Are Plug-ins Necessary?

It was twenty years ago today...Sgt. Pepper taught the band to play... They've been going in and out of style... But they're guaranteed to raise a smile...

Times have progressed (regressed, depending upon your point of view) regarding forums since they first appeared on the scene. Today's audience is totally different from those of 20 years ago, yet some forum software development teams are still stuck in the 90's when it comes delivering what people expect. Sadly their expectations are vapourised when forum developers fail to deliver core features. It's left to third party developers to fill those gapingly obvious gaps and they do captialise on this (and you can't blame them), meaning that it's the end user that foots the bill in the long term to ensure that their end users are catered for. I cannot for the life of me understand why forum developers can't see the wood from the trees and adapt to end user demands and relegate third party developers to providing those little extras that are nice but not necessary - but the way some work, it's about developing a platform for others to exploit whilst they sit back and tinker - I find that method and way of thinking as deplorable.

Which is why I am delighted (and I must admit, suprised) at how IPS have progressed and decided to think outside the box and deliver core essentials whilst leaving just enough space for third parties to deliver those 'nice to have' extras.

If you want to cultivate a good customer developer relationship then you have to think about putting the customer first and delivering a first class product that breaks the mould and jumps out of the box to deliver something outstanding and desirable. If all you do is optimise the back end and do nothing or little on the front end then it's pointless - you may as well stick a Ferrari engine into a Skoda because other than going faster it's still going to look like a Skoda and feel like a Skoda. VroomVroom - or as an old advert once delivered a catch phrase Va Va Voom.

If I'm still smart and remember stuff correctly from my Nutrition 101 class during spring quarter 2017 which I just finished 13 days ago, there are 20 types of nutrients, but only nine of them are essential, meaning our body can't make them and we need external sources (food). However, this has nothing to do with bodies, so I'm going with no.

Maddox said:

how do you define 'essential'

Click to expand...

Posting, quoting. That about does it for "essential" for forums.

The Sandman said:

If you're looking for a sweet treat will a plain cookie not do though? Does a fancier cookie do any better at satisfying your sweet tooth?

Click to expand...

Not necessarily, but by adding embellishments we hope new people might try our cookies.

Here is the real test: is the xenforo.com Add-ons list empty except for Gallery, Resource Manager, and Enhanced Search?

TheChiro said:

Posting, quoting. That about does it for "essential" for forums.

Click to expand...

If all you want is a basic discussion forum, that's a fair comment, but most people want more, perhaps even expect more. People want more ways to interact and they want it to be as easy as possible. Back in the late 90's and early 2000's a simple means of posting and quoting was the 'in' thing as there was nothing else like it. Nowadays we have to think multi-dimensional and offer more than just posting and quoting, plus we have to deal with a new mindset and a completely different way of thinking that people exhibit, as well as the multitude of different ways that people interact online.

But, as I mentioned in an earlier post different people will have different ideas and opinions as to what is essential; I would like to believe that they will come to the conclusion of what is essential is based on their end users needs and desires, rather than from just an admin standpoint. For example, my new project that is currently under development needs more than just posting and quoting, because it is a complex issue that is being dealt with and needs a variety of means of communicating if I am to get this group of people that the site is aimed at actually communicating with each other. There are also multi-facets to be considered in this project and each facet will need it's own space. There will also be articles, groups and more. So, this will not be 'just' a forum, rather it will become a site in it's own right and if I can get one piece of software to do all that is necessary without having to go to the expense of purchasing multiple add-ons, then I will go with that software vendor. At this point in time that is IPS because they have had the foresight to realise that people want and expect more from the core product.

It's not really a 'black and white' question that requires a black and white answer - the topic is quite a complex one that requires more thought and understanding of what defines 'needs' as opposed to 'wants' and 'nice to haves'. If you can cater for the majority of people's needs and perhaps throw in a few wants and nice to haves at the same time, you're on your way to a winning solution.

Maddox said:

But, as I mentioned in an earlier post different people will have different ideas and opinions as to what is essential;

Click to expand...

And honestly, most of their ideas about what constitute "essentials" aren't actually things that are essential to a forum - they're merely bells and whistles that they're all used to because they've been commonplace on most forums for years.

Just look at 2channel, biggest forum in Japan and yet it still feels like it's something out of the late 90s that lacks many of the features that people nowadays would refer to as "essential".

