News:

Wondering if this will always be free?  See why free is better.

Main Menu

Custom Profile Fields - remove limitations

Started by hugbear, February 11, 2017, 03:57:58 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

hugbear

Hello.

At this time "Custom Profile Fields" have two limitations and I don't quite understand why.

1. Privacy options are limited to:
    a) Users can see this field; owner can edit it
    b) Users can see this field; admins can edit it
    c) Users cannot see this field; owner and admin can edit it
    d) This field is only visible to admins
2. "Show on Topic View" availability depends on "Privacy" option selected, i.e.  becomes active ONLY when either option 1.a) or 1.b) is selected.

Is there a reason for that? I would very much like to create a custom field (let's call it "Notes"), visible/editable ONLY to/by admins AND moderators and also have it shown on topic view (say, "Below signature"). That would enable moderators to make behavioral notes about nasty users, visible only to moderators at every post made by said users.

In short, I would like to:
1. have a fifth option (This field is only visible to admins and moderators)
2. have "Show on Topic View" active for any "Privacy" option.

Is this reasonable/doable?

Kindred

well, the logic is that it should not be displayed in the public area unless the account owner can see it


So, while possible, I think this is a mod request ad would not be proper for a feature change
Слова
Украина

Please do not PM, IM or Email me with support questions.  You will get better and faster responses in the support boards.  Thank you.

"Loki is not evil, although he is certainly not a force for good. Loki is... complicated."

Sebastyne

It's a good suggestion though, it could also be used for the admin to keep up with who is who, like "I invited this guy onto the forum at the ...Expo at..." for instance, so you'll always seem like you know exactly who is who without having to check their profile every time.
Sebby

Kindred

Quote from: Kindred on February 12, 2017, 09:38:06 AM
So, while possible, I think this is a mod request and would not be proper for a feature change
Слова
Украина

Please do not PM, IM or Email me with support questions.  You will get better and faster responses in the support boards.  Thank you.

"Loki is not evil, although he is certainly not a force for good. Loki is... complicated."

Vanilla Lumina

I know this thread is almost a month old but it'd also be nice if we could set a custom order of custom profile fields instead of them having to be in alphabetical order. ^^

Arantor

This is done in 2.1, won't be done in 2.0 as a core feature.

Gwenwyfar

Why a mod? You could allow any combinations if you just divide the options instead of using a select, I don't see why it isn't that way already.

For example:

Viewable by: (admins), (moderators), (users), (owner)
Editable by: (admins), (moderators), (owner)
Show on topic view: (yes/no) is always available, and gets based off "viewable by"
"It is impossible to communicate with one that does not wish to communicate"

Arantor

That's not what was being requested in the directly-above posts, someone tacked on a completely separate request to yours, except the separate request is done in 2.1.

thunderchld

I support the request from Gwenwyfar.  Would we be better off submitting this as a new feature request?  Having the options split out would be great.

Example:  We have a field called "balance". Right now, only Owner and Admin can see it. However, I'd like other staff members (Moderators) to see this and the owner (user) to not edit the field.

Gwenwyfar

Arantor: Was waiting to update my 2.1 beta to check, but I don't see any changes in 2.1. Is this a separate request somewhere you're referring to?

It seems counterproductive to stick to the exact way OP has suggested a feature be implemented. This is a way to achieve the same thing, with better results and help more people than just his specific need. But if you would consider that a separate request I can create a new topic...
"It is impossible to communicate with one that does not wish to communicate"

Arantor

No, I was pointing out that what Vanilla Lumina were requesting was something different and unrelated to the OP's request, and what Vanilla Lumina was requesting is doable already in 2.1.

As to splitting to moderators, there are multiple levels of moderator in SMF, so grouping it like that doesn't work the way you'd think it would work, and outright implementing it based on groups who can see/edit fields is really, really hard work - or it was when I did it in Wedge...

Gwenwyfar

Oh, ok, we were talking about different things. I was referring to OP's request only (and response that it should be a mod).

To be more specific, I'm only referring to global moderators here, not board-specific moderators and others (not sure if that would also be too difficult however, but even if you do it only for admins this would already add one more option than is available currently, while making it easier to choose what you want).

To be honest I don't think any list should have more than 1 option/action included into it, as is the case here. From both a usability and code standpoint :P
"It is impossible to communicate with one that does not wish to communicate"

Arantor

And here's the question: what do you call a global moderator? It's quite possible to set up groups that can have all the powers we normally think of as being moderation powers, without them being classed as moderators in the internal sense...

This is really more complex than people think :(

Gwenwyfar

I was thinking of the default group you can't delete, but I got it confused with something else, sorry.

Since this is only about profile fields, it could be tied to the permission of being able to edit other's fields perhaps? Or those with access to moderation center, since that is where private moderation notes are kept. Though I guess that'd still be problematic :P

Still, with or without moderators, why aren't we already keeping all the options separate?
"It is impossible to communicate with one that does not wish to communicate"

Arantor

In 2.1 that's not viable given that there are a multitude of permissions, practically one per profile field these days...

Access to moderation is controlled by having access to multiple different permissions.

The reason they are kept separate is because they all do different things because different people have different ideas of what a moderator looks like. Some sites consider a moderator just someone who moves topics into different boards and that's the only permission they have. Others, call people moderators based on ability to delete topics/posts/move/merge/split but critically not actually give the 'moderate board' permission that doesn't actually do anything beyond some vague internal things that most people never care about.

And then there's the 'moderate forum members' permission which includes access to some profile details, plus banning (unless it's been tweaked in 2.1 when I wasn't looking) even though it's frequently thought of as the next level up from moderate_board (because a lot of mod authors think 'moderate_forum' means global moderator, even though it actually isn't)

thunderchld

I have situations where I want the admin to be able to edit, and another "admin" group along with the owner to be able to view but not edit fields.

e.g. Lets say the person has an account balance - I want to have the admins add the balance, but the owner and another admin-esq group, to see that balance as well but not be able to change the amount.

Gwenwyfar

Wanted to check a few things in the permissions and groups and kept forgetting to reply:

Maybe instead of trying to guess what people would define as a moderator, each group could just have a checkbox for "is moderator" from which these kinds of permissions check for, wouldn't that work?
"It is impossible to communicate with one that does not wish to communicate"

thunderchld

Quote from: Gwenwyfar on January 01, 2018, 06:03:10 PM
Wanted to check a few things in the permissions and groups and kept forgetting to reply:

Maybe instead of trying to guess what people would define as a moderator, each group could just have a checkbox for "is moderator" from which these kinds of permissions check for, wouldn't that work?

I could get behind that.

Kindred

wont' (and should not) happen in 2.1 -- and, IMO, this is an edge case that most people would not use.
Слова
Украина

Please do not PM, IM or Email me with support questions.  You will get better and faster responses in the support boards.  Thank you.

"Loki is not evil, although he is certainly not a force for good. Loki is... complicated."

Advertisement: