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
    yea, i know who you mean, but again, no down ratings possible by forum users. how could that (example) person harm anyone?
    Ramón G Castañeda
    Inspiring
    March 5, 2009
    You may not have witnessed this particular poster on the Windows side, but a despicable poster using the ID J_W_1000, regularly put down experts like Bruce Fraser, Jeff Schewe and Chris Cox.
    March 5, 2009
    but again, what if there were no way to mod someone down? only marked as helpful or as a frequent contributor?

    >because of the inevitable abuse of the rating system by the type of posters that led you to write the afPlonk! script.

    I noted in another thread (maybe you haven't gotten to it yet) that it is possible to ban specific users in the new sw. if adobe doesn't implement it, i'll write a greasemonkey script that will. :)
    Ramón G Castañeda
    Inspiring
    March 5, 2009
    To put it another way: because of the inevitable abuse of the rating system by the type of posters that led you to write the afPlonk! script.
    Ramón G Castañeda
    Inspiring
    March 5, 2009
    >why

    For the reasons discussed in other threads already. E.g.:

    Ann Shelbourne - 11:08am Mar 5, 09 PST (#37 of 41)

    Big Brother is a reality and will be tracking us through "Clearspace" and our "reputations" will be affected by the manner that some moronic and spiteful forum visitor who didn't get the answer he wanted, cares to "rate" us?

    [ We do get a number of people like that in the Forums unfortunately!]

    Do any of us really want to contribute to these Forums any longer under those conditions?


    My answer to that last question is a clear no, I dont.
    March 5, 2009
    but i agree that if it marks "THEE" one and only "ANSWER" to the question, that sounds like a problem.

    from what i've read, i think we can get the former scenario working.
    March 5, 2009
    if the system marks "A" good answer as opposed to "THE" one and only "ANSWER" then i'm ok with that. like Harbs said:

    >There could easily be 5 or 10 useful posts in a single thread.

    nothing wrong with marking them as such so they can be quick picked out of a thread that's dozens or hundreds of posts long.
    March 5, 2009
    why?
    Ramón G Castañeda
    Inspiring
    March 5, 2009
    If rating answers is allowed, that's a deal killer for me.
    Harbs.
    Legend
    March 5, 2009
    What I don't understand about rating answers (whether or not they should exist), is why is it the "privilege" of the original poster to decide whether a post is helpful or not?

    Very often, a thread can have many people all experiencing the same problem. Someone might find a useful answer in a post without even posting anything themselves.

    If there will be an option for marking an answer helpful, it should be possible for anyone to mark a post helpful, and it should not be limited to a certain number of answers. There could easily be 5 or 10 useful posts in a single thread. There can simply be a number next to a post indicating how many people found a post useful.

    I see three purposes for the ability to mark a post useful.

    1) It's an easy way to find relevant posts amongst a lot of fluff, or friendly (or not so friendly) banter.
    2) I think it's an easy way to say "thank you" to someone for posting something helpful without cluttering the forums with extra posts.
    3) It could help narrow down results in the search engine.