Skip to main content
February 28, 2009
Question

The Big Picture

  • February 28, 2009
  • 234 replies
  • 17551 views
I think what is not being understood by some participants in these discussion is the scale of change which will follow the transition to the new forums.

Have a look at http://www.jivesoftware.com/products/clearspace-community and you'll see that the purpose of the Clearspace Community software goes way beyond the objectives that might be deduced of the current forums and their underlying software.

My personal take on things is that Adobe have decided that the whole style of the user interactions and community here is no longer appropriate to their corporate needs. There was a time when provision of a support forum was not seen as much related to the main thrust of company objectives, but those days have gone. Online communities are now one of the chief means of interaction between a corporation and its customers - and it's a two way channel. Interaction between those customers is also facilitated by within the online community but that's not necessarily deemed to be the key objective.

The forthcoming change represents, sadly, the end of this community and the creation of a new and very different one. The functional elements and the look and feel of their presentation in the Jive software are carefully designed to foster a particular style of interaction between users of Adobe software, and beween the users and the company. The functions and form are designed for an over-riding purpose and to support an overarching communications philosophy, not thrown in upon a whim.

It seems very clear to me that Adobe expects that the new community will have a significantly different flavour to the old, and that they will have anticipated that not all of the present members of this (and the Macromedia) communities will feel at home in the new one. There's no need to warn Adobe that some people will be unhappy enough not to return - they will have accepted that risk at the outset.

While there will be an inevitable loss of expertise, and it will be sad to see the last of some regular participants here, it seems clear to me that Adobe are hoping that the new style of community (moulded by the software they have chosen to create it) will bring in new members who may well have considerable expertise in the products, but who have not felt encouraged to participate in the style of community we have here now. The company will also be hoping that those newly requiring support will find the new site to be more effective and simpler to use than the old, and that the site will enable the company image and the strengths and usage of the product lines to be put across more clearly.

That, as I see it, is the big picture. There's not much point in discussing the points of detail unless in the context of the overall company objectives in making these changes - and if you disagree with the whole underlying premise of the changes, then there's little chance that you'll like much of the detail either.
    This topic has been closed for replies.

    234 replies

    March 5, 2009
    >No Negative Ratings Allowed is easily circumvented by giving positive ratings to messages posted in bad faith just to contradict the correct solution given.

    yeeeeeaaa, i suppose that might work to game the system... what would be the point of that though other than to be an #ss-h$$e? we have to deal with them now, but, i don't think that slim chance outweighs the good that could come of lots of people marking an answer as "good".

    if you have 10 answers with 1 "good" mark next to them in a thread, and then one answer that has 100, which one are you likely to try?
    Ramón G Castañeda
    Inspiring
    March 5, 2009
    Anyway, I was just stating my personal position, not encouraging others. For me the issue is set in stone. I won't change my mind.

    If rating is allowed, I'll just be one of the contributors Adobe already counts on losing. Not a big deal for anybody.
    Ramón G Castañeda
    Inspiring
    March 5, 2009
    dave,

    You're being simplistic. No Negative Ratings Allowed is easily circumvented by giving positive ratings to messages posted in bad faith just to contradict the correct solution given. It amounts to the very same thing in the end.
    March 5, 2009
    >And how do you know who rated what? What are the rater's qualifications.

    you don't. but if there's a bad rating (as in wrong, not negative), just like now where someone posts "good answer" to some way wrong advice, you go to a moderator, or come here to FCA to have someone fix that? i don't see what's so hard about that, or different from what we do now...
    March 5, 2009
    >because the s.o.b. would give negative ratings to everyone with whom he has a beef, and he'd give good ratings to garbage answers on purpose.

    it can be set so that NO NEGATIVE RATINGS ALLOWED? or did you miss that the four times i posted that before this?
    Ramón G Castañeda
    Inspiring
    March 5, 2009
    And how do you know who rated what? What are the rater's qualifications.

    To me, rating answers is not only a bad idea, it's asinine. Check the Apple boards.
    Ramón G Castañeda
    Inspiring
    March 5, 2009
    >you can't very well ban before they've done something bannable... can you?

    but you can prevent them from rating answers by preventing everybody from doing that.
    Ramón G Castañeda
    Inspiring
    March 5, 2009
    >how could that (example) person harm anyone?

    because the s.o.b. would give negative ratings to everyone with whom he has a beef, and he'd give good ratings to garbage answers on purpose.
    March 5, 2009
    > Banning after the fact fixes nothing.

    you can't very well ban before they've done something bannable... can you? :o
    Ramón G Castañeda
    Inspiring
    March 5, 2009
    Banning after the fact fixes nothing.

    To me it's a very clear cut decision: if rating is allowed, I'm out, period. It's one of the main reasons I stay away from the Apple boards.