Talk:Simple Machines Forum

Self-implosion

There was an absolute shit storm in the SMF community during the 2.0 beta/RC stage. Most of the primary members of the community bolted and there was even an exiled forum (running SMF) where we all congregated for a while. Many prominent members did not leave of their own accord, but were banned from the official forum. This included most of the top modders, core devs and theme devs. The platform basically imploded at that point and it has never recovered. I think there should be mention of this in the article. I don't know enough of the details to write it myself though. This was also what triggered the change of licensing and I believe the person in charge of the project (can't remember her name now) stood down at this point too, but I could be wrong. [UNKNOWN] came back to the project around this time and tried to help resurrect the 2.0 branch, but wasn't able to pull things together amongst the swarm of aggression within the community.

Bias?

• Simple Machines has a team of support specialists that supports its users for free. The developers are also at hand to deal with some of the most tricky support requests, also offering advice to the best and most optimised settings that SMF can run at and how to deal with high loads more. efficiently. -- SoothingR 05:59, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Pooh, if you think that isn't neutral .... - Diana

• Regardless of the subjective truthfullness, it is an opinion and doesn't have a place in an encyclopedia -- SoothingR 18:38, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

But they aren't opinions, they are facts. SMF's developers and support team have an escalation system where when the support team cannot answer a developer will step in to deal with it. And SMF has a whole board dedicated to offering advise on the better settings of the system, to make it run more effieciently, tweaks if you will. -- Trekkie

No, still they are opinions. Phrases like "best and most" and "efficiently" are per definition subjective. No matter how much evidence there is to back up your opinion, it's still not a fact. -- SoothingR^(pour) 10:01, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

If you have such a big issue on this why not add a cons section so it would be fair sided showing you neither support or are against the stated issue ~Contributing Member

Allow me to end this dispute once and for all. First off, someone needs to re-write this entire support paragraph, as there are more grammatical errors than I care to count. Honestly, there would have been no dispute had the statement of services been written more clearly. Secondly, in the English language there are few if any rules that are exception-free. Gray/grey areas crop up all the time (oh the irony). I agree that in this particularly case, the words "Best" and "Most" are in fact used in a subjective manner, however, this is the nature of the service that is being provided. The run-on sentence containing those two words was merely stating for the record the FACT that the company provides a "service" of giving subjective opinions. This is not an opinion that they provide opinions, this is a fact that they provide opinions. Thus, clearly someone needs to re-write this, but regardless, there is no basis for this neutrality dispute. ~ Rottenrhyma --- 2005/12/14 - 2:25pm

"SMF is an excellent forum software. It is a great alternative to phpBB, which is so vulerable to attacks." This is completly false and utter FUD, however this is for another day. However, words such as "best" and "efficently" are adjectives. Look it up in any dictionary and you'll see. And adjectives are opinions. They are subjective, and opinions don't belong on any sort of place that touts itself as being fact. If in the Google article, someone wrote "Google is the most efficent search engine", or in the OSX article "It is the best OS around" they would be flagged as non neutral, and it is no different here. - Edward_NZ

"This is completly false and utter FUD" Huh. What Google Says. I guess a lot of other people feel otherwise! 131.30.121.23 21:20, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

a great alternative ... so vulnarable ... try removing those words and maybe it will sound less biased. also, unless this article is about phpbb and i just mised it, maybe u shuld edit the phpbb article to reflect what u have said.

also, do you mind if i edit the article for punbb and say thta it is a great alternative to invisiion powerboard? 47,000 hits for punbb versus 576,000 hits for Invision can't lie, can they? 83.149.72.211 17:38, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Rottenrhyma, your point is well-made. The highlighted sentence concerns the FACT that the developers provide their opinions on aspects such as settings, but the sentence is not an opinion itself. It really isn't non-neutral because they do (again, in fact) provide such opinions on settings, whether their opinions are correct or not. - Miraenda

Stating that "Google is the most efficient search engine" is very subjective and detrimental/offending to other search engines. But who is "deal with some of the most tricky support requests" offending? Less tricky support requests? Most is not subject in this case. All it is saying is that there are support staff who can deal with easy support requests, harder support requests, and even the most tricky support requests, all without requiring support fees. I agree the grammar of this paragraph is bad, but I don't agree that it is unfairly opinionated. -- Eldacar

The entry has been edited. Is it satisfactory now?