TrixieTang said:

they're merely bells and whistles that they're all used to because they've been commonplace on most forums for years.

Click to expand...

True, but then what becomes commomplace and what people become used to may translate, for many, into essential. What starts out as a bell or whistle can soon become an essential in many eyes. It depends on your users and what they want and then an admin has to decide if that want is, in reality, a need; but playing devil's advocate, if you don't give your users what they want they may jump ship and go where they can get what they want.

As I mentioned earlier it's not a black and white issue with black and white answers and comparisons don't really matter when it comes to different forums with different users whose needs/wants/desires may differ completely.

Bells and whistles can be offered as a plug-in (either individually or as a package), such as with IPS you can choose from an array of extras that are not built into the core, but add functionality and are offered as a first party offering; pages, gallery, blog, commerce, etc. There's no reason why first party add-ons, on a smaller scale, cannot be offered in the same way - but, having said that, if they are small features they could be added into the core and made switchable - and if they do not affect performance when turned off, then there is no harm in them being there.

Joeychgo said:

Depends on how you view necessary. Each community is different, each niche is different. For example, If you run a politics forum, then the ability to upload photos is not really necessary. But if you run a car forum, its very necessary.

Click to expand...

Joey nailed it right here, every forum niche is unique and therefore each setup would need to be examined.
Some forums simply don't need any plugins or addons, and some will need much more then the average setup.

I dont think addons are necessary nowadays anymore, as long as the look can be modified to suit your site's topic. A simpler experience should suit users, especially on mobile.

Addons are often created to adress limitations in existing features. If forum scripts were modular instead of a big package, it could be possible to update separate parts to keep them relevant (like the handling of newsletters, avatars). Nowadays creating separate 'apps' is the most common approach, but it does not modularize the core software, just its optional extras.

The way I see it, It's the way of extending sites that's slowly shifting away from locally installed addons to web services. Nowadays, extra functions can be executed separately from boards (on their own sites/domains, even), with accounts used as the method of centralization, without being be subject to the limitations of forum scripts or their servers. Even if you dont build your own, you're already using 'outsourced' features whose installable addons are often just a barebone method to transfer data necessary to operate to the operator you're suing (for example, users' emails to a mail/newsletter company, instead of using the normal newsletter feature of your forumware).

Maddox said:

needs

Click to expand...

Each individual forum owner is different. My comment still stands and is also why I loved xF being much more light weight than the competitors. That means we do rely more on plugins/addons; I think I have about 50 custom addons. If you have the same features as the site next to you, why will someone choose you over that other person? Essential features are posting, quoting, and I forgot PM'ing. The rest of it is frill and likely also opinion (like I think social logins are quite important now days, but I've seen people disagree to that). Letting the addon marketplace fill the blanks for all the owners, allowing each person to pick and choose what they want on their site, makes us all more unique from one another.

Maddox said:

o, this will not be 'just' a forum, rather it will become a site in it's own right and if I can get one piece of software to do all that is necessary without having to go to the expense of purchasing multiple add-ons, then I will go with that software vendor. At this point in time that is IPS because they have had the foresight to realise that people want and expect more from the core product.

Click to expand...

Good luck. I was in your shoes thinking that IPS was the solution. Turned out being the biggest headache of my life and a money pit at that. We are further along than what we had with IPS now with xF AND there are so many other things that have improved since our move away from IPS. I would really look carefully at it. The idea behind it is wonderful, the execution was horrid when I was on their products. Not to mention how expensive it gets just for those additions from the IPS suite (so...not including coding which is the money pit) since you get billed every 6 months for a couple hundred bucks. But hey, that's why there are many products out there, the customer gets to pick and choose what works best for them, and keeps the companies competitive thus improving things more for those who use their products (admins AND users).

TheChiro said:

If you have the same features as the site next to you, why will someone choose you over that other person?

Click to expand...

That's how forum admins think, but is it really true? Isn't the main feature of forums the content and the community dynamic?

Every facebook page is the same software and the same features. Only the content is different.

The Sandman said:

That's how forum admins think, but is it really true? Isn't the main feature of forums the content and the community dynamic?

Every facebook page is the same software and the same features. Only the content is different.

Click to expand...

