What About Moderators in the New Forum?

Report · Feb 17, 2009

Read the spam thread for awhile and you will see that moderation works well in these webx forums

You will also see messages concerning the LACK of moderation over in the cfusion side of things

Will the new forum software/structure allow for "this" moderation to continue, or will it fall away to "that" style of non-moderation?

Report · Feb 28, 2009

"We still object to the pretense of the title"

What pretense - the title was given out Adobe, so why shouldn't we be able to use it. It most certainly instills a sense of trust in the newbie posters.

Other forums I participate in use titles of one sort or another: Mentors, Advisors, Leaders... people whom the community as a whole can trust.

As a few here have stated they never visited the old MM forums, either via web or NNTP, and probably won't even when the forums are combined. So why worry about 'titles' if you aren't even going to be there to see them. If you don't want a title, so be it - if others do, that's their perogative surely.

Report · Feb 28, 2009

A lot of the point on titles, avatars, and other items can easily be handled by preferences if the software has such options (would be nice). The concern is that the preferences will not provide such options and the forums will look just like the last time they made the change - ugly and time consuming.

If options for different layouts are available in many of these forums, including reply buttons and threaded messages, it is surprising that all of the other requests can not be made into preferences. That way everyone is happy with the layout and look they like. Speed may be a different issue if a lot of preferences are available. However, avatars and other items will slow down the forum at least some, though possibly only a little. For folks like me, I don't want to see avatars and a lot of the other stuff that wastes space. Give me the options and I am happy.

Report · Feb 28, 2009

> some drive-by posters give brilliant advice without the need for a tag. And bad advice is soon jumped on by those who do know what they are talking about!

No one doubts that excellent advice is given by all sorts of people. However, bad advice doesn't always get jumped on - at least not in the Dreamweaver forums, which have a very high volume of posts. Unlike "hosts" in the Adobe forums, Community Experts in the former MM forums don't act as moderators. We're there to participate in the discussion on equal terms with everyone else, but our special relationship with Adobe makes it easier to escalate problems to the relevant Adobe manager. For example, the other day I alerted the Dreamweaver QE team about a potential conflict with the beta of Safari 4. An engineer is now working with the person who first reported the problem. Dreamweaver incorporates a version of the WebKit engine that also runs Safari, so this has potential implications not just for one individual, but anyone who uses the program.

> Knowing the application itself is only part of it.

It's also only part of being recognized as a Community Expert.

This antagonism towards a title that Adobe has chosen to give certain people sounds like inverse snobbery tinged perhaps with a hint of jealousy. It has never caused problems on the former Macromedia side. Originally, there were unpaid Evangelists. That system was later transformed into Team Macromedia, and subsequently became Adobe Community Experts. But let's get it straight: this isn't just a former Macromedia thing: there are many Community Experts who represent Photoshop, InDesign, Illustrator, Acrobat, and other programs from the original Adobe lineup.

Community Experts receive certain benefits from Adobe (http://www.adobe.com/communities/experts/faq.html). So, I think it's better to be open about our relationship with Adobe. Some people think we're Adobe stooges. We're not: a lot of vigorous debate goes on between Community Experts and Adobe officials. Whether you trust us or not is up to you, but at least you'll know who we are. You might also find out that a lot of people you have been slagging off as a group turn out to be the very experts you already look up to in the forums.

Public identification also means a Community Expert is likely to be more careful in the advice he or she posts online. But we all make mistakes from time to time. When somebody points out an error in one of my posts or suggests a better way of doing something, that's fine by me. I post a public acknowledgment, thanking the person for putting me straight.

Report · Feb 28, 2009

Thank you David for your posts. I have to say, the hostility towards Macromedia, and Adobe Community Experts has shocked me. I don't really care about the former because I never used the Macromedia webforums in the first place, but the latter is certainly a bit offputting,especially given the fact that it's an ADOBE program and a title awarded by ADOBE in recognition of product excellence. And to tell you the truth, I'd bet money on your ability to stand up to any other person, Community Expert or not, in your awarded area (Dreamweaver). So, what's the deal with this criticism? I don't get it....

