I wish intechnic kept the inlink out of this portal system... - In-Portal Web 2.0 Content Management System (CMS)

media

Joined: 20-Apr-2024
Location:
Posts: 413

Posted: 06/26/2005 11:17:55 PM

I am one of the original inlink user and I have been watching this forum and development very closely but somehow i wish intechnic kept the inlink out of this portal system...
I hope they will go back the original development of inlink (2.3.4) and keep it going that system (just a stand alone aplication)...

I wanted to make this comment.. Give me your feedback too...
Thanks,
Media

Dmitry
Member

Joined: 29-Jan-2002
Location: United States
Posts: 1675

Posted: 06/27/2005 11:57:24 AM

Reply Quoted

media wrote:	06/26/2005 11:17:55 PM
I am one of the original inlink user and I have been watching this forum and development very closely but somehow i wish intechnic kept the inlink out of this portal system... I hope they will go back the original development of inlink (2.3.4) and keep it going that system (just a stand alone aplication)... I wanted to make this comment.. Give me your feedback too... Thanks, Media

Hello Media,We really appreciate your feedback and it would be great if you can give some strong explanation why?

Thank you.

linkit.ch
Member

Joined: 09-Mar-2004
Location: Afghanistan
Posts: 35

Posted: 06/27/2005 4:18:05 PM

Reply Quoted

I'm also not really happy with Inportal. At the moment Inportal and Inlink3 have too many bugs. For example...
- the assortment of the links and categories doesn't work
- there is a bug in the add-link-form (always to links will be added to the db. the right one and one with the name "new&quot

- in some cases the template system forget to add </td>-tags. means that the html-code is wrong in the output

I think an other point is, that the template system is really complicated. And for me the importest thing is, that the template system doesn't support php-code. This was a feature of inlink2 and in my opinion it has to be also a feature of inportal.

It would be nice, if you could inform us, which bugs will be solved in the next fixes and which features will be added.

Thanks

Roland

Dmitry
Member

Joined: 29-Jan-2002
Location: United States
Posts: 1675

Posted: 06/28/2005 9:34:38 AM

Reply Quoted

linkit.ch wrote:

06/27/2005 4:18:05 PM

I'm also not really happy with Inportal. At the moment Inportal and Inlink3 have too many bugs. For example...
- the assortment of the links and categories doesn't work
- there is a bug in the add-link-form (always to links will be added to the db. the right one and one with the name "new&quot

- in some cases the template system forget to add </td>-tags. means that the html-code is wrong in the output

I think an other point is, that the template system is really complicated. And for me the importest thing is, that the template system doesn't support php-code. This was a feature of inlink2 and in my opinion it has to be also a feature of inportal.

It would be nice, if you could inform us, which bugs will be solved in the next fixes and which features will be added.

Thanks

Roland

Hello Roland,

Thank you for your input. Bugs with the sorting will be patched in our next release. We already working on duplicate records issue and hopefully will finish it shortly. In regards to php-code templates, I just showed simple way to implement this through the tags and believe me it's better programming technique not to mix PHP with HTML, just a little suggestion. We are currently testing this feature.

There is no doubt that In-portal template system is more complicated, but you never will be able to build a portal on In-link2 and have everything as structured and well programmed as in In-portal. We look at it as development environment which can be extended to almost no limit.

We would appreciate more input from other users.

