Hi Christian:
Thanks, and I appreciate that, but here’s where Specific Post/Page Access won’t work for our situation, unless I am mistaken. Bear with me here, please.
1. Specific Post/Page Access relies on Content Permissions, right? Doesn’t it require that the post be Protected under the Content Permissions system?
We found that Content Permissions blocked out posts totally from public view, excerpts and all. We needed to provide content that was partially exposed to public view, and then partially blocked. So that’s why we based our system on WordPress shortcodes that censor or redact posts based on whether the user is logged in.
2. Will Specific Post Page/Access
a) simulate the state of being logged in? And thus present the hidden content protected within shortcodes designed to discriminate against users who are not logged into WordPress? (THIS WOULD WORK FOR US.)
b) Or will it merely present raw pages that still have our shortcodes in them, blocking the content from view despite the purchase? (THIS WOULD NOT WORK FOR US.)
Do you see what I am saying, and why I have tried to implement the idea of the expiring 24-hour user, rather than the one-shot URL purchase? The one-shot URL purchase seems like it would be incompatible with our “are you logged in”-based, legacy content protection scheme.
That’s why the idea of the expiring 24-hour WordPress account seems like a worthwhile goal. This user could be told after 24 hours that his access had run out, and might even be persuaded to sign up for the monthly plan.
If we can’t make this work through S2Member it seems like I am going to have to write a crontab solution… :(
Thanks for your attention and I hope you understand what I am trying to explain here…