Call me simple, but that would actually be not all that hard to implement, I think. I mean, yes, I agree it should ship with EE as standard functionality, but all that would be required, really, would be a few SQL queries to see how lang somebody’s been a member, and act on that. I suppose it could be done with an extension, perhaps a plugin.
Simple enough if you want to get involved in customizing every instance of ExpressionEngine for every organization you recommend it too, certainly, but I’m not that kind of fool. I’m not saying that I would be responsible for implementing it in all of these places, but only that EE would be a good fit—if it could do these things out of the box.
* Need to be able to store admin-definable, member-updateable information that is not part of the public profile (for things like addresses, telephone numbers, etc.)
Are you sure that can’t be done? I mean, why not just define a profile field, and just not display it anywhere for non-admins?
Because if only admins can see it, it is not member-updateable, which is one of the key requirements.
I agree with you that these would be fairly easy things to do for someone who knows how to do them, but it is precisely because these things would be (relatively) easy to implement in EE itself that I am making this feature request. In my view, it would make it much easier to recommend EE to organizations that could really use it, without also volunteering myself to become their EE guru for life. Ideally, I would like to be able to just hand off something to someone who may or may not even know what SQL is. At this point I can’t really do that, but if EE came with this functionality I probably could.
I’ve just started trying to work on the customisation of the membership templates, whats all this crap that it puts at the top of the page?
Why can’t I simply load in the header template I’ve created from my site templates? This is going to make updating design elements increadibly time consuming
Don’t get me wrong, but are you sure you’ve been working with EE long enough to actually understand these limitations, and the reason for them? I don’t say there isn’t room for improvement, but your comments are, shall we say, less than constructive.
I have been working in the commercial programming environment for many years now, so regardless of how well I know expression engine, I can see when a system hasn’t been implemented correctly. The fact that I can’t embed a template from the main template section into the membership is a huge oversight and limitiation. It means I have to copy and paste code, and if one change is made in the layout/design I will have to update it in numerous places now.
Please refer to my post over at http://expressionengine.com/forums/viewthread/55722/ - are any of these points possible? I would appreciate any help on the issues. I apologise if my first response wasn’t constructive but I’m extremely frustrated at this point.
I too agree with this thread—in fact, I almost didn’t purchase EE because I knew of many of these limitations.
There’s just so much inflexibility with the membership system. It’s own templates that live in another world, the fact that the forum module has a SECOND set of membership templates that need to be maintained (I just route everyone to the forum module profiles as well), the all or nothing profile fields, etc. etc. For someone coming from using Invision Power Board, the restrictions are rather stifling. EE’s other features made the difference, but it was a close call.
From expiration dates, to subscription features, to multiple member groups and multiple permission masks—these things would make for a quantam leap in EE’s power and flexibility.
So I wholly endorse this as probably EE’s biggest priority, in my opinion. Along with unlimited nested subforums for the forum module of course…. those two things fixed would literally make EE my dream system.
I am not sure I see much agreement here, I am afraid. There is scotty’s opinion, but that’s just that, as far as I’m concerned. As to the forum module: Yes, it is rather simple. Yes, that is on purpose, and yes, I actually like that. If you don’t, you’re free to use whatever suits your needs better. I repeat, there is certainly room for improvement (there always is), but it works quite well the way it is for most users. Sorry if you’re not one of them.
I think the fact that one person used a rather rude and unfriendly way of expressing his thoughts should not take the focus away from the topic - there are many people in this thread who wish and hope for improvement in the handling of memberships and, especially, membership templates. I understand that this isn’t the easiest thing to do and therefore not to be expected to be finished tomorrow, but in the long run, it needs to be addressed.
Well, Ingmar, I’m sorry that I appear to have offended you. I really am. But this IS the feature request forum, and I (along with, apparently, two pages of other posters, who some I see are not exactly newbies like myself) also happen to think that the membership templates and system could use some improvements. And isn’t this the forum and thread to request them in?