Thank you.

media
Member

Joined: 29-Jan-2002
Location: United States
Posts: 413

Posted: 07/01/2005 12:28:24 AM

Reply Quoted

1. I do not need a platform to run my search/directory engine.
2. I am not looking for a complicated script to run a simple process. If people need in portal (I have already tested) it is a great script, but my usage it is not really what I am looking for thatâ€™s why I bought this script at the beginning.
3. A directory engine should be a simple, secure and bug free script...
4. I have been testing in-portal with only inlink and I do not think it is as fast as my inlink 2.3.4 version. I cannot believe that you guys made a decision to go that direction and ruin world famous inlink script.
5. You can continue to produce in-portal but I strongly think that you guys should do a separate inlink project. You should continue on 2.3.4 and come up with stand alone inlink 3.0 based on 2.3.4

I would like to make it clear where I stand. I am not comparing inlink versus in-portal. I am just saying that in-portal is a great portal script if you need that kind of script, but If you need a simple directory engine that would be a stand alone inlink (NO IN-PORTAL PLATFORM)

Best Regards
Media

Dmitry
Member

Joined: 29-Jan-2002
Location: United States
Posts: 1675

Posted: 07/01/2005 10:34:23 AM

Reply Quoted

media wrote:

07/01/2005 12:28:24 AM

1. I do not need a platform to run my search/directory engine.
2. I am not looking for a complicated script to run a simple process. If people need in portal (I have already tested) it is a great script, but my usage it is not really what I am looking for thatâ€™s why I bought this script at the beginning.
3. A directory engine should be a simple, secure and bug free script...
4. I have been testing in-portal with only inlink and I do not think it is as fast as my inlink 2.3.4 version. I cannot believe that you guys made a decision to go that direction and ruin world famous inlink script.
5. You can continue to produce in-portal but I strongly think that you guys should do a separate inlink project. You should continue on 2.3.4 and come up with stand alone inlink 3.0 based on 2.3.4

I would like to make it clear where I stand. I am not comparing inlink versus in-portal. I am just saying that in-portal is a great portal script if you need that kind of script, but If you need a simple directory engine that would be a stand alone inlink (NO IN-PORTAL PLATFORM)

Best Regards
Media

Thank you for your constructive feedback Media!

We'll also appreciate all other opinions. Please feel free to post here what you think.

Thanks in advance.

Ian Conza
Member

Joined: 12-Apr-2001
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 505

Posted: 07/23/2005 3:26:22 AM

Reply Quoted

media wrote:

07/01/2005 12:28:24 AM

1. I do not need a platform to run my search/directory engine.
2. I am not looking for a complicated script to run a simple process. If people need in portal (I have already tested) it is a great script, but my usage it is not really what I am looking for thatâ€™s why I bought this script at the beginning.
3. A directory engine should be a simple, secure and bug free script...
4. I have been testing in-portal with only inlink and I do not think it is as fast as my inlink 2.3.4 version. I cannot believe that you guys made a decision to go that direction and ruin world famous inlink script.
5. You can continue to produce in-portal but I strongly think that you guys should do a separate inlink project. You should continue on 2.3.4 and come up with stand alone inlink 3.0 based on 2.3.4

I would like to make it clear where I stand. I am not comparing inlink versus in-portal. I am just saying that in-portal is a great portal script if you need that kind of script, but If you need a simple directory engine that would be a stand alone inlink (NO IN-PORTAL PLATFORM)

Best Regards
Media

Its great to speak to you again. I personally do not like In_portal at all.

I still run In-link 2.30

heavily modified. If I am going to do anything with this site in the links side of things I personally think I would now switch back to GT LinksSQL. At least they have focused on LinksSQL as one of their main products and are still developing it.

Still looking to to add though an ecommerce side of things and not one links maker has developed ecommerce to run along side of the main program. I just do not like having to maintain a site where three or four pieces of software are behind it.

So we back to something like In_Portal, but looking at it and the way it has been programmed to run and work I would not run it, hence I have not been around these forums for a long time.

[Edited By Ian Conza on 07/23/05 3:27:01 AM]

Dmitry
Member

Joined: 29-Jan-2002
Location: United States
Posts: 1675

Posted: 07/25/2005 9:11:12 AM

Reply Quoted

Hello Ian,

It's been awhile since our last talk. I hope everything is great with you and your website.

I won't argue that In-portal is different and more complicated then In-link v2.x, but it gives you much more flexibility on customization and system management levels.