I have to say that in the time I have been an Adobe Community Expert (and before that a Team Macromedia member, and before that a Dreamweaver Evangelist), the attitude you describe above is the *only* one I have encountered whenever I see such posts, and it's certainly one that I hold as a personal obligation of the title. I'd love to see cited examples where this is not the case.

Now AVATARS? Well, that's surely something to spend a lot of time worrying about.

Report · Feb 28, 2009

Very well said David, I wanted to get across the exact points you mention in your post - but you said is so much better :-)

Report · Feb 28, 2009

I am neither hostile nor jealous. If Adobe offered me a fancy title I would decline it.

I just think it smacks of a high school mentality (and an inferiority complex).

Report · Feb 28, 2009

So the "Adobe Community Expert" title was dreamt-up as a sop to the MM "Evangelists" when Adobe took over MM (and their lousy programs!) and by God they are going to fight tooth and nail to keep their precious titles.

The pomposity, self-justification and conceit of those so-called "Experts" (as displayed so clearly in their recent postings) totally confirms everything that I had always assumed about them!

Report · Feb 28, 2009

> the hostility towards Macromedia, and Adobe Community Experts has shocked me.

The question is, why is it so important to you that you get your little badges?

> The pomposity, self-justification and conceit of those so-called "Experts"

I agree completely. And if you think that is about hostility towards MM you are dead wrong. It is about "pomposity, self-justification and conceit" and it will not be received well.

Hear about the guy who got a humility award and then got it taken away for wearing it?

Report · Feb 28, 2009

> DAMMIT PHIL!

>You shouldn't have posted either of your messages #85 & 86.

>The claims you make are COMPLETELY ill-informed, on almost all counts.

>You have bigger problems than the occasional typo or grammatical errors, and that is not knowing what the heck you're talking about half the time in here.

Look I work with images all the time. I kept up a website for my Electronics association for more than 10 years.

I have my own website.

I do in fact know something about images. I do know that Jpeg images are the most content rich and therefore one of the largest size graphics types. gif is one of the least, but takes out the most detail. I know animated gif increase the size because it has more than one still image embedded into the image that is repeated in sequence to create the animation. The most ideal in .png it can be used over more platforms.

I and I do know about using Tables. Because used them a lot in my Electronics Organization's website. I employee them in my own website.

I've always had problems with spelling and proofreading all my life. Its just one of many flaws I have. I am not perfect, never, have been, never will be. And would scared to death to be in front of someone that claims they are.

Report · Feb 28, 2009

Regardless of names or titles or sigs or anything else that people choose to use, the folks from the experts group have been invited to come over here to help participate in the development of the new forums... something that we're all in together.

I can appreciate that folks that have been part of the Adobe forums for years now feel protective of them. But, no matter what opinions have of any of it, the forums are going to change. The question is... are we going to work together and make the best of it or are we going to continue squabbling over stuff that, in the end, won't hardly matter at all?

I can pretty much guarantee that it's going to take all of our positive energy pulling together to create a positive change that will work for everyone. And, I can equally guarantee that if people don't get over their personal list of gotta have's and start helping to realistically figure what's possible, that you will be responsible for having chosen to make the process more difficult then it needs to be.

There are many ways that conceit can be defined. Hanging a tag on someone doesn't make it so, nor does lack of one. One definition of conceit, to me, is insisting that things have to be your way, regardless of what might be possible or practical. People who can't compromise may as well head out the door now, so those that want to work together can get on with the task at hand.

Report · Feb 28, 2009

Thanks to you, too, Dorothy, for telling us the practical stuff.

As I recall, I haven't seen anyone either insisting that the Adobe Community Expert titles be shown in the forum, or that they remain as a program. Nobody is "hanging on to them". I have only seen people disparage the title, complain about them being shown, and belittle the people who are so designated by Adobe. Personally, I don't care one bit about the title. My concern is the loss of NNTP access. Period. But I will defend the Community Expert program when it is attacked as it has been.

Nevertheless, in the interest of progress, I will close my case on this, as I already have on the loss of NNTP. So be it. As long as Adobe sees fit to recognize my contribution to the product and the community, I will accept it with thanks, no matter what form or title it takes.

