Thinking About Using TinyPortal

[anunlike]

For that to happen, TP would have to stand on its own and SMF would have to transcend what every other message board has been able to do.

I don't think it would have to transcend them. All it needs is to be good enough to stack up with all the rest. IMO, it does that already. It's only in its 1.1 version, so give it time and it will evolve.

The foundation of either obviously isn't headed in that direction. No message board has been the foundation of a CMS and TP was designed as a wrapper for SMF. In every instance, every CMS, including the custom designed premium offerings, has been without a high end message board component. At best, there have only been light portals fitted around message boards.

I agree.

That said, even though I compared it with Mambo/Joomla, it's not a CMS, but I do think that it can be designed to rival other portals. It depends upon what's planned for it. However, the one thing it does have is the fact that it revolves specifically around SMF and they work extremely well together.

Honestly, I don't know exactly, in detail, what the differences are between CMSs and prortals, but I do think that it has the potential to rival other software, depending on the direction it goes.

Obviously, if it's not going to be developed as a CMS, it's not going to rival other CMSs.

A CMS must be, by design, an enterprise capable solution. A look at Plumtree, Metadot, CommNav, WebSphere, etc. illustrates that TP isn't even in the same league.

SMF and TP have been intended for and used almost exclusively by personal or SOHO entities and hobbyists. There has been nothing rapid in its development, nor anything earth-shattering in its features.

Well, TP's not even out of beta, yet.

SMF is developing nicely, IMO. A product doesn't have to be earth-shattering to be better software or find a better niche or could potentially otherwise replace or compete with the popular ones.

On a few other phpBB powered forums, I loosely regularly visit, they've had problems with some things and so I've suggested SMF. They've all complemented it and said that it's a very nice piece of software and that if they didn't have everything invested in the software they had and if they knew they could keep all the features and functionality (of the CMSs), they'd consider using it.

SMF is good, as is TP - but let's not make them out to be more than they are. SMF is a midrange free message board - not anywhere close to being a premier offering - and TP is a great addition to it. The way the developers act over at SMF indicates the core offering will never become a high end offering, nor will it even pretend to rival the premiere scripts.

I have to ask, why do you say that SMF is (only) "midrange"? What makes something "midrange" as opposed to "high-end" and "premier"?

[eldacar]

If SMF was midrange, then why would there be any massive 1000000+ post forums? What "premiere" scripts are you talking about?

[anunlike]

If SMF was midrange, then why would there be any massive 1000000+ post forums? What "premiere" scripts are you talking about?

I have to ask that, as well.

One I like to visit semi-regularly is the TAPS 18+ forum, not to mention TAPS' regular forum for minors. They're both about the same size. You can also look at Big-Boards.com and get a listing of huge SMF forums.

So, I don't quite understand what you mean by "midrange" and "high-end" and "premier". Are you referring to the number of members it can accomodate or that the software isn't up to the quality of others or what?

[TwinsX2Dad]

I don't think it would have to transcend them. All it needs is to be good enough to stack up with all the rest. IMO, it does that already. It's only in its 1.1 version, so give it time and it will evolve.

Very true - but even if it simply stacks up with the rest, that isn't enough to make it a suitable core for a CMS. It makes it a suitable core for a message board and a message board is just an optional component of a CMS.

That said, even though I compared it with Mambo/Joomla, it's not a CMS, but I do think that it can be designed to rival other portals. It depends upon what's planned for it. However, the one thing it does have is the fact that it revolves specifically around SMF and they work extremely well together.

Honestly, I don't know exactly, in detail, what the differences are between CMSs and prortals, but I do think that it has the potential to rival other software, depending on the direction it goes.

Obviously, if it's not going to be developed as a CMS, it's not going to rival other CMSs.

And, like I was trying to convey earlier, neither SMF, nor TP is a CMS. One is a message board and the other is a portal. We all know what a message board is, but the definition of a portal and a CMS are a little more vague - at least to those who don't need to know the difference. And, for 99% of those running SMF & TP, not only is the difference moot, a CMS is overkill.

