Originally posted by Asian_DOC
I TOTALLY understand you now.
Well, maybe if you bothered to read my post, you'd understand.
Originally posted by Asian_DOC
I TOTALLY understand you now.
Originally posted by murat
hey its no bad
I did. Do not assume.Originally posted by conkermaniac
Well, maybe if you bothered to read my post, you'd understand.
No, the html is all over the place. PHPBB2's template system is better.Originally posted by biggulp
why? do they have templates?
Originally posted by conkermaniac
I'm not stupid. I obviously know that the creators are the same. However, that does not in one bit justify why IBForums looks just like Ikonboard. This was the same guy that had coded the original versions of IB, as well. And those did not look a thing like Ikonboard. Clearly, it has NOTHING to do with his style. He's just lazy.
Originally posted by conkermaniac
...what about the SAME emoticons, the same positioning of the buttons above and below each post, the statistics of each user in the left column of every post, etc.?
Originally posted by dmbtech
Can't goto there website:
505
"Internal Server Error
The server encountered an internal error or misconfiguration and was unable to complete your request.
Please contact the server administrator, webmaster@invisionpower.com and inform them of the time the error occurred, and anything you might have done that may have caused the error.
More information about this error may be available in the server error log.
Additionally, a 404 Not Found error was encountered while trying to use an ErrorDocument to handle the request"
Any other download site?
Originally posted by dmbtech
Can't goto there website:
505
It is only needed for the forums. Maybe try refreshing?
This is the single reason why i'm not going to use IBForum on any of the message boards I manage. Petty? Maybe...| The other downside to such a feature would be the overhaul needed to update it
| with new posts/topics and topic movement / deletion.
|
| I figure that people post more than they search, so a full table scan once per
| search request is offset against the CPU to keep the search log tables up to date
|
| I'm going to stick my neck out and go the full table scan route. It's not as effecient
| as a search table would be, but the benefits include no overhead updating it, and a smaller
| overall DB size - which is vital to some people on certain hosts.
|
| This may change if it becomes apparent that it's not very efficient in the long run