Walt Bilofsky
My feedback
231 results found
-
9 votesWalt Bilofsky
supported this idea
·
An error occurred while saving the comment -
10 votesWalt Bilofsky
supported this idea
·
-
4 votesWalt Bilofsky
supported this idea
·
-
51 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Walt Bilofsky
commented
Couldn't this be done by two registration types, one for members only and one for non-members?
The only glitch is that the Availability for the non-member type would have to be set to Everyone, so members would see both types and have to pick the one for members only.
Naming the types appropriately would probably be enough to deal with this.
It would be cleaner to have a new Availability option of "Non-members only."
-
84 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Walt Bilofsky
commented
See also this related suggestion: https://forums.wildapricot.com/forums/308932-wishlist/suggestions/16637107-if-email-failure-rate-is-high-notify-admin-and-or
Walt Bilofsky
supported this idea
·
-
11 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Walt Bilofsky
commented
And possibly have two pages, one for logged-in members and one for everyone else. (Do we have a way of tracking the percentage of members who remain logged in?)
Walt Bilofsky
supported this idea
·
-
41 votesWalt Bilofsky
supported this idea
·
-
15 votesWalt Bilofsky
shared this idea
·
-
9 votesWalt Bilofsky
supported this idea
·
-
18 votesWalt Bilofsky
supported this idea
·
-
137 votesWalt Bilofsky
supported this idea
·
An error occurred while saving the comment Walt Bilofsky
commented
This concept should be extended to allow any member to opt to be emailed by the public without revealing their email address.
For instance, how about a "contact" member field type? It would appear as a link that would bring up a form to email the member. If that field's privacy setting is set to public, then anyone could contact the member through their profile without seeing the email address or other non-public member fields.
With this feature, our officers could be contacted by non-members without their email addresses being harvested for spamming. Likewise members posting in forums.
-
4 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Walt Bilofsky
commented
Lisa, I should have mentioned that you can put the gadget in a layout. So to center it, use a three column layout and put it in the center column.
Walt Bilofsky
supported this idea
·
An error occurred while saving the comment Walt Bilofsky
commented
Add the ability to sort the listed members on a specified member or contact field. I would like to use this to list our Board of Directors but they need to be in a specific order, not random order.
-
22 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Walt Bilofsky
commented
Thanks, Katya. This would be almost perfect except for two things.
1) We need our officers listed in a specific order, so need the ability to sort the members in the list rather than random order. I will add this feature request to wishlist item https://forums.wildapricot.com/forums/308932-wishlist/suggestions/11177109-more-options-for-featured-member .
2) None of our member information is visible to the public, so non-members couldn't see our officers' list. If we make member names publicly visible, what other places could visitors see them?
An error occurred while saving the comment Walt Bilofsky
commented
Evgeny, this sounds like a good idea. We already have a member field with the leadership titles. We want them listed in a particular order, but could add an internal field to sort on.
But I ran into a couple of problems.
1. How to get rid of the Search box at the top of the list?
2. How to put two directory gadgets (one for our Board, the other for Committee Chairs) on the same page?
3. Privacy. We default all fields to member access only. So the directory gadget comes up empty unless the user is logged in. We would have to make names and email addresses public access (and apply this by hand to all existing members, or at least the officers, because it's not something we can import, right?). And then what are the privacy implications of marking all these fields public access?
-
6 votesWalt Bilofsky
supported this idea
·
An error occurred while saving the comment Walt Bilofsky
commented
This could be implemented by allowing an overall limit to be placed on an extra cost item in the registration form.
Then the Golf Scramble could be an extra cost item, limited to a total of 80.
If there is no extra charge for the Golf Scramble, but attendance still needs to be limited, that would be handled by allowing an extra cost item to have zero cost, which is now prohibited. Evgeny, of course you remember I've asked for that elsewhere. :)
This has other applications. For example, we have 100 t-shirts and want to offer them as extra cost items at the event but don't want to sell more than 100. (Or - we have 20 small, 30 medium, ....)