If you base your site on a message board, no matter what you do to that message board, it will always be the basis for your site. Your site is a message board site. If you add mods, it is a modified message board site. If you add a portal, then what you have depends on what type of portal you're using; it is either a message board portal or a site portal. Either type of portal can act in many ways like the other.

A look at two CMS sites can illuminate what a CMS can do. Look at a magazine site like Car and Driver. Then take a look at a technology site like ars technica. On both sites, you can get a ton of information without ever accessing their forum components. On both sites, the information can be added and modified without ever seeing the restrictions imposed by a message board. I am active on both of these sites and have been for many years. Yet I use their message boards on maybe 25% of my visits. Car and Driver uses the IdealBB, which had every feature SMF has now, but Ideal Science had the features available four years ago. Then, ars technica, with their average of over 3,500 users online at any time, runs Groupee, which is a rework of the old OpenTopic platform. I was running OpenTopic and UBB from 1999 and had every feature we are now seeing on SMF even then. Granted, those were perl platforms, but their transition to php continued the feature sets.

The point here is that, on both the Car and Driver site and the ars technica site, many people can have varying degrees of update and publishing ability without ever accessing the message board.

Well, TP's not even out of beta, yet.

SMF is developing nicely, IMO. A product doesn't have to be earth-shattering to be better software or find a better niche or could potentially otherwise replace or compete with the popular ones.

On a few other phpBB powered forums, I loosely regularly visit, they've had problems with some things and so I've suggested SMF. They've all complemented it and said that it's a very nice piece of software and that if they didn't have everything invested in the software they had and if they knew they could keep all the features and functionality (of the CMSs), they'd consider using it.

SMF never seems to be out of beta, either. Even though it is in beta, TP is fantastic - but we must keep in mind its mission. It is not a CMS and it will never be able to meet the needs of some sites which require a CMS. I run several sites which couldn't function with a portal of any type. This is okay though, as there are sites which could never use a message board and others which have no use for HTML. It is in what is needed.

On one site, I've been running SMF for nearly a year now. I've also had TP on it, since about September. On that particular site, a CMS would be better, but the amount of traffic doesn't warrant it yet. So, for the time being, I am using SMF & TP. I have one other site which I'd like to try SMF on, but I can't because SMF doesn't have the capabilities of the setup I have on there now - that being IPB. A conversion means a huge number of posts would be unreadable. A third site I think would benefit from SMF won't ever run SMF because it is a message board for a charter school. As such, school administrators and staff must have read access of personal messages. We all know SMF's short-sighted and view and misplaced morality on that subject. It would be disasterous to allow database access to school staff, as one slip could be disasterous. Because of this issue, no school in this state can legally run SMF for their students.

I have to ask, why do you say that SMF is (only) "midrange"? What makes something "midrange" as opposed to "high-end" and "premier"?

Midrange means it has limited functionality compared to the premiere applications. It has nothing to do with scalability. A common misunderstanding is that scalability is a factor of a premiere message board, the truth is that scalability is dependent on your server and your database. SMF can handle 2,000,000 posts as easily as can any other php based message board. The same claim can be made by UBBThreads, phpBB, IPB, vB, MyBB, Snitz, WebCrossing......the list is endless, because php based message boards have no internal limitation.

While I don't consider vB or IPB to be premiere apps, either, they are a lot closer to being top flight apps. IPB 2.0 introduced high/low bandwidth access, as did vB 3.0. Both of those apps also offer users their choice of flat, threaded or hybrid view on the fly. They each allow you to appear or not appear in the online panel on the fly. They each offer topic view for their PM features. Both offer user selectable options for WYSIWYG posting. They both offer highly customizable notification options. They each have much more comprehensive backend search features. The permissions settings are far more intuitive than they are in SMF. Groups are much more detailed and simpler to configure. I'd never inadvertently blocked a member group from a public forum (board in SMF-speak) until I came to SMF.

phpBB is far more capable than is SMF, but because it is loosely monitored open-source and in need of so many hacks to attain these capabilities, the software isn't nearly as clean or efficient. I had a phpBB site once which had so many modifications on it that each page view took over 120 database queries. So, my recommendation here would be - do you want an efficient and simple to run message board? Get SMF. If you want one which is a headache to run, but has so many features, try phpBB.