Report · Feb 28, 2009

Exactly.

All my contributions to the conversation is about the use of avatars. If you (adobe) doesn't want to add them. Fine We've gone through the years without them. I was just show and and explaining they don't take up that much room. and if you don't add one it should add any additional space to your post.

I am more concerned over the overall look of the Forums. Of all the forums I go to Adobe's current version has the best look and feel and the next are the use the PHPbb format.

But what I am most worry about is in past attempts there have been an outright Mangling of the cookies making if not outright impossible, down right aggravating to get in. I know what the last two attempts were like. So I don't wish to have to go through the ordeal again.

I say these comments not as some so called expert or genius, I am neither. But as a Long time user and commenter or even helper. That wish to for a long time to come.

Report · Feb 28, 2009

>People who can't compromise may as well head out the door now, so those that want to work together can get on with the task at hand.

Dorothy:

YOUR attitude is exactly the reason that many of us WILL decide to "head out the door" permanently.

Adobe Photoshop is, I understand, considered to be Adobe's "Flagship".

You apparently do not visit the Photoshop Forums too frequently or you might recognise that the very people who are most vocally challenging the appalling decisions that the Forum Development Team seem determined to foist on us, are the same people who offer their help, and answer questions, in the Adobe Photoshop Forums on a daily basis.

What you are doing is going to destroy the Forums you can bank on it.

Report · Feb 28, 2009

I'm afraid Ann may be right. :(

Report · Feb 28, 2009

Ann, don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out, ok? There are thousands of people who know Photoshop, and every other program, more then plenty well enough that the forums will get along plenty well enough without you, and those of a similar ilk that are so arrogant that they can't play unless they get to define the rules. Guess what... it ain't your ball or your ball field... and there are plenty of players.

I predict, tho, that a year from now, you'll still be around, and you'll still bitch about your supposed complaints about me. And the change in the forums will happen in spite of it.

Report · Feb 28, 2009

Sorry, John, but I do think that it's ridiculous that people have such a "my way or the highway" attitude. And if this clears out people who intend to be obstacles, so be it.

Report · Feb 28, 2009

Dorothy:

You do have such charm.

There may be "thousands of people who know Photoshop" but what on earth makes you think that they are going to spend any time in a Forum that resembles the MM model when ALL of the existing Photoshop Forum members who have contributed to this discussion have made it perfectly clear that they avoid the MM Forums like the plague?

Also, surely the Forums should be designed to suit the Users and we have all made it perfectly clear to you that the proposed model which we have been shown is unacceptable.

Report · Feb 28, 2009

> MM dung heap

> MM (and their lousy programs)

Charm is obviously your speciality, Ann.

I doubt if we'll ever see you in the Dreamweaver forum, but you will be given a welcome reception there, as long as you don't start throwing your toys out of the pram. Just like you, all we want to see is a forum system that does its job as efficiently as possible.

As I understand it, the reason for the move is that the current systems (Adobe and former MM) are coming to the end of their useful lives. They were heavily customized, and the reason the previous attempt at upgrading the systems went so badly wrong was the desire to preserve a lot of the customization. This time, a tried-and-tested system is being used. It might not suit everyone, but if it provides a solid, workable basis, it can be improved with time.

You obviously regard the MM forums with deep contempt. Your views would sound more convincing if you didn't have the same contempt for the former MM programs and the people who support them. I have the highest regard for Photoshop and InDesign, and would love to learn more about them by visiting the relevant forums. However, I find the web interface and organization of the Adobe forums utterly confusing. You love them, because they're what you're accustomed to. However, I'm sure that many newcomers find them just as difficult to fathom as I do.

I will have no regrets seeing the old MM forum interface disappear, but what replaces both sets of forums needs to be something that anyone who wants help with an Adobe program finds intuitive to use. Insisting on keeping your current system unchanged sounds as though you want to keep your own little club exclusive.

Report · Feb 28, 2009

> Sorry, John, but I do think that it's ridiculous that people have such a "my way or the highway" attitude.