Definitely, content is always king. But depending on your niche, you can include extra features that will keep them on your site longer. Things that will separate you from the competition. I'll send you a link to my site when things are up and running to see what I'm talking about

TheChiro said:

Good luck. I was in your shoes thinking that IPS was the solution. Turned out being the biggest headache of my life and a money pit at that. We are further along than what we had with IPS now with xF AND there are so many other things that have improved since our move away from IPS. I would really look carefully at it. The idea behind it is wonderful, the execution was horrid when I was on their products. Not to mention how expensive it gets just for those additions from the IPS suite (so...not including coding which is the money pit) since you get billed every 6 months for a couple hundred bucks.

Click to expand...

Whatever. My experience was the same with XF as you stated yours was with IPS - everyone has as take on whatever, whether it's good or bad. It's all down to personal experience, but that doesn't always equate to be the same for everyone. I have a tendency to look at the bigger picture rather than the smaller constituent parts. If your 50 add-ons each cost you 10 bucks (I would hazard that many would be more) then you're 500 bucks down the tube plus the cost of the core; plus you are hostage to those third party developers continuing to support your add-ons; and this doesn't take into account renewals. So your experience with IPS was bad, doesn't mean everyone else's will be.

Maddox said:

Whatever. My experience was the same with XF as you stated yours was with IPS - everyone has as take on whatever, whether it's good or bad. It's all down to personal experience, but that doesn't always equate to be the same for everyone. I have a tendency to look at the bigger picture rather than the smaller constituent parts. If your 50 add-ons each cost you 10 bucks (I would hazard that many would be more) then you're 500 bucks down the tube plus the cost of the core; plus you are hostage to those third party developers continuing to support your add-ons; and this doesn't take into account renewals. So your experience with IPS was bad, doesn't mean everyone else's will be.

Click to expand...

You must have misread. I said *custom* addons (which would have been needed coding for IPS as well as they are not any sort of default feature in any software out there). Meaning, I'm paying a developer for unique features not included in any addon in the marketplace (or at least at the time of development - a few devs copied our stuff and released it). I did the same for IPS. While talking money, the renewal costs are very high on IPS, the resources used by their products was 10x what we have now (and we have more features now than when we were on IPS), so server costs were actually double+ what they are now (158 now, 336 then), and then comes the custom development department and the addons for their products. A lot of the free ones on xf actually cost money on IPS marketplace, unless they changed (I got infracted for showing people who to do something an addon did that cost $10 when it was just 2 lines of code and I'm not even a coder lol). Custom dev work came at an ultra premium and most of the time those devs weren't available for any work. So if you code, perhaps IPS is a great way to go. It was much slower when I was using it as well, even with the heftier hardware and admingeekz helping configure things to help it run faster. Not to mention traffic has increased greatly since IPS, paid memberships have gone up, and ad revenue has gone up. Keep an eye on those to see how you are effected.

And for you to think I look at the smaller constituent parts is amusing. I'm trying to point out the bigger picture to you. Running IPS costed me over a thousand/year on just server costs. Custom dev work was 3x/hour what I'm paying right now, and I'm getting a much higher quality code, faster running, easier to use, etc.

To each their own. I wish you the best of luck with that software.

TheChiro WOW! I did not see the 'custom' part - I must remember not to reply when I've had a few whiskies lol. For me there is no way that I would pay for custom add-ons, if it's not in the core or available outside from a third party (and then it would have to be a vital add-on) I would not consider it. I don't have the spare cash to service my desires in terms of my vision of a perfect site, so IPS is (for me) is the better of the two (XF vs IPS). I only use the forums and pages and my renewal costs per six months is small:



I do agree with you with regards to 'some' third parties charging for a few lines on code where many would say "have this on me". Free doesn't always relate to inferior, just as expensive doesn't alway equate to quality. If you have control over the development and understand the underlying code, that's a plus - but for most they are simply taken at face value. Anyway, my point has always been that the first party developer should listen to their clients and the clients should be listening to their end users in order to attain the functionality and features that are needed in the core. XF was always just a forum software and has largely remained so in terms of first party developers; RM, Gallery and Search are the only real add-ons they have developed. Sure there have been some nice tweaks to the core, but it has (and seems to be going to with XF2) falls to third party developers to fill in the blanks. And whilst there are some truly awesome TPD's the costs do rise considerably, especially when you take into consideration renewals for some of the larger add-ons.

