One of the first actions a new user wants to take inside one of my communities is to upload a picture.
Obviously newbies are told to read a few topics when they complain about not being able to upload images.
But the complaints are occurring with more than 5 out of 10 new users (so over 50%)...
So I'm running Discourse v1.4.0.beta1 +34
I'm a but confused about when the Trust Level promotion occurs...
I'm probably missing something very basic in understanding this - or mis-reading these numbers
Sometimes when I spot the complaints I check the users and I see they have met the requirements... ... but the actual Trust Level promotion sometimes happens minutes later - other times - it feels like hours.
I'm using the default Discourse Trust Level Settings
Today, users get redirect to my SSO login URL when they're logged out and need to be logged in to access a specific URL.
What I want to do is: dynamically add this specific URL as a parameter to my SSO URL when the user gets rejected. If I'm able to do that, then I can redirect the user to that URL after a successful login.
Is that possible today or is it on the roadmap?
I'm currently trying to build a plugin to accomplish that. So, if it's not possible today and not on the roadmap (or too far away) I'd like to know what's the best approach get that URL and add it on-the-fly to my SSO URL.
I think that redirecting to the URL that the user was trying to access is the desired behaviour for many sites out there.
And of course, other approaches on how to redirect the user to the URL he/she was trying to access would be much appreciated!
I'm offering hosting for discourse. I just have a quick question (That might be a feauture request). I'm wondering why the daily backup is off by default?
I can't see myself asking my non technical users to go to settings and click to setup daily backup. I don't see how I can automate that at install (Maybe you have some hint?). I could of course use the manual backup. I just find it overkilling as you already did the job in a great way (It is the best free sotware as a service I used so far, that is really doing a good job in term of operations)!
I just don't understand why it is off by defaut. Maybe you have some ideas on how I could make it automatically on?
I've had a fair long look at the forums and searched but the closest I could find for this was:
There was no comment after the initial post by @codinghorror about madness lying down that route. If someone does know of a similar thread I've listed, please point me at it and we can continue discussion over there.
In the interests of removing ambiguity I'm italicising Discourse terms (Moderators, Admin, Staff) etc. to distinguish from other use of those words.
I wondered whether there was any interest in altering the rigidity in permissions and abilities at the moment. I doubt my use case is unique particularly - I admin a forum for a specific game (SkySaga) and we have Community Moderators as well as staff (as in people who work on the game rather than Admin/Moderators in Discourse). I initially made the Community Moderators Moderators but then discovered that this role enabled them to do things that they ought not to do (see IPs, email addresses, ban users, etc.). I reassigned them to Trust Level 4 to ensure that they couldn't accidentally or purposefully do anything more than they ought to do (which is pretty much purely post moderation) however TL4 means that they cannot do useful things like using a colour to signify that they are speaking "officially", deleting individual posts, seeing flags, etc.
Perhaps category-specific moderation (which I understand is on the roadmap) will allow for some of these things, as it will reduce Moderator rights to a specific category as I understand it, and therefore may remove some of the more back-end, non-post-specific admin permissions?
I understand that fiddling with individual permissions can be tedious, but the ability to alter these at all out of the box would be really useful for me, and I'd be surprised if I'm alone (in fact I was surprised I could only find one other topic that looked similar!).
I have a web app written mostly in JS, using the mean.io stack. We are looking to fully integrate discourse with the platform. How easy would it been to integrate? I realise it's mostly built on Ruby on Rails.
Does anyone have and tips or advice on how easy it would be to stitch together with an mean.io app?
Wait until a new or unread topic notification appears
Expected result: The educational text should disappear automatically and the new or unread topics should be shown instead. Or, if this is too much work, move the text below the notification bar, so that the complete text is visible.
Actual result: The educational text is still visible, but a blue notification bar overlaps the first line of the text.