Would I run phpBB? Not anymore - I can do a Joomla site with an SMF or IPB message board component with far less headache and a much more professional look and feel. Or I can take the server light approach and do SMF & TP, but only if I don't need the content management capabilities of a CMS.

Some portals do their best to emulate a good CMS in a number of ways, but because of their foundation, they are too restricted to be anything more than just a portal. On the flip side, some packages claiming to be a CMS are really nothing more than souped up portals.

An extremely clear explanation of the differences between a CMS and a portal was written by Tom Marciniak. In Tom's article, he explains not only the difference, but where each has its niche and where they fill various needs. If you're interested, you can read the article by clicking here.

Just remember - I am not badmouthing SMF or TP - I am simply being realistic about their capabilities and direction. Their capabilities don't make them bad, just different. We don't all need a Ferrari to get back and forth to work, but some are willing to pay extra for the performance. We don't all need a nine-passenger SUV to get to the grocery store, but some do. The rest can use something smaller, less powerful or more economical - and cheaper. On some of my sites, I enjoy the simple competence of SMF & TP. On other sites, I need more.

SMF is a good, basic, message board offering. If it grows into something more than just basic, that is great - but it will always be only a message board. One with similar features to what other message boards had five years ago. In fact, if we toss out platforms, other boards had the features SMF had before the twentieth century came to an end - and they had the features earlier in the development process.

And, if you want to learn about different computer technologies or php or perl or message boards or whatever, make sure you check out ars technica. I was a moderator there for a long time, but gave it up because I was tired of the high volume and the high egos. The rabid geeks will beat you up, but you'll learn a lot in the process, if your skin isn't too thin. 

[TwinsX2Dad]

If SMF was midrange, then why would there be any massive 1000000+ post forums? What "premiere" scripts are you talking about?

I have to ask that, as well.

Answered in the last post.

Although my comments in this topic are liable to knock points off my karma or whatever it is called. 

[eldacar]

SMF never seems to be out of beta, either.

SMF 1.0 has been Gold for over a year. SMF 1.1 is in Release candidate stage now too, you could say that there are no Beta releases of SMF right now..

As for the rest of your post... well phpBB has almost nothing compared to SMF feature wise. I don't know how you could possibly say that. Even something as simple as child boards require major modifications. vB and IPB are nice, but not as nice as SMF. And SMF has always had lowbandwidth/mobile access.

SMF is a good, basic, message board offering. If it grows into something more than just basic, that is great - but it will always be only a message board. One with similar features to what other message boards had five years ago. In fact, if we toss out platforms, other boards had the features SMF had before the twentieth century came to an end - and they had the features earlier in the development process.

Um, right.

[TwinsX2Dad]

SMF 1.0 has been Gold for over a year. SMF 1.1 is in Release candidate stage now too, you could say that there are no Beta releases of SMF right now..

Semantics - what one company calls a 'release candidate', others call a 'beta' release. Alpha is internal & developer release. Beta is public release, indicative of the full product. Regardless, all release candidate software is actually beta software.

As for the rest of your post... well phpBB has almost nothing compared to SMF feature wise. I don't know how you could possibly say that. Even something as simple as child boards require major modifications. vB and IPB are nice, but not as nice as SMF.

Huh? In basic configuration, both phpBB & SMF are nearly twins in feature sets. What sets the two apart is the package manager - and that is an idea ripped off from earlier software efforts. The problem is that the SMF package manager is extremely problematic for anything more than one or two modifications. After that, the modifications available for phpBB number in the thousands, where I can't even get mods to make SMF act like a basic IPB.

And SMF has always had lowbandwidth/mobile access.