As an aside, I do not monetise my projects as I have a passionate dislike for adverts lol. I understand that some sites do need to monetise otherwise they would not be able to survive, but for me I tend to bear the brunt of the costs which is why I need to find the best for the least outlay. So far, to date, that is IPS - I do like XF and have used it for many years, but the cost of all those add-ons is just too much.

Apologies for misreading your post again and missing the part about 'custom' work; must remember stay off the site if drinking whisky

Joeychgo said:

Depends on how you view necessary. Each community is different, each niche is different. For example, If you run a politics forum, then the ability to upload photos is not really necessary. But if you run a car forum, its very necessary.

Click to expand...

As someone who runs a forum that deals with politics, as well as other things, picture uploading is essential, yet all forum software seems to be light years behind social media on this basic function. Embedding pictures within posts can be a very effective way to get your message across or post info graphics.

Maddox said:

True, but then what becomes commomplace and what people become used to may translate, for many, into essential. What starts out as a bell or whistle can soon become an essential in many eyes

Click to expand...

Indeed, the case in point the internet itself.

When I got the internet right at the beginning of the 90s, it was unheard of. It was slow, picture uploading, yet alone video uploading was unthinkable. Today, it's common place. By the mid 90s, some companies started to get web address', but most couldn't be bothered with this "fad." Today, all companies have web address' and many conduct their business' purely off their websites.

Today, I could go into my bank, stand in a queue and wait for the miserable cow to serve me and "tut" as she has to press a few buttons to get me a bank balance or transfer money. I prefer to click onto my bank website and its' done in a minute. Is that essential? No, but it is preferable. Actually, I can't stand that miserable bank clerk, so yeah, it is essential to have internet access the same as electricity.

Plugins are the same. Look at vbulletin, barely any plugins for it now.

There's a whole different question of whether plugins should get incorporated into the core of forum software after a time and what kind of relationship, if any, the forum developers have with third party developers. But one person's option is another's necessity. So, yes plugins are a necessary evil, if I can put it that way.

Maddox said:

Whatever. My experience was the same with XF as you stated yours was with IPS - everyone has as take on whatever, whether it's good or bad. It's all down to personal experience, but that doesn't always equate to be the same for everyone. I have a tendency to look at the bigger picture rather than the smaller constituent parts. If your 50 add-ons each cost you 10 bucks (I would hazard that many would be more) then you're 500 bucks down the tube plus the cost of the core; plus you are hostage to those third party developers continuing to support your add-ons; and this doesn't take into account renewals. So your experience with IPS was bad, doesn't mean everyone else's will be.

Click to expand...

The problem with that is the fact that unless your needs are only the official IPS add-ons, not only is the exact same problem you describe present, it's actually way worse on IPS.

IPS has available only a fraction of the amount of 3rd party modifications available to vBulletin or XenForo. What this tells me is that fewer 3rd party developers consider IPS a viable platform for their time when it comes to making a return on that time investment. While it is wholly anecdotal, we at DBTech have received very, very few requests to port any of our software to IPS.

If fewer 3rd parties consider IPS a viable platform for ROI, then it is unlikely that any single 3rd party developer will be able to develop for IPS full-time and make a living from it. If this assumption is true, then any 3rd party apps you buy for IPS will be supported purely on someone's free time. I don't know about you, but if I was droning away in some office for 8 hours a day writing apps I don't care about, the last thing I would want to do is come home and no longer have the filter between the Helpdesk and the development staff - in other words, I would not want to deal with the customer support that comes from selling forum add-ons.

Even if this assumption is not true, and there are one or more development studios that are able to make a living writing IPS add-ons full-time, then you are merely shifting the problem to being at the mercy of the particular studio that creates the mod you want. If you're running XF and you don't like DragonByte Shout, there are other established, and excellent, Shoutbox / Chatbox scripts available to you

The problem I have with your posts is that they contradict each other, in order to paint IPS in a better light.

First you say this:

Maddox said:

Which is why I am delighted (and I must admit, suprised) at how IPS have progressed and decided to think outside the box and deliver core essentials whilst leaving just enough space for third parties to deliver those 'nice to have' extras.

Click to expand...