Hi all, I've been through a bundle of docs and forum replies and I think I've answered all my own questions, but it would be helpful to have one or two of you check my math... We have a bunch of CakePHP apps that need (a) a single registration/login mechanism and (b) a unified or unifiably viewable discussion platform. We need Discourse to be both a central discussion forum and some of those forums (fora?) need to be visible on our CakePHP apps. We use Bitnami, so this assumes 1.3.1
Here are my beliefs, please feel free to correct me.
Discourse can function as an authoritative authentication for apps we make elsewhere. i.e. app.domain.com users can register/login using discourse.domain.com - User goes to app.domain.com, registers or logs in (via Discourse), we write the necessary API plugin on our thing site and now the user is logged in to both. Additionally, user can register with one of a chosen Google/Twitter/whatever and this will (a)_ create the Discourse account and (b) we can then capture that for the local app account.
I'm looking to set up a forum that will have public and private forums/categories, this seems easily handled with groups.
One portion of the forums will have a large number of private subcats. I believe these subcats will not show to users who do not have access, thereby saving me from a massive subcat list/menu.
A second portion will have roughly a dozen subcats, public, and the root cat should not be post-to-able. Therefore I want to click the cat and see the subcats. I see the config option for this, but I believe this to be forum-wide, not category-specific.
One forum will be tantamount to a blog comment drop-in, I will be embedding one thread from one category on unique page on a separate domain. We will be able to API call create a forum from the separate domain, embed it there, and see all these threads in their public category at the main Discourse domain.
One forum will be the same as 4., but each thread will need to be private to a group. These groups will be defined by the remote app. Discourse will be able to query app.domain.com to ascertain users (presuming users are reg'd on both sites via [1] above) I believe I cannot do this at the thread level, and will need a group-restricted category instead.
I can embed any category anywhere I like on additional domains, and providing I'm using Discourse as authoritative authentication, those apps will allow users to comment in the embedded discussions.
Here's my current picture of how this looks:
Welcome/Meta/Offtopic/General (Root cat, contains threads) Professional Collaboration Groups (Root cat, no threads, only subcats) - public group 1 forum - public group 2 forum - private group 1 forum (only private group 1 members see this forum in menus/display) - private group 2 forum (only private group 2 members see this forum in menus/display) Blog Commenty Stuff - Public App X - - - Potentially - - - Thousands - - - Of Public - - - Comment threads one per remote node ID - Private App Y - - - Potentially - - - Thousands - - - Of Group-based private - - - Comment threads? categories? one per remote node ID Technical Support (Root cat, contains threads and subcats) - App X (also embedded on app Web site) - App Y Tech Support (also embedded on app Web site) - App Z Tech Support (not embedded anywhere)
Thanks in advance, Discourse seems to be extremely flexible, I'm looking forward to kicking the tires!
As far as I know, this isn't possible, but it would solve a lot of problems ...
Our users seem to have a lot of challenges in replying to the right post within a topic. We added the JavaScript hack to display avatars in the "Reply" button on each post, but people still reply to the entire topic when they mean to respond to a specific post.
So, the feature request is: Allow an admin to change the target of a reply post similar to how they move posts between topics.
Is anyone thinking about or working on a onebox for Pastebin? The Gist onebox is pretty good but it seems many more of our people (and here too, I think) are going with pastebin instead.
Except, we should use the word later. So in a long discussion you'd see the gaps
3 weeks later 6 months later 1 year later
Called out so it is clearer when the "resurrections" were, and you can respond appropriately, follow the discussion's evolution over time more easily, etc.
I viewed this topic on Meta on May 26th and the preview was working, now it is not. The preview in the first post will show up if you try replying to that topic (or this topic), and pasting any imgur galley URL into the edit box, but you won't see a preview for the URL you just pasted. The preview won't be there if you refresh the page.
I saw the same behavior on a forum hosted at DiscourseHosting.com also on May 26th, when they were running 1.2. The behavior is still there this week with 1.3.
