More space for private messages?

[John Hawkinson]

(I hope this isn't a forum etiquette violation)

Can I request more space for private messages?  Thanks!

[Jacob Bugge]

One great advantage of keeping the PMs live is that they are live and can be forwarded and replied to at any time in the future.

So I am for an increase in space, for all or for those of us in need.

Currently, I am at 122, having deleted all those no longer relevant. Just before it started to really hurt last time, John saved me/us, and we all went from 100 to 150. The oldest one kept is two years old less two days, in other words from the second month of their existence.

[Noel Carboni]

What an unexpected concept (filling the PM box to prevent people from sending one successfully)!  Are folks doing this trying to be both polite and rude at the same time?  I hope they realize that's impossible.

That a count increase would make filling one's own PM box to overflowing on purpose more difficult has to be the least valid reason for opposing a message count increase I could imagine.

If you're unwilling to deal with PMs, perhaps a better strategy might be to just ignore the PM indicator.   Everyone knows participation here is voluntary.  No one's twisting anyone's arm to read a PM, or even to be here at all.

If my opinion on this offends you, I'm sorry.

-Noel

[Phillip M Jones]

I do ignore it. Rather than fill it up just prefer to have a switch that activate PM that switch to Deactivate PM. For myself I would deactivate it.

[Jochem van Dieten]

Noel Carboni wrote:

What an unexpected concept (filling the PM box to prevent people from sending one successfully)!  Are folks doing this trying to be both polite and rude at the same time?

If a company has a fax number published, would you it be better for them to leave the fax connected in some broom closet that nobody ever enters without any paper in it, or to just unplug the fax?

Obviously the best solution would be to stop advertising the PM functionality for people that do not want to deal with PMs, but in the absence of that option the ability to make sure the sender gets an immediate error is the second best solution.

[Noel Carboni]

Obviously it would be better to be able to throw a switch that would make the "Send a PM" functionality disappear.  But such a switch is nonexistent at the moment.

In my mind, a recipient risks coming off looking too lazy or disorganized to keep his/her incoming message box clean if the box is forced (and left) full.

It's kind of the difference between leaving a message on a machine and getting a busy signal.  You could say the latter is better, because it immediately lets the sender know you're not available, but it also throws the responsibility back to them to contact you another way...  If you really don't want to deal with someone privately, what better way to get them to go silent than to think they've left you a message and to think they've had the last word?  Give them an immediate "busy signal" and they're far more likely to seek other ways to contact you.

And hey, PM traffic isn't exactly evil by definition, as some people are making it out to be.  Are you getting scathing PMs you'd rather not see?  How does a Mod contact you privately if he/she wants?  Don't you feel some responsibility to particpate fully at the forum? 

Blasting messages at yourself to clog up a forum feature sounds almost like abuse to me.

-Noel

[John Hawkinson]

Can't everyone take a step back and be just a bit nicer to John C.? Thanks.

[Phillip M Jones]

John C.  is Not the Problem, he is just as just as Frustrated as we are.  he is the lone person they put on on a limb to get beat up and take the punishment for the pople higher up than him that don't a rats a**.

One of these days it wil all come crashing down and they are going to wonder what happened. Then a light will come on and OH, we treated our customers like dirt.

[Claudio González]

John Hawkinson wrote:

Can't everyone take a step back and be just a bit nicer to John C.? Thanks.

I may be more dumb than my usual, but I don't seem to have seen anyone being nasty with JC. Which would be a grossly unfair thing to do, and not backed by many, if anyone.

[Phillip M Jones]

Claudio González wrote:

John Hawkinson wrote:

Can't everyone take a step back and be just a bit nicer to John C.? Thanks.

I may be more dumb than my usual, but I don't seem to have seen anyone being nasty with JC. Which would be a grossly unfair thing to do, and not backed by many, if anyone.

I add mine to Caudio's. J.C can only do what he is allowed to do. The people at fault are over him.

His is a tough job not to be envied.

[Noel Carboni]

John Hawkinson wrote:

Can't everyone take a step back and be just a bit nicer to John C.? Thanks.

Not sure where that came from.  Maybe another thread.

I think this place is run rather well, frankly.

-Noel

[adobe-admin]

Thanks, folks!

John was referring to a discussion I was having with him where I said I tend to stay more behind the scenes in these forums than I did previously. They are quite frustrating at times.

John

[John Hawkinson]

No, actually, I was referring to the 'forum software' thread.

[Claudio González]

John Hawkinson wrote:

No, actually, I was referring to the 'forum software' thread.

I have just taken a look at that forum. I didn't notice anyone blaming JC for Adobe's faults there either...

[the_wine_snob]

John,

But your great work continues, and for that, you have the THANKS of all here!

Good luck, and keep the faith,

Hunt

[Jacob Bugge]

I have sent two unmistakable PMs that remained unanswered, one expressing support/agreement, the other expressing acknowledgement/appreciation.

My assumption is that the receivers had decided from the start never to read and/or answer PMs. Apart from that, a PM may go unnoticed for a long time, unless a mail is sent to tell about it.

As with the threads, there is no obligation to answer anything.

[Claudio González]

Jacob, I always receive a warning email when I am sent a new PM...

[Jacob Bugge]

So do I, Claudio (I thought you could disable it, but I cannot see how, now); but that may slip, too (drowned in the steady flow and maybe even deleted with spam mails); and the marking here in the forum is rather faint. I have had a few overlooked ones that I discovered after a week aor more.

[the_wine_snob]

There are a few Adobe employees, in certain product forums, who do not bother with their PM's. At the same time, they DO, however, publish their POP addresses, where applicable, and answer those.

I still try to answer my PM's, and so far it works, if I remember to clean out the InBox.

As for my business FAX, I take Jochem's suggestion, and just do not put paper in it, as all I get now are vacation alerts, medical insurance and FAX'es for solar panels, as about 15 years ago, my FAX number belonged to a solar panel service, and suppliers will just not remove the number...

Hunt