Where is it in the basic install? To have WAP capability is like saying I have a home theater system because I have a portable TV connected to a boombox. WAP capability is simple to include, but useless for those who don't want the bells & whistles and simply want to browse quickly. Claiming WAP capability is not the same as having a low bandwidth mirror like IPB, vB, MyBB and a number of others offer. This capability means I can fire up my Lynx browser and view only the basics. Doing this with a slow modem on a bad phone line means I still can get my information quickly.

I'll tell you what - you tell me five things SMF can do that vB or IPB cannot do and I might place some validity on your statement that they aren't as nice as SMF. In my last big post, I mentioned four or five features considered requirements by large sites that SMF cannot provide.

I say this without (yet) admitting I can't stand vBulletin - but it is true, I can't stand vBulletin. But given a choice, on a mission critical site, I'd choose vB over SMF.

For a personal or light need SOHO site, SMF is great. The fact that it is free gives hobbyists, poor people and personal Web sites the ability to have a nicely featured message board.

But again, this topic was started by someone wanting to know if they should use Tiny Portal. My response was based on the fact that individual didn't tell us what functionality was required. It was not intended to be a pro-con-SMF topic and I've not taken it there. What I have done is state facts. When I have stated personal or subjective points, I have tried to make it clear that was a personal preference issue (like with the vB dislike). What was my intention was to get more information to help this person make an intelligent decision. None of us are getting commissions to sell TP or SMF - we are here to help people. Without all the information, to respond to this person in a definitive fashion would be as irresponsible as recommending a car to someone without knowing what they need a car for.

Bill: I need a new car. What do you recommend.
Tom: Buy a Cadillac Escalade with the 23" rims and four wheel drive and the nav system.
Bill: But I need something that is fuel efficient and easy to park, so I can make it two miles to work.

But what is happening here is this:

Bill: I need a new car.
TP Folks: Get a Toyota Corolla. It is cheap, reliable, efficient, well built and easy to use.
Bill: But I have six kids I need to get to church on Sunday through the snow.


You may like SMF - I know I like it just fine - but like the Toyota Corolla, it cannot do everything. Plus, without all of the honest facts, one cannot make a valid decision, nor offer advice. All you can do is act on emotion.

[anunlike]

Ultimately, I have to agree that it depends on what direction it ends up going and how CMS-like or portal-like it evolves into, which depends on whatever it is that you consider that to be.

And, of course, it just as much necessarily depends upon what the user wants to use it for.

Personally, I plan on using it for putting up a lot of articles and "essay-like" written content. If I can get it to do everything I'd like it to do in regards to articles, I will use that. I also plan on adding a lot of custom features to it which will, in essence, make it seem CMS-like, as I see / understand it. So, in my case, I plan on making it fairly CMSesque, where the forum will be just one part of the whole site, it won't seem to be built around the forum.


There's always a stable and final release ready to go. 1.1 may still be in beta, if you want to call it that, but the 1.0.x line has clearly been out as final and stable releases for a while. 1.1 will be out as final and stable probably pretty soon.


It sounds like you seem to be saying that forum software must be feature loaded by default to be "premier" or "high-end". That seems to imply that it must be prepared to accomodate organizations, large business, etc. with all the features that they will need. Just because features that you would use or you think should come standard don't come standard doesn't mean it's "midrange". The developers have done it this way on purpose, to accomodate most users with most standard featues and not have it be bloated. Even if you think it accomodates personal, light, SOHO sites, etc. better than any other, that doesn't mean it can be relegated to a lower quality range software. There are mods for things that don't come standard and adding mods is very easy to do. Personally, I find the way SMF is set up, in that sense, to be a plus as opposed to making it "midrange".

I'd argue that basic forum software which has more emphasis on basic aspects of the functionality; security, usability, efficiency, etc. is more "high-end" and "premier" than just going for software that's just feature loaded. We can say that most cars that have more features are usually better cars overall, as you know that if a car can afford a lot of luxary, the basics will have been given attention to match the overall quality. But forum software may not be like that. phpBB, for example, has horrid problems with hackings and vulnerabilities, even though you say it comes with pretty much the same standard features as SMF. So, I'd rather software have the basics taken care of and treated with care as opposed to just being feature rich.