We have made some additional changes to remove the word "Best" - acceptable? Jbfung 16:56, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

"But who is "deal with some of the most tricky support requests" offending?" That's not the point. Let's use apples for a second. "I like this apple better than that apple". It isn't "offending" anyone, yet is still an opinion. You may want to read the definition of opinion, it is more likely to be "one person's point of view" than "one thing that insults another". However, I am satisfied that the article in it's current state is neutral enough, and no longer needs the notice Edward nz 04:18, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I am satisfied that the article in it's current state is neutral enough, and no longer needs the notice???

Edward nz|Anon is associated with the phpBB Group. Which of course doesn't mean he has a NOPV... In any case, it's hardly up to him alone what is acceptable here and what is not. 63.231.61.30 04:19, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Edward nz--did you even read or understand Rottenrhyma paragraph? I do agree the sentence needed re-wrtitten, but what was written was not an opinion or non-neutral. Re-read his paragraph please, because I fear you do not understand logic, which isn't utter FUD at all to state, but a fact (I do indeed fear you don't, whether my fear has a basis or not). - Miraenda

most tricky support requests is still an opinion, no matter how you look at it. Let's break it down shall we? most tricky. This implies that the author believes that some support requests are tricky. I should know, I am a support team member myself [different project], however because it is an opinion, it does not belong on the wikiedia, which touts itself is fact. Let's look at it another way. Fact and Fiction cooks. Fact can be used as the basis of a claim. Fiction is the idea of the author. On an encyclopedia such as the wikipedia, you would only ever quote from works of fact, not works of fiction. Get my point?

I will also ask that people sign off with the four tiles (~~~~). It is basic courtesy Anon 08:09, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Edward nz|Anon is associated with the phpBB Group. Which of course doesn't mean he has a NOPV...131.30.121.23 21:04, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

AGF]. Edward NZ 00:45, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I always do "assume good faith", but in your case, you have a history of dogging any product that appears to "compete" with your project, phpBB. There for, you do not qualify for automatic assumption of "good faith". Jake b 17:12, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Re: "advert" template. I think some lack of balance is still apparent. My sense is that there should be "See also" to comparable software (the ones listed, phpbb, etc), links to sites not run by the folks that make it, some discussion of cases where other options are better, e.g. because of a less restrictive license, different language, etc. --NealMcB 04:24, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

most popular SMF forums

Um... this who is to say that these are the most popular SMF forums? http://arch0wl.com for example has 13000 members and is not listed, whereas VrouwenPower has less than 1000 and is. Makes no sense to me. Also I'll fix up the "disputed" paragraph. — flamingspinach | (talk) 09:05, 17 January 2006 (UTC)</nowiki>

More work needed still

I just did some polishing of the article, plus added the software information box. Removed typos, bad grammar and formatting stuff I found. Also added a proper screenshot of SMF (like the other forum scripts have). However as I see it, the article is still too much like a copycat advert of the SMF web site itself. What should be added is a proper feature overview, plus balanced pros and cons about SMF. The other big issue left is sourcing all the statements about YaBB, YaBB SE and the rest of the history of SMF. It must be sourced, unlike it's now. I don't arse to do it now myself, but someone should feel free to do it. So the issues right now IMO are: 1) source all statements that warrant it, 2) more interesting actual details about SMF, not some market speak. Tthat's why the charter membership fee is for instance now gone - this has been done in the past in many other similar articles. --Rasbelin 07:02, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

My suggestion is to merge "Support Team" and "The SMF Team" (they don't deserve different headings) and get rid of "Charted Members" - feels like advertising. Or rephrasing it like "There are betas avaliable through paid donations" or something like that.. I would like to see more of the History of SMF, if any more can be added. All of this should get rid of the ad tag, hopefully. -- Stahn 14:54, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Comparison to Other Forum Software

I'm going through the "internet forum software" groupings hunting down what I feel is a useless line that's appeared in some of them. That line is "it is comparable to other forum software such as Simple Machines Forum, Invision Power Board, phpBB, UBB.threads and MyBulletinBoard". I feel the line should be adjusted to "it is comparable to other forum software" for the following reasons:

1. The previous line which listed many forums is open to abuse. Already the vBulletin article has a list of 5 "comparable" products.
2. We have the Comparison of Internet forum software article so let's use that fairly comprehensive list rather than starting to list everything in all of the individual product's articles.
3. My personal opinion is that the line is not required at all (after all, all "internet forum software" must surely have some similar features) but as someone felt the line was required in the first place and we have the comparative article as per point 2, it might be wiser to adjust it instead. Yay unto the Chicken 10:16, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

References

I have added a couple of references to the history section. Is more needed before the tag can be removed? - User:Mikemill 15:10, 27 Augest 2006 (PDT)