I did not post or even imply anything of the sort!

I was commenting on the Community labels.

Keep up please!

Report · Feb 28, 2009

OK, Phil...whatever you say. I'm sure you think you know your stuff.

As much as I'm a stickler for language usage, I don't worry so much about typos and grammatical errors so long as I can generally understand what somebody is trying to say. For me, it's not really about that at all.

It's bad dog behavior for me to incessantly bust your stones so I'll leave it to others to decide.

http://www.kimbanet.com/~pjones/

Maybe someone can explain to me why it makes good sense that the photo of you on your site is served up as an 85 KB+ GIF image when it would look better and load faster if you'd saved it as a JPEG, even one as small as 8.5 KB.

I don't mean to pick on you, Phil, but when you so matter-of-factly trot out bad advice it doesn't do anyone any good to just let it stand without challenge, correction or clarification. And it doesn't help your case for you to argue for certain features when your whole premise is flawed.

And for now we'll just leave alone the question about your title of "Webmaster" when you're asking questions like this on your own organization's forum:

http://www.vpea.org/bboard/viewtopic.php?t=572

Report · Feb 28, 2009

on the first item you mentioned, 85K is not so excessive for a image that large. If I used a jpg image equal in size. it would be four times as large. By the way that site link has been untouched or unaltered since it was created (some of the linked items have been changed but not the first page) with the program shown in the spinning ball icon at top of page. Look at the spinning ball at the top of that page. you remember when adobe sold that program?? That's how long I've been dealing with web pages.

as to the second link: They have switched to an entirely new system on the web instituted by the State by the designer of the new site. They are using a new system called Jumula. Its a Java based system. I know how to make a hot link in DreamWeaver. I have since found out how to create a Link in this Jumula based system. This Jumula based system once learned and once permission given by use of Username and password anyone can change. So there really no need for a True Web Master Just someone to take charge of the required user names and passwords.

how about looking at http://www.phillipmjones.net

This is a more recent creation. Note the size of the images show are for the benefit of those how might visit the site mostly relatives. And you'll notice my image used is Smaller.

Report · Feb 28, 2009

Not to take us off topic, but pjones could it be that you are referring to Joomla?

And, a JPG image would be 10% the size of that image at http://www.kimbanet.com/~pjones/ and would seem to have millions of colors, not just 256. It is never appropriate to use GIF compression for a photo image. See how poor the quality of that image is? That's because it's a GIF.

Report · Feb 28, 2009

http://www.adobeforums.com/webx/.59b8142c was originally intended as a contribution to this discussion but I've made it a new thread.

Report · Feb 28, 2009

Yes Murray I was referring to Joomula.

At the time the page on the Link at Kimbanet was created was in the day when the program reference in the spinning logo. At that time most people were still using a dial up connection and had computers with low resolutions. a Jpeg image would have taken a lot longer to download and the detail missed in using gif were not missed. There are still many that say if your going to upload images that will load fast use a gif images when possible. I prefer either to use jpeg. or if its something that is used a in MS Office document that is converted to use on the internet I use PNG because png is the most reliable format for Office.

Report · Feb 28, 2009

> "on the first item you mentioned, 85K is not so excessive for a image that large. If I used a jpg image equal in size. it would be four times as large."

Ummm...WHAT!?

> "By the way that site link has been untouched or unaltered since it was created (some of the linked items have been changed but not the first page)"

Ummm...WHAT!?
http://web.archive.org/web/*/http: //www.kimbanet.com/~pjones/
(Copy/Paste and close up the space after the 2nd "http")
Or, just click the short link: http://xrl.us/behvat (Link to web.archive.org)
(That original photo is a GIF-oppressed beauty!)

> "...with the program shown in the spinning ball icon at top of page. Look at the spinning ball at the top of that page. you remember when adobe sold that program?? That's how long I've been dealing with web pages."

It's a sad workman who blames his tools. JPEGs were available back then, too. I used PageMill to do my first real web junk as well. And I knew to save as JPEG for photographic stuff.

Sorry, dude, but you forced me to call you on the B.S.