One thing that confuses me about these new forums...

Given that one of the reasons this forum software was picked was supposedly "high usage volume by the Adobe community." (Is this true?)

Isn't it a little odd that something with all these bloatware features (and JavaScript on the front end) .....actually won the competition???

I mean, if performance was a top priority, shouldn't we have lost features rather than gain dozens (of crummy features)?

I don't buy that argument at all. (Assuming I'm correctly informed that Adobe had a hard time searching for software, due to the high usage level of the forums.)

Whoever did the evaluations of which software to use, I'm sure was looking for "fancy features" as a top priority, not performance.  I'd also be very curious to know what the rejected alternatives were.