Simple Machines LLC

Should we add info about this? SMF was before owned by Lewis Media. Read up about it in the news section of smf community. I can't be bothered looking for it again.rctxtreme 06:50, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Done (btw I'm rctxtreme, I got a name change) anger2headshot 02:15, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Special mods

I think the section with the list of mods needs to be reworked, because I'm sure few people really care about a Zodiac mod for example. Any suggestions for more widely useful mods? SEO should definately be on the list. -eldacar

Why bother in the first place? It's just... information. anger2headshot 01:56, 30 December 2006 (UTC) (rctxreme on the SMF community)

Free vs. freeware

I removed this article from Category:Free Internet forum software, since, according to that category page, it's a category for open source software distributed under an OSI-approved license. Therefore, the article should not be in the category simply because the software is distributed at no cost. --daranz^t 18:44, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

The category description didn't accurately reflect the category name or the Free software portal project. After further discussion, it was changed, so I added SMF back to the category (also added Ikonboard, Phorum, etc. to the category as well). Oldiesmann 02:42, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, though I could still argue that SMF doesn't allow free redistribution of the package. I changed the license in the infobox, though, as "Freeware" was not be the best description for the SMF license. --daranz^t 11:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

SMF license is neither Free Software nor Open Source, please do not call it either. 128.232.250.254 20:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC), User:M0ffx but not logged in right now.

I did not realize there was an official "Free Software" definition, but never intended to cause confusion. SMF is "free software" (ie freeware), and that's what I meant. Oldiesmann 00:01, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Bias 2

After a request, I looked over the article and removed the following:

===Shortcomings===

While SMF is regarded as being above par when it comes to features, there are certain areas of the program that are considered sub par. On popular boards SMF is known to be responsible for a large surge in bandwidth usage due to its continued heavy use of tables for lay-out and repetitive inline styles. This is also the cause behind SMF's poor accessibility and it is one of the reasons why content on a Simple Machines Forum isn't indexed well into Search Engines.

Development of SMF is known to be sluggish and certain areas of the program seem to be ill conceived in order to make up for lost time.

This is clearly biased, but some of it could be kept if a reference could be found. Bjelleklang - talk Bug Me 23:42, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I removed the entire section as it was unencyclopedic and POV--Hamitr 02:45, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the section is factual, however I can't provide good citations - most are forum postings. I have had a server compromised via SMF, have patched many a system and today just admonish clients for using it and refuse to work with them unless they find another forum. I actually keep it on a server with a locked database to learn how not to code PHP by analyzing the log files for exploits. I was tempted to remove the weasel tag completely, but think that the sentence can be simply re-structured somehow by someone with more lingual skill than I. I almost cited it with this Google search. Finding a proper citation for something that has become common knowledge in a field is harder than I would have thought. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.65.123.206 (talk) 12:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC).

The problem is that a forum isn't a good source, and either is a google search. In order to reference this, you need to find an article, either on- or offline, published by a reliable source that say the same. That you or someone else have had a compromised server isn't necessarily an indication that the system is unreliable, as it might also be due to other weaknesses such as server software or bad configuration. Bjelleklang - talk Bug Me 17:07, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Where is URDU Language Translation ?????????

I made a change in the paragraph where it was mentioned that SMF has been translated in many languages. I made a change that SMF has been translated in URDU as well but somebody removed it without explaining the reason. The forum which is up and running with urdu translation is as follows:

• URDU TECH Bulletin Board

--Mohibalvi (talk) 09:59, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

• I explained it in the edit summary. There is no official Urdu language package on the SMF website. Just because one board is using their own language package doesn't mean it should be listed here. Mikemill (talk) 15:29, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Urdu Language package is on SMF website and it is officially supported now.

--Mohib Alvi 06:03, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Advertisment Tag

What parts do you feel need to be rewritten? As far as I can tell this article is written in a similar style as other forum articles so any specific points would be helpful. Mikemill (talk) 18:43, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Unless someone objects I will be removing the advert tag. This article had that tag before and was rewritten to remove those issues so unless someone can give specific issues I don't see the reason for retagging it. Mikemill (talk) 15:28, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[Unknown]?

