Thinking About Using TinyPortal

[TwinsX2Dad]

So what is the best option?

It depends on what you need. For some, it would be SMF. For others, it could be Groupee. For still others, it could be a DMS or CMS.

[eldacar]

Then don't make blanket statements.

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

[TwinsX2Dad]

I've not been the one making the blanket statements. Actually, you should be the one accused of that. With no supporting information, you repeatedly defended SMF & TP as the best option for someone who said they were thinking about Tiny Portal.

You make the blanket statements which would lead some to believe that, no matter what, SMF is the best option out there. For some, it is completely useless and worthless.

[eldacar]

I never made any such blanket statements.
I have said SMF is good, which most people will agree.
I have said that it can stand up to vB and IPB and is comparable in features and speed.
I have said that it is better than phpBB. Well better than phpBB < version 3. Version 3 will likely be much better than it is now.
And TP is nice, but definately not as full CMS. It is a nice simple and easily customisable portal.

[TwinsX2Dad]

I am sorry - I just looked back over the thread and didn't see what I was certain you'd said.

It must be the hour (3:23AM) or the workload (Monday starts early for me - the East Coast is waking up) or all the typing.

My mistake.

And TP is nice, but definately not as full CMS. It is a nice simple and easily customisable portal.

Very true statement.

[TwinsX2Dad]

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

Was I prophetic here or what? Went from 6 to 2 in less than 4 hours.   

[gerrymo]

So what is the best option?

Tiny Portal, of course!!

[Mitch]

So what is the best option?

Tiny Portal, of course!!

This mans not lying.

[Crip]

So what is the best option?

Tiny Portal, of course!!

But of coarse it is!

[anunlike]

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.

Some? Which ones? I'm sure you could get arguments from all kinds of people in all kinds of different niches from such a wide customer base saying that they don't need features that others think are necessary or should be included by default and vice versa.

The simple fact remains that the importance and usability of specific features are subjective. It only takes one person to come out say that they'd never use something, and it no longer means that the feature is some kind of objective necessity to make it "high-end" or "premier".

So, making such broad generalizations about a piece of software being "high-end" and "premier" just by features alone seems like you're trying to give some kind of objectivity to subjective interpretation based on the usability of features, which is purely dependendent upon necessity (and desire, of course).

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?

Just because you like a certain software doesn't mean you're not going to want to see it change and, if you like having more features, be better. Besides, features aren't the only things that change in SMF. A new release doesn't necessarily mean it's going to be more feature-rich.

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.

Who ever said it was? As far as I'm aware no one said that, but you seem to going on the assumption that at least one of us believes that.

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.

That's fine for you, more power to you.

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.

This is why I don't think it needs to be loaded with features, by default. And why just having features doesn't make something "high-end" and "premier".

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.

I agree, and I don't think anyone really believes TP to be a CMS or that it's headed in the direction of a CMS. But, no one can really say anything, IMO, because firstly, there's a lot of overlap between CMSs and portals and secondly, it's only beta and we don't where Bloc wants to take this. I mean, even though it's a portal, he could easily add features that are more reminscent of a CMS, even if there are only a few of those and they might be very popular CMSy features, so it might popularly be thought of as a CMS. That's a possibility.

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.

I'm not trying to be rude, and If I can be blunt, here's where your contradicting yourself. Overall, you seem to be saying that whether something is "the best" or it's "high-end" or is otherwise of better quality or has more usability or whatever your criteria is, it all depends upon what the user wansts to use it for. Yet, in this last quote, you specificially say that SMF is "definitely not the best option out there". How can you say that when you've been saying that it all depends upon what the user needs and wants? What makes something "the best" when there are a lot of niches to fill and a very wide user base? You seem to be making a lot of, as eldecar said, blanket statements and trying to make them objectively valid, but the whole foundation of this is that everything just depends upon what the user needs and wants.