Multiple Membership Types Defaults to Less Access - Protected Content

Okay guys, last one today, promise! I've got a deadline, so trying to figure out which issues have workarounds...

I have created multiple "memberships" for different account types. In some instances, a user needs to be a member of more than one membership type, but it looks like if they're a member that doesn't have access to a certain page/menu item, as well as one that DOES have access to that page/menu item, the user will not be able to access that page/menu item. Is there a reason that when someone is a member of 2 membership types, it defaults to follow the rules of the one with less access? I'd think the more prevalent scenario would be the other way around, but maybe I'm wrong. Can this be changed? Or at least have an option to change it? Thanks again, and have a great weekend!

  • Tyler Postle

    Hey Lab,

    Hope you're doing well today and thanks for your question!

    It does appear to go with the more restrictive content, I will report this to the developers :slight_smile: going with the one that allows more access does make sense.

    Perhaps making a combination membership of the two could be an option in the meantime? You could make it private and manually apply it to the user as well, then they would have all the access they need.

    Hope this helps Lab! Let us know if you have any further questions.

    All the best,

  • labxsolutions

    That workaround would probably work for one of my user scenarios if the manually adding users to a private membership bug gets fixed soon. :slight_smile:

    Another of my user scenarios actually requires that certain users are part of an annual recurring paid membership, as well as a free private membership with more access (board members that need access to board member areas, but are still regular paying members as well), so having a combined membership wouldn't necessarily work.

    I suppose I can manually create invoices for the board members that also pay membership dues for now.

    On that note... when you manually add a member to a paid membership, do they remain at that membership level for free unless you create an invoice? I thought that it had automatically created an invoice for when the membership expired when I added one of my users manually but then I tried it again and it didn't create an invoice... So, I'm not sure what is supposed to happen after a manual "add" to a paid membership.

  • Tyler Postle

    Hey Lab,

    hope you're doing well today and thanks for your reply!

    Understandable, I agree that it should always be providing the access if it is given. I have notified the dev and this will be looked in too soon :slight_smile:

    As for the invoices, I believe it will only create the invoice when the actual payment is made or payment process is used(manual payment is an option).

    The membership will still last for the same number of days as what is listed, or monthly, or however it is setup but since no payment is made there is no invoice.

    Hope this helps! Let me know if you have any further question.

    All the best,

  • labxsolutions

    It actually seems like an invoice IS automatically created if I manually add a user, with a due date of when the membership expires relative to the day I manually added them. So if I manually add someone on 11/11/14 to a yearly recurring membership, it creates an invoice for 11/11/15. It just takes a while for the invoice to show up for some reason- don't think it's cache related but could be. I'm glad it creates an invoice from the date a manually add them as I'd expect that behavior, but I'd like to be able to edit the expiration date of the membership like I can with the invoice (or tie the two so they can sync). I've already mentioned that, though, in another thread (, so I'm assuming that request will be sent along to the dev team, as being able to edit the expiration date, or tie it to a new invoice due date, would be important for those of us manually entering some existing members.

    But yes, I'd love for the issue with the content access being defaulted to the "more protected" rule on each page/post/menu item, etc. be addressed as well, so I appreciate you passing that along!

    I do see the potential in this plugin, and I'm digging the more intuitive UI. Smoothing out the bugs will help tremendously!

  • Philipp Stracker

    Thanks for pointing out an issue with the protection-level.
    However, I have just checked the plugin code and created a demo user on my installation to test the protection and it seems to work as expected for me.

    My demo-user is member of
    1. A Content-Based membership that allows access to PageA
    2. A Simple membership that denies access to PageA

    When logged in as this demo-user I have access to PageA.

    This is the correct logic and as far as I know this was working since the first release... Could you give us an example of the scenario that does not work for you?

    As of now I can confirm a bug with protecting MENU-ITEMS, everything else seems to work. Just wanting to check back with you in case I missed something...

    We'll fix the menu-item issue in the next release!

Thank NAME, for their help.

Let NAME know exactly why they deserved these points.

Gift a custom amount of points.