-
30 votesWalt Bilofsky
supported this idea
·
-
9 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Walt Bilofsky
commented
We use a blog gadget for this on our home page. It requires writing the teaser separately from the event description.
For a simple list, as Evgeny says, the upcoming events gadget works, using a tag to specify which event(s) are included.
Another way is to use an Event Calendar gadget in list view, again with a tag to specify the events. This gives you the first few inches of the event description for a teaser, without having to write one.
-
5 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Walt Bilofsky
commented
I'm going to vote for this, but with the comment that a number of times I have changed an active registration form, added fields, changed the field name, and never lost data (that I have noticed).
Deleting a field, I would assume would lose that data. But there is still the opportunity to Save or Cancel before the action is permanent.
Changing question choices or type, I don't know, and a warning would be useful. But only if there are existing registrations; otherwise it would be more of a nuisance.
Walt Bilofsky
supported this idea
·
-
23 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Walt Bilofsky
commented
Liz, thanks for the workaround.
This is not the only term that needs to be made organization-specific.
"Bundle" is another. See https://forums.wildapricot.com/forums/308932-wishlist/suggestions/8828305-customizing-the-term-bundle .
Perhaps a list of these terms could be identified and a system-wide mechanism provided to let admins rename those terms, and any others that might be added from time to time.
Walt Bilofsky
supported this idea
·
-
146 votes
Evgeny Zaritovskiy
responded
Old design proposal, not working on it yet and can be changed if we start working on it – https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B0f9kMyQqlBsZ3FQOWRiMERRNkk/view?usp=sharing
An error occurred while saving the comment Walt Bilofsky
commented
Advanced Search already works this way for multiple choice fields. Might that make it a fast implementation for radio button fields?
Although - what would that do to our existing saved searches? Would WA have to convert them all? Could it be done automatically?
An error occurred while saving the comment Walt Bilofsky
commented
One simple and helpful addition to this would be to change the radio button search criteria to multiple choice.
For example, now the Membership Level criterion can be "is" or "is not" but only one level can be selected by the radio buttons.
This should be changed to multiple choice so that we can select any number of membership levels in that one criterion.
And the same for Record Status, Role, Member Status, etc.
Of course, if and when this feature is implemented then it would provide a (more complicated) way to do the same thing. But this would make some searches cleaner.
And if the full implementation isn't coming soon, maybe this could be done in the meantime?
An error occurred while saving the comment Walt Bilofsky
commented
This should be merged with "Add Boolean logic to Advanced Search" - https://forums.wildapricot.com/forums/308932-wishlist/suggestions/8825653-add-boolean-logic-to-advanced-search .
I will copy my radio button search to that thread, for which there is already a design.
An error occurred while saving the comment Walt Bilofsky
commented
One simple and very helpful fix would be to change the radio button search criteria to multiple choice.
For example, now the Membership Level criterion can be "is" or "is not" but only one level can be selected by the radio buttons.
This should be changed to multiple choice so that we can select any number of membership levels in that one criterion.
And the same for Record Status, Role, Member Status, etc.
Walt Bilofsky
supported this idea
·
An error occurred while saving the comment Walt Bilofsky
commented
This design solution looks good.
An error occurred while saving the comment Walt Bilofsky
commented
If this design can't be scheduled for the near future, here is a small change that will meet the requirements of a number of the posters below. It will also make the full design easier to use.
Currently if a contact or membership field type is checkboxes, you permit searching on any, all or none of the choices. But if the field type is radio button, we can only search on one of the choices.
My suggestion is for search criteria to treat radio button fields the same as check boxes. So although the member has to choose one of the radio button alternatives, we could specify a single search criterion to select several alternatives.
The current design will allow the same thing, but the admin would have to enter a separate criterion for each desired choice.
-
22 votesWalt Bilofsky
supported this idea
·
There's a general problem of WA's insensitivity to an organization's need to use its own terminology.
There needs to be a general mechanism for an organization to set its own wording for a whole bunch of terms that are unfortunately hardwired. "Bundle" is the worst offender but there are plenty of others.
There should be a list of these terms that admins could change. Once the list exists, it should be expanded by request on an ongoing basis.