All threads show up as read.

[~graffiti]

Is the CSS on the site messed up? I'm not getting bolded text for unread threads plus "updated" isn't listed on threads that have been updated.

But some of the ones I've already visited are a little lighter blue than the others.

[Claudio González]

Do you think there will be an answer in a new thread? After all, we were asked to vote...

[~graffiti]

Curt Y wrote:

I think it is time to start a new thread as this one has been labeled "answered", and there is no answer from Adobe as to whether read tracking will be re-instated or not.

Actually, it was answered. It just wasn't fixed.

[mytaxsite]

Actually, it was answered. It just wasn't fixed.

>

I have fixed it in my own way!!! I have started using a yahoo account

and I don't need to visit the Adobe Forum ever again!!! Only the

quotation needs to be fixed.

This message posted through my email account.

[pwillener]

DWILCOX01 wrote:

I have started using a yahoo account and I don't need to visit the Adobe Forum ever again!!!

I don't think this is a "solution" for many people; I certainly don't want to start using email instead of the forum.  Even if I get email notifications for updated topics, what about new topics?

Also, the email notifications are in plain text, using certain characters to "highlight" items (e.g. *this is meant to be bold*).  These characters can interfere with links, resulting in many email reply posts "your link doesn't work".

No, the forum simply needs to be restored to its previous functionality.  (Why is it that every time someone tries to "fix" something, it actually gets worse?)

[mytaxsite]

Even if I get email notifications for updated topics, what about new

topics?

No problems. If you have subscribed to a particular Forum, then you get

everything in your box even if you have not answered that particular

message. For example, I am getting lots of messages from Dreamweaver

Forums that I have not answered before. I am fully subscribed to DW forum.

> Also, the email notifications are in plain text, using certain

characters to "highlight" items (e.g. this is meant to be bold).

I use simple text to convey the message so I haven't tried how to make

it bold. I have highlighted the word bold to see if it is in fact

bold on the web. You will tell me if it is.

> No, the forum simply needs to be restored to its previous

functionality. (Why is it that every time someone tries to "fix"

something, it actually gets worse?)

I agree the forum needs to be fixed but this will take sometime so we

need to find a way out from our predicament. Well it is known fact that

when you try to fix something, you are more likely to unfix something

else which was working previously. It follows Sod's Law or Murphy's Law.

hth

??b

[Jacob Bugge]

I agree with Claudio,

Surely, John will look here for the votes which are completely independent of the answer status. Hopefully, something will happen early next week.

[Niall_O_Donovan]

Understandably passions run high, because people care.

It is all about being part of a community. This is so evident, especially at times of terrible disasters, when there is an outpouring of genuine concern.

In more mundane issues there is the spam report thread, where everyone pulls their weight in battling the scourge.

Personally, I have not had the same problems with the "new" forums (eg logging out, extra lines, etc.) and on balance I am of the opinion that the forum is an improvement on the previous incarnation. One of the biggest improvements is still available (pheww) - the ability to include screen shots in a response. However I accept that other features have been eroded.

I have not experienced many forums, however those that I have used are not without fault. For example, Wordpress's support forum is less than perfect.

Adobe have provided the space (imperfect as it is). However it is the users that are the life force flowing through it - you and me. I suspect that it is very valuable to Adobe. The Support pages suggest that visitors should also have a look at the forums. Here, questions are answered - for free!

Like most people, I really want read tracking to be available and working again. Without it the whole process of trying to help people becomes a bigger chore. Some people may think it petty, but for me having the browser open and being able to quickly see what the updates are, makes it so much easier.

Do not expect anything and you won't be disappointed. On the other hand you might be pleasantly surprised.

Niall

[realtybiz]

Thank you for the detailed information

read tracking is equally as critical as speed

a fast site w/o it  is near useless, especially if it's busy. a slow site, is just as  useless.

[Admiral_Cook]

You should give as back option to mark forums as read and show updated threads marked in bold.

Please.

[~graffiti]

I'm assuming that at this point, we should just forget that read tracking ever existed?

[Claudio González]

~graffiti wrote:

I'm assuming that at this point, we should just forget that read tracking ever existed?

Frankly, I don't see any reason to be more optimistic than you...

[Guest]

[Claudio González]

Dave, are you also saying that this horse is dead, or am I completely misunderstanding you?

[Guest]

i guess that's implied, yes. lol! it's a representation of the phrase: 'beating a dead horse', which usually means, "nothing is going to change no matter how long you complain about it".

[~graffiti]

I still believe in beating dead horses. It teaches all the other horses a lesson.

[Guest]

lol

[Samoreen]

Hi,

I don't understand this discussion. Without Read Tracking, the forum is as slow as before. They are probably aware of this. So there's only one reasonable thing to do : re-enabling Read Tracking as a first step. The second step would be to install another software since this one has proven to be the worst forum software that most of us have ever used.

Either Adobe are interested in providing good service to their customers and they will certainly do something about this issue, or they are not and the discussion is pointless because voting will have no effect anyway.