I'd like to mention that we are very close to the completion of our new module - In-commerce. The main purpose of this module is to give our users ways to run and manage online stores. Beside the default online product catalog this module will have built-in credit card processing as well as shipping mechanisms, plus many other useful features.

Thank you for your input.

[Edited By Dmitry on 07/25/05 9:12:02 AM]

starchdoggy
Member

Joined: 17-Sep-2002
Location:
Posts: 117

Posted: 07/26/2005 6:24:15 AM

Reply Quoted

Since you have asked for feedback I will give mine. I was one who wanted to see in-portal, but now that I have I sometimes wish I had not. I do have to agree it is a good if not great script that can do lots of wonderful things. The problem I have with it is that i really do not have the time to take to learn how to make it do all these wonderful things or to try to figure out all of the additional templates I need to deal with to make it look the way I would like.

When in-portal was first released I worked to try to upgrade my site to this platform for a couple of weeks, but after making little headway I decided it best to just let it go as is running on in-link. I have a second license that I have not used yet, and may consider using with a new site I would like to develop, but I am unsure that even if starting from scratch that I will be able to learn the templates and be able to deal with the shear complexity of the whole system.

I am not complaining about the work you all have done with this progam, but it has turned out to be much more than I expected, or probably need. I guess I was looking for a platform that was able to merge or share the user base for links, forums and maybe news or a few other portal type features, but also one I could understand, maintain and operate.

On a final note for now of my thoughts on in-portal, I think you should make it known ( if you have not ) that to work in the admin end of this program you should have a T1 line or more, or you will spend lots of time waiting. It is not too bad with my current cable connection, but when I was in Europe and using DSL it was very slow. I would hate to think of working with this using dial up.

Also glad to hear IN-Commerce is coming out soon, it may be just what I need to get me to try to do something with my second license.

[Edited By starchdoggy on 07/26/05 6:26:59 AM]

Dmitry
Member

Joined: 29-Jan-2002
Location: United States
Posts: 1675

Posted: 07/26/2005 10:19:46 AM

Reply Quoted

starchdoggy wrote:

07/26/2005 6:24:15 AM

Since you have asked for feedback I will give mine. I was one who wanted to see in-portal, but now that I have I sometimes wish I had not. I do have to agree it is a good if not great script that can do lots of wonderful things. The problem I have with it is that i really do not have the time to take to learn how to make it do all these wonderful things or to try to figure out all of the additional templates I need to deal with to make it look the way I would like.

When in-portal was first released I worked to try to upgrade my site to this platform for a couple of weeks, but after making little headway I decided it best to just let it go as is running on in-link. I have a second license that I have not used yet, and may consider using with a new site I would like to develop, but I am unsure that even if starting from scratch that I will be able to learn the templates and be able to deal with the shear complexity of the whole system.

I am not complaining about the work you all have done with this progam, but it has turned out to be much more than I expected, or probably need. I guess I was looking for a platform that was able to merge or share the user base for links, forums and maybe news or a few other portal type features, but also one I could understand, maintain and operate.

On a final note for now of my thoughts on in-portal, I think you should make it known ( if you have not ) that to work in the admin end of this program you should have a T1 line or more, or you will spend lots of time waiting. It is not too bad with my current cable connection, but when I was in Europe and using DSL it was very slow. I would hate to think of working with this using dial up.

Also glad to hear IN-Commerce is coming out soon, it may be just what I need to get me to try to do something with my second license.

[Edited By starchdoggy on 07/26/05 6:26:59 AM]

Hello,

Thanks for taking time to write your valuable input. Once again it's very important for us to know what is troubling our users and how we can improve the existing system.

By the way, did you have browser cache turned on? Usually most of the JavaScript and dynamic images are fully cached by the browsers.

Thanks again!

In-Portal Forum

I wish intechnic kept the inlink out of this portal system... (22)