Plugin: Discussion Inserts - Insert HTML based on Discussion ID

phreak

Hi all,

@hgtonight and I just finished a first version of "Discussion Inserts" that allows you to add custom HTML after the initial post of a specific discussion.

http://vanillaforums.org/addon/discussioninserts-plugin-0.1

It's for Vanilla 2.0.18.13 and Vanilla 2.1+

It can be helpfull if you want to adress visitors or users of a different discussions with special information. For example: Add a link to the registration ("Want to join this discussion? Register here!") or place a advertising banner (lead generation for example). There are numerous ideas to use it. Inserts are based on the discussion ID (you should find in the URL of your discussion) and can have a separate appearance on desktop or mobile.

I'd like to hear your feedback technically, ideas for further development and what you use it for in your community.
We have some ideas on the table, but let's see if the plugin is of use for you and we can consider on further development.

Greetz,
phreak

businessdad

As I mentioned in the original discussion, I would have written it quite differently and kept it much simpler (I would not have used a separate table for them, as I don't see the need for that), therefore I won't be able to give much feedback without risking to sound like "rewrite it".

I also disagree with having separate contents for desktop and mobile. Content should be the same and appearance should be handled by the theme.

Anyway, as they say, there are many ways to skin a cat. If I will need this functionality, I will probably write my own solution.

phreak

Yep, i'd also liked they way you would implement it. But for example in my need it's important to not integrate it in the usual comment table as we are also using the Tapatalk App and this could have broken the functionality. 2nd is that having two different appearances was a decision with Google Page Speed in mind (and you regulary would use this plugin on high ranking discussions) where for example adding 2 JPGs with quite some KBs and hiding the one or the other (desktop/mobile) via CSS would just add some weight that is not needed and will likely drop you rank.

BUT if you just add an insert to the desktop field, you can still work it through themeing, so both is possible.

I do do have some years experience in banner advertising and working with AdServers where different Javascript codes for mobile and desktop need to be used always. So it's definitly the way to go for.

businessdad

@phreak said:
Yep, i'd also liked they way you would implement it. But for example in my need it's important to not integrate it in the usual comment table as we are also using the Tapatalk App and this could have broken the functionality.

I doubt it would have broken it. A comment is a comment, it would blend in quite smoothly.

2nd is that having two different appearances was a decision with Google Page Speed in mind where for example adding 2 JPGs with quite some KBs and hiding the one or the other (desktop/mobile) via CSS would just add some weight that is not needed and will likely drop you rank.

All the guidelines I follow strongly push in the direction of never creating separate sites for desktop and mobile. A few weeks ago I helped a company revisiting their website, which large images unsuitable for mobile, without adding code conditionals and rendering different sites. Ranking increased, and the CSS changes were negligible. Besides, if you think that the JPGs are too large for mobiles... Don't use them!

I do do have some years experience in banner advertising and working with AdServers where different Javascript codes for mobile and desktop need to be used always. So it's definitly the way to go for.

If a service requires two different scripts for desktop and mobile, then the service is flawed. It may be popular, necessary, important, but still flawed. The real way to go is fixing the service (I can be a real PITA for service providers when I spot these design issues).

Bottom line, the requirements you list are highly specific to your situation, and I can understand that the adopted solution covers them. It just seems overkill to me, based on what we would need. The important thing is that it works for you, after all it was a custom project.

phreak

Before fixing the biggest ad-networks and media agencies in the world i'd rather consider making an optional work around in a small plugin. I totally understand you technically, but ad companies do really work different.

businessdad

@phreak said:
Before fixing the biggest ad-networks and media agencies in the world i'd rather consider making an optional work around in a small plugin. I totally understand you technically, but ad companies do really work different.

That's why it's a constant fight between me and them. Also, as a supporter of any service that blocks ads, I'm not one of their best friends anyway.

More off topic
This reminds me of a hilarious GIF I spotted some time ago. The caption was something like "my reaction when they tell me not to use AdBlock because it hurts the content creator":

peregrine

phreak said: Before fixing the biggest ad-networks and media agencies in the world

that can be phase 2. STABLE

bd said: Also, as a supporter of any service that blocks ads,

seconded

phreak

Blocking ads not selectivly is unfair to the people who need to make a living of good things out of it. I run several websites where people who are living in remote areas are empowered through communities and information they give to each other. This service undertakes a lot of work. If everyone would block ads no one would afford making such a community. I'm sure you drink beer and pay for it (probably from an international company), and i guess you read newspapers online (but you don't pay for it, probably a local company). I'm ok with your perspective regarding multinational and mostly corrupt companies, but not regarding small publisher who try to make a difference in the sell-out internet.

Thats the hell of a OT.

scottybweyy

Some feedback.

1. If you want to use it as a thread wiki or member summary, there doesn't appear to be an easy way to enable all users edit access to only that comment.
2. It looks kind of weird with the bootstrap theme. It isn't highlighted and is further to the left than the pictures.