smf 2.0

[SleePy]

riker, I would see 2.0 being a really big improvement over the administration and moderation of your forum. While there hasn't been as many user options done with 2.0, you will find it makes moderation and administration of your forum a lot easier and gives you and your moderators a lot more power and control over your forum.

[riker]

I've always thought it was one of the best for that already SleePy but lacking features for end users.  The forth coming Mybb1.4 could hit SMF big time because of this (just my opinion)

[Grudge]

I'm not really sure exactly what else a forum needs for end users? I mean a forum is design for posting messages, no? We already have things like polls, calendars, karma etc.

Of course 2.0 does improve some things for the end users. In particular the custom fields allows you to give users the ability to add more info to their profile, and the biggest improvement of all (IMHO) is the WYSIWYG editor. Guest voting in polls is also a nice to have. The only real other user improvements I'd have *liked* to add in 2.0 (That won't be in it) are repeating events, maybe multi-question polls and maybe topic ratings. AJAX quick reply is something I'd like to add in 2.0 if time allows :/

[Basie]

I mean a forum is design for posting messages, no?

In the old days, yes. However times are changing and so are peoples attitudes towards "online communities". These days end users (members) want more than simply to be able post messages. They want more features, they want advanced friends lists, they want galleries, they want blogs etc etc. Which is why boards such as IPB and vB both have social networking features as standard.

The features you mention polls/calendars etc have been standard in BB software for as long as I have been using it. And that is probably the best part of a decade!

If you really think SMF doesn't need anything else then I can't help but wonder how long it will be before even more people turn away. You need to understand that the internet changes, and so do peoples expectations of it.

[Grudge]

I do actually agree about the community elements of your post, in fact see my post here:
http://www.simplemachines.org/community/index.php?topic=208256.msg1329211#msg1329211

I suppose when I wrote my post I was thinking more in terms of the core forum aspects of things. That said I don't think items such as a blog or gallery are even vaguely forum functionality - I can never see them being incorporated into SMF. What I *can* however see is Simple Machines producing other elements such as a gallery which integrate into SMF when installed.

The problem is, if you take a software item too far away from it's core functionality then you dilute the original purpose. Whilst it's great to have other functionality the reason people come to a forum is *primarily* to discuss. The other elements such as galleries, profiles etc are elements that sit on the side of this core functionality. If SMF, out of the box, was a forum, blog, gallery etc etc item of software then people start to wonder what actually happened to the "posting" side of things?

[metallica48423]

That is where the expandibility side of things come in.  Each individual user's needs are different.  When you start diluting things so much with things that the greatest core of people don't need, then as Grudge pointed out, they start wondering what exactly the point of the project is.

SMF, right now, is a forum software.  But who is to say that, in the future, there can't be addons (not necessarily mods) for different things which all integrate into something larger? 

My site is being developed into a gaming network site, so what do i see in this?  What do I want from SMF as a site admin?

I don't want it to be the all in one solution (cms, website, forum, etc) Because at that point the project itself loses direction, it loses its focus.  I am a long time SMF'er, much longer than i have been a team member, which isn't even a year yet (i've been using SMF since 2003).

but rather I'd like it to be the framework from what everything else is based on.  SMF itself has a very powerful user/permissions system which is highly modifiable.  I use it as the base for everything that goes on in the site.  This is infinitely more customizable in the end because I can change the way the integration works right down to the individual user.  I do realize that not everyone has this ability, however, and thats where the expandability factor above comes in .  Truthfully, those that have been truly successful in the internet have been those who did their own thing, rather than expecting someone else to make it for them, but thats not always true in some cases!

I personally see social networking as a whole, as a fad, just like forums were back in the day. Sites want to jump on that bandwagon because its the 'in' thing -- its what's going on right now.  Some falsely think it will turn them into millionaires overnight, deluded by stories like Tom's, who created myspace.  Some believe, again, falsely, that its the only way to attract members, when truthfully, all they truly need to do is put their content out there.

What i see up and coming is fully dynamic, customizable (both from the admin and user sides), functional, editable, interactive experience.  And yeah, that'll be a fad too .

In the end, what is the difference from a site a decade old and one thats new today?  Both put their content across, hoping for people to come read it.  And i feel the internet has been trying to move away from that, but in the end, thats exactly what is still going on! 

That said, i do agree that change is to be expected, and that projects must move with those expectations or a parting is to come.  Some take a path of following one linear path, and some take a path toward meeting those expectations in multiple ways.  Some don't follow the path.  And some make their own path.  And yet others make many of their own paths!

What we are out to do is innovate, not just to recreate what is today's best thing.  Sure, 2.0 focuses mostly on adding things which benefit administrators directly.  But indirectly the users reap that as the administrators' jobs are now that much easier, allowing them to build on the community more.  And for those who can, to build new things and take their sites in new directions.  Or those like me, who take the new functionalities and tie it in with whats going on.

My site would not be possible without SMF 2.0, even if i rewrote all the queries. 

I will end this long post on what i see now .  Enjoy the wall of text

[Basie]

I get what you're saying about plugins, and I don't have a ploblem with having extra features as optional plugins. The real problem for me is that things like the SMF gallery and Blog plugin are not officially supported, thus they are not "future-proof".

The blogs for vB and IPB (for example) don't come as standard, but the important thing is that they are supported. So I don't have to worry about telling my users "sorry this feature is no longer supported so I'm going to have to delete all of your entries and change to a different plugin".

My main concern about adding plugins is that they may or may not work with future versions of SMF. Which is why I personally prefer things that are "out of the box" or at the very least, officially supported.

