The Big Picture

Bruce Chizen had the good fortune of leaving Adobe after realizing the monumental overpayment and blunder involved in the MacroMedia merger. Hit and run.

> Ozpeter, who started this thread may be a delightful individual and an excellent host in the Photography Forum but he came this way via the Adobe take-over of Scintillium; is a sound-recording engineer by profession; and, as far as I know, has scant knowledge or experience of Professional Graphic Arts software;

Guilty! (I would add that I am far more active as a host in the Lounge and Audition forums than in the Photography forum). But I believe I have a contribution to make in this discussion based on substantial experience in a number of online communities, and the experience I have of being part of a very happy Syntrillium community which was forced to become part of this equally happy but radically different Adobe community is, I think, relevant to the present situation.

> In other words, as failed non-entities, their opinions should be discounted entirely.

That's so bizarre as to be not worth further discussion. Wild statements of that kind do not lend credence to the person expressing them - which is a pity, as I would like to feel that Ann's views will continue to be at least considered in all this.

> I wonder how much trouble it would be to setup an Adobe products group outside of Adobe.

That's exactly what some of the Syntrillium forum members did, as they personally felt that this forum did not suit them. It is warmly regarded by Adobe as another good place from which to get advice and assistance on Audition-related matters. There's also the close relationship between the official Premiere Elements forums and the unofficial one which is operated by some of the hosts there - they frequently refer people from here to there when relevant, and Adobe has no problem with that at all. Consequently, if the changes here motivate some people to set up one or more independent forums configured to their liking, I would expect Adobe to be untroubled about that, and indeed insofar as possible, supportive.

> There might be more constructive input (less ranting) if a sample forum with the new style and options was setup, rather than everyone guessing based on past history and the tidbits that have come out. Adobe might actually find some useful suggestions in such a case.

That's coming, we've been told. And it will reflect some but not necessarily all of the views expressed in these discussions. It will give rise to further comments (many, many comments...) and where those comments are intelligently, constructively and rationally presented I am sure they will be carefully considered.

However, as the title of this discussion is intended to convey, sometimes it will not be possible to change some aspects of the form and function of the new forums, simply because certain elements are necessary to fulfil the overall Big Picture objectives - which I may or may not have correctly interpreted, but let's not lose sight of the fact that there's a Big Picture of some kind involved in this.

Failed nonentities? Thank you. You've given me the biggest laugh in years. When Adobe announced its planned acquisition of Macromedia, CEO Bruce Chizen was asked what was the primary motivation behind the acquisition. He gave a one-word answer: Flash. (http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article.cfm?articleid=1399).

Who is Adobe's Chief Technology Officer? Kevin Lynch of Macromedia.

What is the main focus each year of MAX, the flagship Adobe conference? Flash.

Macromedia had technology that Adobe had failed to develop successfully itself, so it went out and bought it.

Sure Adobe has some brilliant products in its original line-up: Photoshop, Illustrator, InDesign. But your knowledge of the expanded Adobe and the direction in which it's heading is woefully off the mark.

Re: #20:

Exactly, Jacob.

What appears to be happening now is that people who have little knowledge or experience in the use of the original ADOBE applications; or of the more than ten-years of successful operation of the exemplary ADOBE User to User Forums; are attempting to force their NNTP infested Macromedia (MicroEffective) environment on the rest of us.

The attitude of the MM Forum so-called ACEs who have posted in these threads illuminates perfectly why I have avoided their Forums like the plague because a visit guarantees a perfectly horrible and frustrating experience.

Ozpeter, who started this thread may be a delightful individual and an excellent host in the Photography Forum but he came this way via the Adobe take-over of Scintillium; is a sound-recording engineer by profession; and, as far as I know, has scant knowledge or experience of Professional Graphic Arts software; or of the established and highly esteemed reputation of the genuine ADOBE Forums.

Macromedia was bought-out by Adobe.

MM has ceased to exist as a separate entity, and their former Forums are generally deemed to be an abject failure, so why are the opinions of their former personnel and Forum operators even being considered?

