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
    I have every right to disagree with you Nadia (as you do with me) regardless of whether or not it suits your agenda.

    I have thoroughly disliked EVERYTHING about the MM Forums that I have experienced: the turgid response time; the time- and space-wasting layout; the infantile "Community-building Features"; and the rather sanctimonious "politically correct" tenor of the discussions.

    I simply do NOT want to see ANY of those MM features imported into the new Forums.
    March 5, 2009
    I have no idea if that was posted by a MM member or not. I'm not too versed in these forums and am learning as I'm going along.

    All he said was that he liked the idea - he didn't insist that it be part of the package.

    > The noise is drowning the contributions of those who have shown themselves able to discuss the matter objectively and calmly. Undermining and derailing the process of consultation is in the interests of nobody.

    Very true and I wholeheartedly agree, but when one person persistently keeps attacking the MM members for no reason whatsoever, how can you have objective dialogue??

    Maybe this thread and the Moderator thread should be closed and we can start over with a clean slate :-)
    Günter_Schenk
    Inspiring
    March 5, 2009
    ------
    That certainly looks like a request from an MM forum member to me
    ------

    well, that´s what I´d call a request from a *single* MM forum member then and not something you could call "coming from MM people", no ?

    However, everyone here should feel free to add a vote for or against something without feeling slagged off -- that´s the very nature of a discussion, and I do think you should allow such discussions to happen without degrading the points people make just because you don´t agree.

    I wonder if you´re aware of the fact that the agressive tone of your rants may appear pretty intimidating to other discussion participants.
    March 5, 2009
    Look, it really must be possible for these matters to be discussed without constant sniping against individuals or groups.

    What Adobe wants to hear is cogent, rational and professional responses to their proposals to change the forums.

    Any discussion on who may or may not be responsible for the proposals is of no interest whatever. Any attacks by those of one opinion against those of another opinion are of no interest whatever. Any suggestion that any individual or group should not have the right to participate in the discussion is of no interest whatever.

    The noise is drowning the contributions of those who have shown themselves able to discuss the matter objectively and calmly. Undermining and derailing the process of consultation is in the interests of nobody.
    March 5, 2009
    Nadia:

    You obviously failed to read the "Will Answers be Obvious" thread:

    http://www.adobeforums.com/webx?224@@ee6bc11@.59b7f674

    That certainly looks like a request from an MM forum member to me.
    March 5, 2009
    > so I can only assume that these requests ARE coming from MM people.

    I wasn't going to respond to any more of your posts - but for heavens sake - don't you read all the posts, or do you just skim and 'think' you know what you're talking about.

    You are assuming incorrectly. Go back over the posts and quote me one instance where a MM person requested any of things you mention.

    > One such example is the request to have check boxes to show whether a question has been answered;

    I think you'll find that *everyone* is in agreement - those checkboxes don't work. I and other MM people have said so numerous times, in this thread and the other!!

    > another has been the desire to have avatars and status bars or a count of postings; and yet another is the inclusion of the "Community Expert" titles.

    Again, please re-read the posts !!

    > We have NEVER had junk like that in the Adobe Forums previously

    And as people have tried to patiently explain to you, most of this JUNK is already incorporated into most forum software - whether it's possible not to use these features, none of us knows until the test forum is released for viewing.
    March 5, 2009
    Curt:

    We have had requests in these Discussions for features that have only existed previously in the MM Forums (but never in the Adobe Forums) so I can only assume that these requests ARE coming from MM people.

    One such example is the request to have check boxes to show whether a question has been answered; another has been the desire to have avatars and status bars or a count of postings; and yet another is the inclusion of the "Community Expert" titles.

    We have NEVER had junk like that in the Adobe Forums previously and I consider ALL of these ideas to be monumentally bad ones.
    March 5, 2009
    >Also the "content" for which they now clamour is the very same "content" that made their MM Forums so horrendously UGLY and totally unusable.

    I can put up with a lot of ugly for speed. the one thing the "other" side of the forums does NOT have, is speed. if the new forums are FAST i suspect there'll be very little complaining.
    Curt Wrigley
    Inspiring
    March 5, 2009
    Ann, Ive read it repeated to you over an over, but you dont seem to be absorbing it. This change is being made by Adobe (the same people you claim spawned the best forum on the planet), not some conspiracy from the former Macromedia folks.

    Its being done for good reasons and Im sure adobe has listened to all the input (not just the relatively few "regulars"). Please consider that these fori serving hundreds of thousands of users in several products areas might just yield a design that doesn't suit you perfectly. (or me). That doesn't necessarily mean its a bad idea.

    Its ashame that some of your good ideas are rendered moot by your persistent rants about myths you are simply creating.

    Relax.

    Curt Wrigley
    March 4, 2009
    > Yje two things above are the most important to me.

    Add a spell checker to that!