We have a brand new look! Take a tour with us and explore the latest updates on Adobe Support Community.
It seems that, starting today (or quite recently), when you try to save a thread as a web page, for an archive or similar, the page is no longer saved by the title of the thread, but by the number.
This means that the meaningful reference, which makes it possible to know and use the saved thread, is replaced by a meaningless number.
Please undo the undoing of meaningful references, John.
I’m not aware of any changes in the system. Can you give me the steps to reproduce?
When you use (the equivalent of) File>Save Page As (by which you can save the page in different formats, including Web Page, complete with basically the same appearance when you open it so you can recognize it), you get the number of the thread, in this case 923465, as the name of the web page. This number is obviously useless as a key to recognizing, and using, the saved web page.
Earlier, the actual name of the thread constituted the name of the web page, for this thread it would have been Adobe Forums - Reference destruction.htm which would be immediately recognizable and usable (I have some 9.000 of them, the archive started many years ago when I realized that every thread would fall into the abyss (I reposted in quite a few from time to time, to keep them alive), long before I even knew about this forum).
Rather than File>Save Page As, the quick way to save is/was to use a shortcut, Alt/Option+F+A, before returning to the forum.
Thank you for looking into this, John.
Sorry, you are right, John: no change in the forums.
I just realized that it must be a change with the new Firefox 8.
I hope someone has a clue how to get the earlier save name back.
First, it appears File - Save As within IE9 currently yields a default filename that's apparently derived from the page title. For example, this thread yields a default filename of "Adobe Forums Reference destruction.mht".
Is this same page title the one you're seeing within Firefox?
Second, it's an interesting strategy you're following, saving threads as local files... I guess you must feel the history of the forum online will at some point become unavailable?
Generally speaking, most folks tacitly assume that things they can get to online today will remain online from now on. Of course, that's not a given by any means, but it's just not something most think about. I can, for example, easily find a post I made in 2010 via Google or the forum search. It doesn't cross my mind to save a local copy just so I'll have it in case I can no longer do that.
On the other hand, a lot of information is dated - e.g., specific information about what computer to buy or how to use a particular version of a program - and may not remain useful forever. Saving things locally implies one needs a strategy for culling it. I have, for example, things in my Downloads folder tree that are no longer practically useful. Occasionally I have to delete that stuff or it all just accumulates and uses up resources and becomes difficult to look through.
Very interesting thoughts indeed.
The earlier version of FF worked the same way as IE (both past and present), but someone has changed something in the new FF8; in short: no. I just see the number of the thread.
I have posted the issue in the FF support forum, but, at least until now, no one else has reported this or given any answer.
In the days of the fair forums, the threads were archived after a while, and thereby doomed, later to fall into the abyss.
Just try a search wherever for "Do old posts just die", the thread I started when I realized the treat, in November 2004 (you will only find a reference to it).
Even before that I had archived special treads (regretfully, some priceless ones were lost forever), and after that I decided to save what should be saved. Unfortunately, I never got any FAQ saved before the change.
In the days of these forums, the threads will be kept (archived) forever, or until the next big one, or until someone decides to dump old threads anyway, or until the days of these forums are over.
So based upon the eventuality (in either old/new sense) of threads disappearing, I have continued. With subfolders based on subjects it is possible to search for specific titles or browse related threads. Once upon a time I considered uploading the lot, but that is too late now.
Thank you for your concern.
I specifically asked whether Firefox 8 puts up the name of the thread in the page title. But no matter - I just updated Firefox and checked for myself. The title is as expected here. When I do a File - Save Page As, the defuault for me comes up with something like 923465.htm or photoshop_windows.htm (depending on where I am).
What's up with all these major versions of Firefox, anyway? It's only been months with 7, and months before that with 6, etc. Seems awfully frenetic.
Ah, now I understand the question, Noel (easy when you give the answer).
Another issue is a great drain of resources, starving other applications.
For the first time I consider using IE for the forums (I have it installed and in use for certain other things).
I'm pretty happy with IE9 overall. I run IE9 64 bit almost exclusively.
IE offers a security model which suits me: I have it turned the settings down so it won't run active stuff from any site in the "Internet Zone", but only for sites in my "Trusted Sites" zone, which I only VERY rarely add a site to.
Voila, a greatly reduced chance of running malware, and this strategy even blocks many ads. The downside? I don't always see all the glitz. If I occasionally DO want to see glitz, I just run Safari, which can't run ActiveX anyway.
I've found freeware that adds back the separate search box, as well as the title in the title bar and the status information, so there's little not to love. Plus I think it's just about the fastest browser around at this point.
Noel Carboni wrote:
Plus I think it's just about the fastest browser around at this point.
I've just been testing this forum a bit with the IE10 x64 preview that's part of the Windows 8 Developer Preview package. Even though I'm running it in a VM, it actually seems a bit snappier still than IE9 running native on my host system. I'm impressed. This site seems to work all the better with it, which is doubly impressive.