I love EE, and I just was pointing out some things I think would make it better. Can I do what I want with EE now? Well, I hope so, but it will be much harder than it could be. And apparently, a fair number of people have agreed.
I’m sorry that you apparently think I’m bashing, and I’ll agree that as it stands, the membership system probably IS adequate for most people. But it could be better, and that’s why we have the feature request forum, isn’t it? Or am I confused as to the point of this forum?
As far as the forum: Well, okay, it is simple. And that’s fine, but then it handicaps some sites that need more. I know it’s EE’s way, but then I would like to be able to integrete something more powerful than “simple,” for my particular needs. Unfortunately, I can’t do that with EE. What you seem to be saying is that I have to do it EE’s way, and EE’s way only, and if it doesn’t suit my needs in one area, tough and I can go find another product that’s better.
But there ISN’T another product that is better than EE in most ways. So you are implying I’ll be stuck with something substandard somehow.
I don’t think it has to be that way. I certainly can understand EE wanting to keep a simple, clean, etc. forum module. That’s great. But then, as another poster in this very thread stated, then why not allow those who need more to be able to get more? I loved that idea of a mapping system so that we, the users of EE, could use something perhaps more tailored to our needs.
I guess I’m not following the idea that if EE doesn’t do what we want now, we should shut up and not say anything. Especially in the feature request forum. But it appears I’ve somehow upset you, so I am again sorry.
Well, Ingmar, I’m sorry that I appear to have offended you. I really am.
But no, you haven’t. It’s just that I really don’t see much of a consensus at this point. As to this being the “FR” forum: Good point, I actually didn’T pay much attention to that.
I’m sorry that you apparently think I’m bashing ...
No, I am not.
But it could be better, and that’s why we have the feature request forum, isn’t it? Or am I confused as to the point of this forum?
No, I think you’re quite right. My comment would have been more appropriate in, I don’t know, the “General” forum.
What you seem to be saying is that I have to do it EE’s way, and EE’s way only, and if it doesn’t suit my needs in one area, tough and I can go find another product that’s better.
Actually, I was addressing “rediculous” (sic) comments in particular. A well stated feature request in the appropriate forum is perfectly fine, that goes without saying.
But then, as another poster in this very thread stated, then why not allow those who need more to be able to get more?
Ressources. EllisLab has only so many man-hours of programming time, and they need to set priorities. Everyone has different ones, I think: Mine, and perhaps that of a not insignificant number of other users are better served with improving core functionality, or perhaps developing new modules (commerce moduly, anybody?) than improving a module that works perfectly well for our purposes. Which, I repeat, may be different from yours.
I guess I’m not following the idea that if EE doesn’t do what we want now, we should shut up and not say anything.
I never said anything like that; I am sorry if that’s how it came across.
Yes, please. This thread is long, and has many thoughtful opinions, but this type of banter between users should be taken to private messages, or if of a non-personal nature, the General Discussion forum, not aired here. kingscotty, your initial remarks were non-constructive and inflammatory, so I can see why Ingmar responded the way he did, so please be mindful of your choice of words in the future.
Nothing posted to this thread today added anything useful to this feature request. So: do not post to this thread to bump, +1, or say “I agree”. If you have something new to contribute (yes, that requires reading the existing 3 pages first), fine, but this isn’t a poll, and further non-contributory posts will be deleted, or the thread simply closed.
Member templates are quite byzantine, not hugely documented, use lousy HTML and don’t have access to many things we’re used to having in regular templates, though this nice hack in the wiki, Member Profile Templates: Getting User Information, helps.
I’m hoping that in v2 member templates will be brought within the fold of regular templates.
Also, it would be nice to have better integration with members and regular content. I’ve now worked on a few sites where members are also content, and it would be nice to have a relationship field from which I can draw on a list of members. What I’ve done as a workaround is create a weblog of members that has one field in common with a field in members in order to hook them together, which is not a hugely robust solution, and also requires that a person be entered twice—once as a member, then again as a weblog entry.
