Feature Request: File Size Management Integration between GD and GetPaid

link2selwyn

Feature Request: File Size Management Integration between GD and GetPaid Advertising

Issue: The GetPaid Advertising module does not inherit GeoDirectory’s Maximum Upload File Size setting.

Impact: Advertisers can bypass GD file restrictions when uploading banner images, creating inconsistency across CPTs.

Proposed Solution:

Extend GD’s file size validation logic to Advertising banner uploads.
Add a dedicated CPT upload field for Advertising banners tied to the same GD file management system.
Align media handling between GD and GetPaid for unified admin control.

I look forward to this being developed.

Thank You

paolo

PLease read: https://wpgeodirectory.com/community/d/3-exciting-announcement-our-new-community-forums-are-live

In particular:

❌ No Expectation of GeoDirectory Team Support
Official support is provided exclusively through our support system.

This is not the place to request new features...

Thanks,

link2selwyn

I see now that, as you’ve pointed out, this is a design issue that support needs to resolve, I will send it their way.

So that we’re clear and not wasting time engaging in the wrong place: does GD actually consider feature ideas across the Ayecode product range, and if so, where should those be directed for each
?

paolo

We welcome all kinds of feedback, but, just as in a democracy, the ideas that get considered are usually those supported by many people. In our case, we focus on requests that many users make over time.

The only place to submit these requests is through our support channel, since we do not have a public board for them.

link2selwyn

Thank you for clarifying, Paolo.

I understand now that design ideas should be handled via support and that feature requests are considered primarily based on broader user interest.

In a previous post, we engaged on the visibility of feature requests so that the community could provide a deeper understanding of how both premium and free users view these. This input could help inform which features are most valuable and worth pursuing. Unfortunately, this suggestion does not appear to have any traction, which seems like a missed opportunity to demonstrate GeoDirectory’s differentiation in decision-making, foster greater adoption of paid premium extensions, and allow the community to see potential developments on the horizon. This would not create any expectations regarding roadmaps or completion timeframes, but would signal that ideas are being considered and integrated into your workflows.

It would be helpful for the community if guidance on the “support channel only” process for feature requests were made explicit, so users know where to direct ideas and do not unintentionally waste time in this forum and Facbook Groups.

Regards