Then you say this:

Maddox said:

If your 50 add-ons each cost you 10 bucks (I would hazard that many would be more) then you're 500 bucks down the tube plus the cost of the core; plus you are hostage to those third party developers continuing to support your add-ons; and this doesn't take into account renewals.

Click to expand...

These statements directly contradict each other, when you consider that some people may need products not found in the core IPS package (or its multitude of expensive add-ons).
If 3rd party developers all rip you off (never mind the fact that I have never, ever seen a 3rd party developer charge such horrendously expensive prices as IPS does using such unfavourable licensing terms as IPS does), then why would they not also rip you off on IPS when you decide you need those niche extras?

Furthermore, your logic is flawed because your post assumes every add-on developer offers only yearly renewal services, no lifetime licences. If you cannot afford to pay $210/yr to renew IPS, you're free to stay on your existing version, right? I'm assuming IPS doesn't have a "killswitch" that disables expired licenses so long as you're not using "methods of questionable legality" to obtain the latest versions?

The same is true for what I would venture to say is the vast majority of add-ons. That's not even mentioning the fact that you always have the option to jump ship to another developer with more favourable licensing terms. You don't have, or you have less of, that option on IPS due to the fact that there's hardly a 3rd party development scene at all.

In short, every problem you have with the XF/vB 3rd party scene also exists (in a worse form) on IPS, so unless your needs never extend beyond the IPS Suite, IPS is objectively a worse platform than XF/vB.

Belazor said:

If 3rd party developers all rip you off (never mind the fact that I have never, ever seen a 3rd party developer charge such horrendously expensive prices as IPS does using such unfavourable licensing terms as IPS does),

Click to expand...

Look no further: Currently $495

Belazor said:

In short, every problem you have with the XF/vB 3rd party scene also exists (in a worse form) on IPS, so unless your needs never extend beyond the IPS Suite, IPS is objectively a worse platform than XF/vB.

Click to expand...

Which is exactly my point - the IPS suite DOES have everything I need; I want a forum with groups, extended likes, Q&A and a CMS. All of which I would have to pay extra for if I stayed with XF, plus I have the (albeit perceived) security of knowing that these features are first party and will be maintained without incurring any costs outside of the six monthly renewal, which for me is $40. That's a lot less than having to pay for the add-ons from 3rd parties in the XF zone along with their associated renewals if I want to keep up to date.

What you stated as a contradiction was not, it was based (wrongly on my part, which I owned up to) on 50 add-ons costing an unknown amount (I used $10 as a base) along with their associated renewals (if that was the case); I missed the 'custom' part of the post. And 'nice to have's' are not essentials, they are as stated 'nice to have' but not crucial to the operation of a site (unless the site owner deems it to be so then they can take the risk and buy into a third party add-on).

My problem with XF is that it is a platform for developers to fill in the blanks, which adds to the cost of ownership and can soon stack up. I'm not slamming XF or third party developers, simply pointing out that costs can soon soar and that third party developers can just walk away when it suits them, or should something tragic happen to them. Just because your company has not been asked en-mass to port your add-ons illustrates, to me, that they are not wanted/required. As an aside, I've purchased from your company on both the VB and XF platforms, but let them go.

And no, my opinion of third party developers isn't just slewed at XF, it's a cross platform issue; the difference is that XF needs many more add-ons to bring it up to an on-par level with other vendors wares and the proof of that is the in excess of 2000 add-ons in the RM.

If you venture down the third party route it will cost you and there are no guarantees that the add-on will continue to be supported or developed. It's a 'risk factor' you have to consider. I used XF from its inception and had the developers decided to place the needs of their customers first with XF2 instead of creating a platform for third party developers to fill in the blanks for them, I would have considered remaining one of the faithful. It is, in my opinion, a missed opportunity on their part to deliver something above and beyond.

Belazor said:

In short, every problem you have with the XF/vB 3rd party scene also exists (in a worse form) on IPS, so unless your needs never extend beyond the IPS Suite, IPS is objectively a worse platform than XF/vB.

Click to expand...

In your opinion!

I have no loyalty towards any company, whether it's software, telecoms or utilities - I go where I can get the best value for money out of the budget that I can afford; I reckon that most people will fall into that category. For me IPS is giving me want I want at a price I can afford, XF is not.