[metallica48423]

The biggest difference is the first-party vs. third party thing.

If it were something we designed and created, its something we can support, we wrote it, we know how it works, its ins and outs, what works and what doesn't.

When you have something third party, its something someone else came up with, the concept for it is foreign, the coding is foreign, and we may not have ever used it.  It is exceedingly difficult to support something in those circumstances.

That said, yes, i agree with you.

We, put simply, don't have the team-power especially on the dev and support sides to do such things RIGHT NOW (but that is our problem and as such, we will deal with it )

[forumnoob]

The biggest difference is the first-party vs. third party thing.

If it were something we designed and created, its something we can support, we wrote it, we know how it works, its ins and outs, what works and what doesn't.

When you have something third party, its something someone else came up with, the concept for it is foreign, the coding is foreign, and we may not have ever used it.  It is exceedingly difficult to support something in those circumstances.

That said, yes, i agree with you.

We, put simply, don't have the team-power especially on the dev and support sides to do such things RIGHT NOW (but that is our problem and as such, we will deal with it )

I thing SMF should have the best of both worlds.

  Have a VERY rudimentary blogging solution in place - i.e. SMF Easy Blog (tm)
In an earlier post I outline how it could be implemented quite simply.

same for the gallery.
With VERY simple implementation , you achieve two things.
a) you have people using a feature they probably would not otherwise even try, and that  eventually prompts development of a more advanced blogging solution, as  once people have whet their appetite on that, they provide a ready market for more

[snork13]

The problem is, if you take a software item too far away from it's core functionality then you dilute the original purpose. Whilst it's great to have other functionality the reason people come to a forum is *primarily* to discuss. The other elements such as galleries, profiles etc are elements that sit on the side of this core functionality. If SMF, out of the box, was a forum, blog, gallery etc etc item of software then people start to wonder what actually happened to the "posting" side of things?

Great Comments Grudge. I agree 100%. Thanks for all the hard work

[weightman]

Hey, no one can be the best at everything. It seems there is enough competition to be the best forum software (which SMF is doing IMHO) without trying to take on wordpress, mambo, joomla, etc. I like the bridge concept because then you can pick what you think is the best software out there for your needs and integrate with SMF. And, there is no guarantee any software will be supported indefinitely....

[HecKel]

In my opinion, SMF is one software to use as a forum. (period)

I loved to see in SMF one projects gallery (to coordinate projects in my community, etc) but this is usefull *for me*, not as a default feature in one software.

I think that forums admins should see this, what is *really* important to be in the software, not what is important on their communities.

[Douglas]

If SMF became any kind of a portal system, I would stop using it on every site I have.  I'm glad there aren't more big time features like that, in all honesty.

I write my own CMS's... every site in my sig has its own CMS that's integrated with SMF, but can operate as a stand alone solution, as well.  SMF just makes it easy to bridge everything together in one fell swoop.

BTW, the person that was asking about the blog... there's an unofficial mod (not sure if it's been released or not) that allows for blog style thing (check the WME site in my sig).

[Fustrate]

I've pretty much got the same comment as Douglas on this - I've created a CMS, help desk, and numerous other systems using SMF's core functionality, and it's what really made my decision on which forum software to use.

Considering the jump it's been from 1.1.4 to 2.0, I can't even imagine what SMF 3.0 will bring - that'll be years from now, but I'll still be using SMF

[Xarcell]

The only thing I don't like or trust the WYSIWYG editor. I hate those things...

As far as some of you that ae not seeing any changes from 1.1.14 and 2.0, it's all under the hood, except for a few other options/features. Soon you'll see the template changes, by then you'll see more of a difference.

[metallica48423]

the wysiwyg editor has come a long way -- its to the point that i will actually use it.  Its still got a long way to go though

[weightman]

The wysiwyg editor is going to be extremely useful for my community, in order to post competition results from our sport in an attractive format quickly and easily for non-tech oriented members. I've played with it in the test forum a little and it definitely isn't there yet, especially for pasting word and excel documents in to posts, which I understand is not an ideal practice but will be an extremely important tool for my community. SMF rules.

[riker]

Well off the top of my head I'd like to see "recent posts" added to the menu bar like most other forums have.  I'd like long urls shortened automatically instead of the admin having to download a mod to fix it & friendly seo urls

[Dragooon]

If you really need a powerful gallery, consider Coppermine and Gallery 2.
If you take some time and integrate them properly, you get what you need, the above 2 are very powerful(specially Gallery 2), and if integrated properly, you will get a Powerful Forum + A powerful Gallery.

The same goes with every other thing out there, CMS, Blog, HelpDesk, etc.

[Xarcell]

I'm not really sure exactly what else a forum needs for end users? I mean a forum is design for posting messages, no? We already have things like polls, calendars, karma etc.

Of course 2.0 does improve some things for the end users. In particular the custom fields allows you to give users the ability to add more info to their profile, and the biggest improvement of all (IMHO) is the WYSIWYG editor. Guest voting in polls is also a nice to have. The only real other user improvements I'd have *liked* to add in 2.0 (That won't be in it) are repeating events, maybe multi-question polls and maybe topic ratings. AJAX quick reply is something I'd like to add in 2.0 if time allows :/

I think repeated events and topic ratings show have made it in. I also think something like "media center" by JayBachatero should have been added in. After seeing that mod in use, it makes you wonder why it hasn't been there since the beginning.

As far as galleries, blogs, and etc.  I'd rather 3rd party worry about it. If you start developing add-ons, you'll never hear the end of it. I'd rather see more focus on "forum" uses. Not "portal" uses...