In other words, as failed non-entities, their opinions should be discounted entirely.

The ideal situation for me is the email notice I receive about the newest post on topics. I click the link within that email post and read just the latest comments. I don't have to deal with sort through directories of different newsgroups. and the sort through the topics that have new replies.

I only read the latest post on, only the groups to which I am subscribed. If they retain that Then I don't care what it look like.

Try 99999 messages per page, and expect 1/2500 of them.

Some great things about the appearance of the forums and the threads, which could still be great if you could at least choose to work within a simplified version:

b In the forums:
Seeing just the topic titles, aided by the flagging, gives the ultimate efficiency: you can pick the relevant threads at a glance, and you can run through the topics over the last few days, or much more depending on activity, so nothing slips if you visit regularly. About 40 topics visible at the time is probably the rule.

b In the threads:
The one line post headings also give the ultimate efficiency: you can read the posts with minimum distraction, and you can archive threads using a minimum of space. Information about the poster is only one click away.

If you read some of John's comments about the last time around, it is clear he felt he was fighting a brick wall. A lot of what he was trying to do would probably have been a success, but he was battling the powers that be that wanted something different. At least that is my take on what he mentioned.

He has tried to be informative, posting a sample screen shot of a page as it might look. That example is the basis for many of the concerns over space and such. Giving the option for setting the display to allow avatars or not, a simply format as here or a fancy layout, and many other display options. They would be simple to set in the preferences as are threaded messages and such in the sample forums that have been pointed to. There might be more constructive input (less ranting) if a sample forum with the new style and options was setup, rather than everyone guessing based on past history and the tidbits that have come out. Adobe might actually find some useful suggestions in such a case.

Some of my recent post appear to be rants. And to some degree that might be. It more directed out of the two sign in fiasco's we had the last 2 times they tried merging system.

I'm not a particular fan of the Macromedia design of the DreamWeaver newsgroup. I was once a poster to and still might be able to if I knew my Username and password. But the group was difficult to read because of all the dark Gray and the slowness of the design.

If they can just get transition to what ever new system that happens without having to sign in every day, or sign in with every post; I can deal with what ever design that comes along.

AS for my post about avatars. It was just to try to explain That avatars are no big deal and depending upon they way they are handled don't necessarily have to take up much screen space or for that matter Server space. I recently, posted an example in which the file was 72dpi, about 1x!" and only 8K. Some people have an aversion to avatars. No group that I am on demands that I use an avatar.

Finally, people have been fussing about under certain peoples name a 3 letter title is given so that people know that they have more knowledge than some. we are talking about at minimum 3 letters and at most 3 words. People can make of titles, what they want. Just because you have a Title doesn't necessarily special. I worked in a school system for almost 18 years. I found out the people that had, and were impressed with titles often didn't have horse sense enough to know to put an umbrella over their head when it was raining, and thought they were above anyone else. Other that had the same titles just give it the value it really was, Just a piece of paper, to let people know they went through some training. It didn't change who they were or, how they interacted with people.

So you can take what I just wrote worth a grain of salt. But, much of the recent conflict on the groups. is much ado about nothing. Just an expression of our fears (And I'll admit yes, my own as well).

I have the default settings. Just checked, and it should show a maximum of 36 messages a page, but I get no more than five, sometimes as few as two.

I've taken a look at the other thread. I was very impressed with John Cornicello's detailed explanation of the planned features Forums Operations, "Just one question about basic performance" #14, 13 Feb 2009 3:45 pm. All this business about "the end of user to user forums" is nonsense. It sounds like John is doing his level best to create a system that will attract new users without destroying everything that has gone before.

It should be possible to see about 40 at a time, using First/Next; it may be necessary to set the number of posts to the maximum in the preferences.

If you look through the lot you will find many serious and constructive posts by every poster with occasional posts that may be seen as rants.

And there is more than just guesswork and fear, as can be seen from this thread, with a rather explicit confirmation, concentrated within the first 5 posts and further elaborated later:

Forums Operations, "Just one question about basic performance" #1, 12 Feb 2009 9:17 am