[Jochem van Dieten]

Samoreen wrote on 11/04/07 09:23:

I don't understand this discussion. Without Read Tracking, the forum is as slow as before.

Without read tracking, the average downtime has decreased from 2% to

0.5% on a daily basis.

[Niall_O_Donovan]

Hi,

There is a difference between physical speed and the extra time that is needed due to poor usability.

From my point of view, even if turning off read tracker gives a marginal increase in speed of delivery, the end result is that it is much slower for us to actually use the forums. Whereas before I could quickly glance down the forum and see exactly what is new or updated. Now it takes longer, because I have to look at each thread.

• Read tracking on = slower forums, which are much easier to use.

• Read tracking off = marginally quicker forums, which are more difficult and slower to use.

On the 25 March we were asked to vote and this is what people have done.

Yes, there has been a lot of discussion about speed and read tracking being equally important. But to me at least it seems clear that most people have voted to have read tracking turned back on.

It would be nice to get some feedback on the vote from the Administrators. Even if a final decision has not been made, an update at least, would be appreciated.

Niall

[Claudio González]

Jochem van Dieten wrote:

Samoreen wrote on 11/04/07 09:23:

I don't understand this discussion. Without Read Tracking, the forum is as slow as before.

Without read tracking, the average downtime has decreased from 2% to

0.5% on a daily basis.

According to more or less frequent measurements I make using the seconds hand of a normal watch, average download times for pages in these forums are between 3 and 5 seconds with my setup. 2% of 5 seconds is 0.1 s, a change in download times that the great majority of users would hardly notice, if they notice it at all. On the other hand, the time I now waste checking which threads I have visited or not can be well over one minute per forum. Obviously, the marginal increase in speed gained without RT does not get anywhere near to compensate all the time I am wasting because of the absence of RT.

It would be indeed useful to know if something is being done regarding the removal of RT, or if we are just wasting even more time voting about having it back or not if there is no intention of solving this problem.

[Jochem van Dieten]

Claudio González wrote:

Jochem van Dieten wrote:

Without read tracking, the average downtime has decreased from 2% to

0.5% on a daily basis.

According to more or less frequent measurements I make using the seconds hand of a normal watch, average download times for pages in these forums are between 3 and 5 seconds with my setup. 2% of 5 seconds is 0.1 s, a change in download times that the great majority of users would hardly notice

downtime != download time

And I am not talking about anecdotal statistics that one person creates  by downloading occasionally from one location using one system either. I  am talking about 24/7 measurements from 5 different geographical  locations on 3 different continents.

Message was edited by Jochem van Dieten

[Harbs.]

Jochem,

Your response did not come through...

Harbs

[Claudio González]

I see that I completely misread and misunderstood your original sentence, for which I apologize.

Do you happen to have similar measurements of downolad times?

[Jochem van Dieten]

Claudio González wrote on 11/04/07 15:02:

Do you happen to have similar measurements of downolad times?

I wouldn't even know how to properly define download times. Time until

the first byte? Time until the last byte? But is that the last byte of

the first document or the last one? With or without caching? Do the

extra requests that are delayed to fill all the additional widgets count

or not?

BTW, the criterion for down that was used was "first byte takes longer

than 8 seconds". That 8 seconds was taken from the DW manual as the time

people are willing to wait before they move on and was about 4 times the

average time to the first byte.

[Niall_O_Donovan]

Thanks Jochem for the information!!!

It really does clarify the criteria that is being used and discussed here. It is new to me, so bear with me, as a try to get a scale on it. 

As I understand it, if RT is turned on, it is likely that the downtime would be 2%. Which means that for approximately 30 minutes spread throughout a 24-hour period, visitors may have to wait longer than 8 seconds for the first byte to load.  I fully except that the actually time for the first byte may be well in excess of 8 seconds.

With RT off, the downtime may be as low as 0.5% or 7 minutes spread throughout the day.

Globally speaking, given that people are not on the forums 24/7, it is likely that visitor's won't be always exposed to a downtime, even at 2% downtime.

As a contributor to these forums, waiting more than 8 seconds for someone else's question to fully load is the thin end of the wedge. I spend a lot, lot longer answering questions, preparing screenshots, copying code snippets and preparing samples for visitors to the forums.

If someone (who has a burning question that they know will get answered) can't wait 8 or more seconds to ask it, then why should I care.

As an example of time expended, this morning I spent a few minutes just looking through my emails to find a thread from over a year ago. This is because the forum search isn't working. I found it, went to the thread, copied the link and responded to the user. Due to the round trip in answering the question, it took me longer than the person took in originally asking the question. Still, at least they went away happy.

If a visitor is asking one or two questions, then maybe RT is not important to them. They know their question and can easily track it. Some visitors don't even seem to come back to the forums, as they will have got their answer by email. However because I am participating in multiple threads, the process without RT just adds more time.

John, lest there be any doubt, I vote for RT to be turned back on.

Thanks,

Niall