the old forum. It could be my imagination but there seems to be a step less than before. However I think in line with others the viewing pleasure of the forum is less than before and this is after a "settling in" period that is necessary after anything that is changed. Hopefully the custom features are relevant to the forum and not just to the main site.

[mguertin]

Mark, I've suggested a few things elsewhere that I imagine could be reasonably easily implement and which would improve things but I've had no response, so here they are again:

1. Relax the upper limit on attachment sizes. 1Mb is pretty small. This is a site for photographs. All seemed well before and, as Michael repeatedly observes, disk space is cheap.

2. Have the "Additional options" tab open by default when posting. Why not? It takes very little space and it's at the bottom of the screen anyway. Why force an additional click?

3. Fix the "insert url" button so that it works properly, as it did on the old site. The number of mal-formatted URLs which have been posted since the new software was introduced indicates that something is wrong (or that we're  all idiots).

4. Restore the "your last visit was at" information: it's very handy for those of us who, like me, routinely use "show unread posts since last visit" to read the site (or am I the only one?). Similarly, putting that action into a button in the button bar would make life a bit easier.

I realise some of this is an attempt to persuade you to make the new board look and feel like the old one but what's wrong with that?

Jeremy

1. I increased the size limit a while back (probably right around when you asked about it). 
2. I'll check into having this open by default.
3+4 "as it did on the old site" is not really an option, it's completely different software so there's no chance in rewriting large portions of it to work like different software.  I will see if there are any mods available to replace the URL button.  To me the previous method was clunky but if that's what users here require I'll see if we can make it happen.  Personally I find it pretty easy to type the url tags as opposed to having to do more mouse clicking, but I'm a coder so I'm biased

One additional note about posting URL's, I'm not sure if everyone is aware of this or not ... unless you want to have a custom title to the link with this forum software you don't even have to use the URL button at all, you can simply paste the URL as part of the body of the message and the forum will automatically parse and link it up with no further intervention on your part, which I personally find the simplest way to post a link.

[Nill Toulme]

...One additional note about posting URL's, I'm not sure if everyone is aware of this or not ... unless you want to have a custom title to the link with this forum software you don't even have to use the URL button at all, you can simply paste the URL as part of the body of the message and the forum will automatically parse and link it up with no further intervention on your part, which I personally find the simplest way to post a link.

It's easy if that's the way you want your link to look (and you don't get sidetracked by clicking the useless link button).  The whole purpose of the button is or should be to allow you to easily insert a link with a title.  The way it should work is to let you highlight existing text and then click the button, whereupon you're simply prompted for the URL, or let you click the button without any text highlighted, and then prompt you for both the title text and the URL.  

Having a button that does nothing but insert "http://" in your text is worse than nothing.

But it's not all bad.  I really like the "Show new replies to your posts" feature.  All boards should have that.

Nill

[Jeremy Roussak]

1. I increased the size limit a while back (probably right around when you asked about it).  
2. I'll check into having this open by default.
3+4 "as it did on the old site" is not really an option, it's completely different software so there's no chance in rewriting large portions of it to work like different software.  I will see if there are any mods available to replace the URL button.  To me the previous method was clunky but if that's what users here require I'll see if we can make it happen.  Personally I find it pretty easy to type the url tags as opposed to having to do more mouse clicking, but I'm a coder so I'm biased

One additional note about posting URL's, I'm not sure if everyone is aware of this or not ... unless you want to have a custom title to the link with this forum software you don't even have to use the URL button at all, you can simply paste the URL as part of the body of the message and the forum will automatically parse and link it up with no further intervention on your part, which I personally find the simplest way to post a link.

1. Thanks: I'd not noticed. Mea culpa.
2. Thanks again.
3. I appreciate that the phrase "as it did on the old site" probably isn't helpful. The suggestions stand, though. I think your "coder" bias does show a little! Most people, I suspect, prefer the look of a hidden link, so an easy way of inserting one would be beneficial.

Jeremy