As for mods, you can always request one or have someone create one. Then you will have what you want. If you release it to the public, it will be available to all.


Ultimately all reasons for something being "high-end" or "premier" as opposed to being "midrange" are personal. You say you hate vB, yet because it comes with more features, features that you find valuable and usable, even if those features seem to be necessary to service a certian niche, it seems you're saying that it's automatically "high-end" and "premier" as opposed to one that doesn't come with those features, which is only "midrange".

If vB fulfills a need that SMF doesn't seem to be able to, it's your pregorative to use it. Again, though, just because it suits your needs does not mean it can somehow objectively be labelled "high-end" and "premier" software. The simple fact is that it's built as a basic forum with a lot built in features that will be utilized, in general, by all kinds of different niches. Whether it has more, less or the same as other forum software, I couldn't say, as I'm not near as familiar with others. But, what I can say is that just because it doesn't suit your needs or even needs of a certain niche, as you see it, doesn't mean it can somehow objectively be called "midrange".

As you said, and I agree, it can be emotional.


To say it again, it's only at version 1.1, it will evolve and features will be added to it.

[TwinsX2Dad]

You can also look at Big-Boards.com and get a listing of huge SMF forums.

Been there, viewed that.

The biggest SMF board is......(drum roll, please)......

Red and White Kop
Liverpool football club message board

It has 1.83 million posts, which puts it in 511th place (page 26).

The number two SMF board is......(trumpets, please)......

40k Online
Warhammer 40k message boards

It has 1.26 million posts, enough for 794th place (page 40).

Neither is huge. In fact, neither is even mid-sized. I administered a karaoke board for a distributor for three years - based on the list at Big-Boards, we would have placed in the top 50. This was karaoke - not anything remotely popular (or in good taste).   :laugh:

I admit that some of the added features are desirable from a subjective view. But these are interactive sites. As such, one must take into consideration what your users want and/or need. All too often, a site owner settles for something and will rationalize their decision no matter what others want. Not only that, but many of the extra features that the others offer make for a much simpler admin job. A look at the incredibly in-depth configuration options of both IPB and vB illustrate this.

Now, with this being said, if you're not interested in the additional features, why look forward to the next version? And why wait for potential additions when those features are available now? If you need them, you certainly cannot wait for them. And, if you need them, shouldn't they be discussed as part of your decision making process?

This is what I've been trying to show here - that SMF is not the end-all, do-all of forum software. It is enough for many. It is enough for one of my sites and I am very happy with it there. But it isn't enough for my other sites. The only other one I've considered it for would require manually editing over 2000 posts - a job which would not be required if I were to switch it to vB (it is IPB). By the same token, if it were a vB site, I could easily convert it to an IPB site - both vB and IPB have the capabilities I need. The only reason I considered SMF for it is to avoid buying another license. Move that license to a new site and replace it with SMF - but it won't work, so I dropped the idea.

Yes, I did mention I don't like vB, but that is because of the Jelsoft attitude. I own 9 vB licenses, so I must not dislike it THAT badly.

I do have to agree with a statement Bloc made the other day - SMF is easy to write mods for. This is a testimony for the way the code was written. It works well, for its intended purpose. Bloc is a great guy - he works hard to give everyone a portal they can use to spruce up their SMF sites and supports it well. His demeanor is above and beyond reproach. But with all of that said, I am fairly comfortable in assuming that if he wanted to provide a CMS level product, he would have (and probably could have) written one from the ground up and not have created something which requires SMF to hold it up.

As I've said several times before - if SMF is good enough for you, then by all means, use it. The price is right and the features are sufficient. But it is definitely not the best option out there, especially if your site needs are beyond the capabilities of SMF. Just because it is enough for you does not mean it is enough for everyone. And, just because it isn't enough for everyone does not mean it is a bad product. If it were, I'd not be using it on a site. If I weren't using it on a site, I'd not be here.

[eldacar]

So what is the best option?