Sorry, but I find it hard to believe that anyone is/was named [Unknown]. First of all, it consists of non-alphebtical characters. Secondly, "unknown" is not a name in any language, as far as I know. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 20:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

• [Unknown]'s real name is known to only a few people. It was his desire not be known by his real name. [Unknown] would at the very least be considered a pseudonym. He would also sometimes refer to himself as Unknown W. Brackets. Mikemill (talk) 21:38, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
• Happened to see this after a short bout of nostalgia. I use [Unknown] typically online, but if you want to be more formal, Unknown W. Brackets. Funny how the "telephone game" has changed "[Unknown] rewrote it and Jeff Lewis and Joseph Fung decided to move the project to using a new name with the new code" to "Jeff Lewis and Joseph Fung rewrote it." Oh well, I guess our history books are probably riddled with such inaccuracies. -[Unknown] (talk) 04:32, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Simple machines-halloween-2006.jpg

Image:Simple machines-halloween-2006.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:33, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

History Re: YaBB

The first paragraph made it sound like YaBB still has these problems, which simply isn't true. Security and Stability have been addressed and improved significantly since the release of YaBB 2. I do not want to argue much about benchmarking, etc. I believe my changes have made the section have a bit more of a NPOV. While I am currently a YaBB team member, I was a member of the original YaBB SE team. Hopefully this does not get dismissed as a member of another team trying to unfairly scrutinize the article. Feel free to edit/fix my changes, but don't revert them. The old version does sound like it is making claims against current version of YaBB in addition to the old ones.Mattsiegman (talk) 14:09, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

The most basic of definition should mention that SMF is server software, as opposed to PC software. While I could have guessed as much, I needed confirmation.65.12.98.168 (talk) 13:36, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Tinyportal

Tinyportal should not be merged with this article, because it is a third-party project, not an official SMF project. This article should only contain information about SMF itself and not the many third-party projects available for SMF. Oldiesmann (talk) 02:16, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed as per the comments above JeremyDarwood (talk) 02:20, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Tinyportal should not be merged with SMF, but instead be deleted per WP:WEB. TinyPortal is no more notable than SimplePortal or EZportal. TheWeakWilled (talk) 13:57, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Your very right, it ISNT the same script and/or the same Author so why? Briapv (talk) 17:22, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Made a fault...SORRY

i wanted to edit something in the article, but i did something wrong that i cant trace again. please revert the change —Preceding unsigned comment added by Briapv (talk • contribs) 23:02, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. You can trace all changes with the 'history' link at the top of each Wiki, FYI. DP76764 (Talk) 23:14, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

How can we translate this page?

Hello all! If I would like to translate signle page like this one, how can i do that? Is there some tool available for translators? Will translated version of page be linked at main english page somehow? Thanks for answer. 93.87.136.126 (talk) 01:00, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't know if there are tools for translating, but I can answer your last question: yes, translated pages will be linked to from the main English page. There is a selection of links to other languages in the main toolbar on the left of every article. DP76764 (Talk) 01:43, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

DELETE THE TINYPORTAL REDIRECT

There is absolutely ZERO information about TinyPortal on this article, so get rid of the misleading redirect. In Correct (talk) 09:54, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Criticism

While going through this article, I noticed the "criticism" section. It says "some users...", yet the source shows an opinion article of a single author. The last two entries are from the same site featuring the opinion of the article author, and seem very familiar to each other. In fact they appear to be exactly the same. The first one is not cited who is criticizing, so it can't be verified if there were complaints about 1.0 and 1.1 licensing. SMF did change to a BSD license, so it might be there were complaints and they decided to change it: but we need sources to confirm. I currently cannot find such a source, and thus dispute that entry.

I think this section should be re-worked, and proper criticism should be found; if available at all. It looks like now, just something was found for the sake of "having criticism in the page". If no proper criticism, like for example coding practices, business practices, security (tough call as SMF is regarded as one of the, if not the, most secure open-source community system), unethical behavior or whatever can be found: I'd say this section ought to be removed as I can't find additional sources for the claims other than the opinion of that author.

It's always good to put criticism or "weak points" in an article to inform the users what a potential downside is, but I do believe such criticism should be reasonable, shared by multiple people, etc.: otherwise it should simply be left out as apparently there isn't much to complain about then. So unless anybody is able to find actual proper criticism/research rather than the opinion of a single-user: I'd opt for that section to be removed. I don't think the current criticism is really noteworthy, especially as no other sources can be found for these complaints at all. (To reiterate: I could write a article on my site now stating I hate the design of SMF. And then quote it here saying "Some users complain about how SMF look". That doesn't make it valid criticism in my opinion.)

I'd rather see proper criticism in wikipedia articles, instead of "criticism" like this. 178.85.187.149 (talk) 02:55, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Not sure about the others, but the license was a criticism point mainly because of Joomla. This is described more on threads on the Joomla forum. It basically prevented integration with GPL software. SMF 1's license was entirely a reaction to some past problems, and was probably the wrong reaction anyway. That being said, it wasn't a common criticism among standalone users. -[Unknown] (talk) 04:46, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

simple machines

i need to know about simple machines 184.80.181.202 (talk) 20:11, 2 December 2022 (UTC)