| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| gary b |
Posted - 23 July 2008 : 00:27:44
I have withdrawn the MOD.
Thanks for the input.
gary b
< |
| 12 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| AnonJr |
Posted - 26 July 2008 : 22:14:02
What the hell is with people getting upset over essentially nothing and deleting their posts?!?
Why? Because someone challenged your assumptions? It was because someone challenged assumptions behind the scenes that the recent coding bug was found and fixed. It was because of challenges that a better solution was found. What if Rui had gotten all pissy about being challenged and deleted his responses?
I'll stop there before I get irrationally emotional.< |
| HuwR |
Posted - 26 July 2008 : 02:30:05
quote:
One more point to make... MONTHS ago I posted that I solved the 'bogus registration' problem very easily -- a three-minute code change! Since December 2007 until now, our forum has had ZERO bogus/bot registrations. No CAPTCHA used. No IP blocking needed! How many Admins can make that statement? Yet, again... the methodology was belittled and/or condemned.
we can, and your little code change was not belittled , merely treated with suspicion as a fix, as it does not have the effect which you seem to think it has, a bot does not press a button based on what the button text says, it merely issues a form post using javascript, doesn't matter what the button says, a submit button is a submit button regardless of text displayed on it.
And as can be noted from above, I was not the only person who wanted you to explain what your mod actually did, however, you completely blanked my question, not the sort of behaviour that is going to endeer you to the community, so maybe just respond next time instead of just assuming someone is trying to belittle you rather than gain an undesrtanding of why/what you are doing. I don't see any one condemming you, just asking pertinant questions. It is you who seems to be the one detracting and condemning.< |
| texanman |
Posted - 26 July 2008 : 01:53:32
I wasn't really belittling your methodology. I was just trying to understand. If understand correctly activation bypasses e-mail verification. I want to make sure the person has valid e-mail. I can "approve all pending members", and have the members complete the registration. I do activation if I know the member's e-mail is a valid one and I know the person. Even then I check on approve the member first.
Thanks< |
| texanman |
Posted - 25 July 2008 : 15:45:47
gary_b: Under what conditions would you want to mass activate pending applicants? Just trying to understand the use of the Mod.< |
| Carefree |
Posted - 24 July 2008 : 03:48:23
I wrote a modification to your PM notice already - the only thing I'm having a problem with is that I cannot find the location for notices of action on the same date, it will display all PMs when searched, but it will not leave a space where the date information is left. For example, it'll say "Today at3 minutes ago". As soon as I find that, an administrator's search within all pm's is done.< |
| Carefree |
Posted - 24 July 2008 : 03:25:59
quote:
Originally posted by gary b
Carefree
You raise several very valid points! Your points about keeping the data associated with the Submitter and no printouts to store are particularly good.
Frankly, the only reason I did not set the MOD up using a database is that I am weak in this area. I figured I would work at it over time and introduce database connectivity as part of version 2.0 enhancements. My vision would be to have the pending member Admin Options fully configurable: ability to enable/disable the auto-email function for each action; enable/disable 2-step application process; and pending member 'reminders' (per input from philsbbs)
I am willing to start the next version. Your offer to assist is very kind. 
What changes to the application/registration process are needed by Snitz forum Admins? What else should be included in version 2??
Admin Options:
- Select by Email
- Select by MLev
- Select by IP
- Notice to alt Email (for all or for specific actions)
- Notice only on specific actions (rejection, email, attempt by specific locale, attempt by address, attempt by IP
- Search by actions
- Search by Applicant
- Search by Moderator
- Search by Address
- Search by Email
There may be other options desired. If anyone else has a specific functionality desired, please post a response.< |
| Etymon |
Posted - 23 July 2008 : 19:58:01
I use the Pending Profile MOD with my pending members page. That's where I would use the "reason for joining" field for my visual review. The "reason for joining" could also be accessed via a pop-up window from the pending members page.< |
| HuwR |
Posted - 23 July 2008 : 17:30:50
quote:
We went down this road before. As I stated previously -- if a person has a need for this MOD, it is there. If you don't need it or think it is useless or think it is a terrible idea or think it will lead you to purgatory, don't install it.
hey, no need to get *****y, I only asked, since you did not exactly explain what it does.
And you still haven't explained why you would want to send an email to a manually activated account when pretty much the only reason an account requires manual activation is if the email did not arrive in the first place.< |
| Carefree |
Posted - 23 July 2008 : 16:33:08
Gary, I'll be happy to write the instructions, etc., for you. I think that instead of using email attachments (which are automatically blocked by a large number of email programs), I would create a follow-on asp page (with form fields) to "register.asp".
The form could contain the reason for the request and other pertinent information. The results of the form could go directly into a database table & a link would be sent to the administrator (vs the standard link of "so-and-so is pending approval").
If the administrator is satisfied with the replies provided, then
the application/registration would be approved & the approval email sent to the applicant.
else (otherwise)
the application would be denied, the database entry coded as such, and the rejection email sent to the applicant.
This approach would keep the responses always associated with the applicant's name/email/IP and eliminate having to print & keep hard copies or keeping xx quantity of emails which would have to be searched in your email program to eliminate repeat applications using fake names.< |
| Etymon |
Posted - 23 July 2008 : 15:01:26
Hi Gary,
If you do another update of this to include more options, would it be too much to ask if there was something like a "reason for joining" included in the registration form? Their reason(s) then could be used as a supplement to your MOD to help qualify the prospective members.< |
| HuwR |
Posted - 23 July 2008 : 08:09:11
could you explain exactly what is different from the default forum behaviour ?
Activation is something that is only generally done in extremely rare cases (if ever) since an un activated account generally indicates that their email address was invalid, so why would you want to mass activate anything?
The only reason we ever decline registrations is if either the email address looks dodgy, the username looks dodgy or they are known spammers, so why would I want to email them saying their registration was declined ?
< |
| Carefree |
Posted - 23 July 2008 : 00:46:21
Not available (even to registered members) yet.< |
