Could we please know if a thread is locked without opening it?

[Claudio_González1]

Navigation in these forums is very slow even when everything is working as planned, so it's very annoying to have to open a thread to find that it has been locked. The icon of a lock, even [Locked] at the beginning of the thread title would be enough. Surely it cannot be too difficult?

[Claudio_González1]

Phillip, all I am asking is a much simpler thing -in my opinion at least. But I haven't received any answer while you do. Curious.

Correction: I mistakenly thought that message #14 was in response to you. However, I think that my message #17 still applies.

Message was edited by: Claudio González. Reason: correction.

[Captiv8r]

Hi Claudio

For what it's worth, I do agree with you that one might expect the option to add a comment to be enabled by default.

The only issue I see with that, is that folks are often in a hurry and either simply don't have the time or don't wish to take the time to additionally add the reason for editing.

I'm thinking if the option were simply enabled by default, we might suddenly begin seeing lots of posts that end with something like this:

And that would likely lead to more questions and frustration than we already see.

Cheers... Rick

[Jochem van Dieten]

Captiv8r wrote on 11/14/2009 9:18 PM:

For what it's worth, I do agree with you that one might expect the option to add a comment to be enabled by default.

The only issue I see with that, is that folks are often in a hurry and either simply don't have the time or don't wish to take the time to additionally add the reason for editing.

Not all of us use the web interface for editing messages. So even if it

was enabled by default, even if it was impossible to disable it, it

still wouldn't catch all the edits.

If you want this, file an enhancement request with Jive.

[Guest]

It would certainly catch the folks who *are* replying/editing from the web.

I would be interested to see the numbers on the folks who are only subscribed via email and those via the web.

[Captiv8r]

Hi Hopper

Indeed it would be interesting to see. But I'd be a bit skeptical of the results. I figure most folks out there operate just as I do. I nearly always reply to posts using the Web interface. But I receive notifications of all the forums I'm interested in, via my In-Box.

Works like this. Someone asks a question.

E-Mail is transmitted to those subscribed.

I see the message and choose to reply, so I click a link.

Browser displays page, I click the reply button and either log in or reply.

As you can see, there is a blend of E-Mail and Web activity there.

Cheers... Rick

[Guest]

Rick, I know there is a blend of email and web replies.  The point of my message was simply that just because we have email users doesn't mean the software couldn't turn on the edit response by default which would catch all of the web edits.

[Phillip_M_Jones]

Captiv8r wrote:

Hi Hopper

Indeed it would be interesting to see. But I'd be a bit skeptical of the results. I figure most folks out there operate just as I do. I nearly always reply to posts using the Web interface. But I receive notifications of all the forums I'm interested in, via my In-Box.

Works like this. Someone asks a question.

E-Mail is transmitted to those subscribed.

I see the message and choose to reply, so I click a link.

Browser displays page, I click the reply button and either log in or reply.

As you can see, there is a blend of E-Mail and Web activity there.

Cheers... Rick

Your using the email Notifications system. That's what I do.

I don't want to be hassled with having to go to Forums web page, then bury down several layers get to the group (forum) I want to read then scroll to threads I want to read.

I only subscribe to just this forum and Acrobat Mac. I have strayed  several times. Once or twice deliberately. Most, I was dragged along with a move and wasn't aware. I had to unsubscribe to the thread, and the group I was Dragged to.  even on this I pick and choose to which I make a Comment in. Some subjects (in Acrobat) I have no clue what to suggest. Some I have exeperienced, some I look up the information I post. Some other have answered with a better answer than I could suggest.

[the_wine_snob]

I would be interested to see the numbers on the folks who are only subscribed via email and those via the web.

FWIW, here is one vote for Web-access only.

Years ago, when things were NTTP-only, that was my method. When Web came about, it did take some years to access via browser, as all of my news readers were set up for the "old way." I get too much e-mail to even bother with that access-point, but then I remember the ARPANET... [For me, that probably should read "AARP a NET."]

Hunt

[Jochem van Dieten]

greenjumpyone wrote on 11/14/2009 9:42 PM:

I would be interested to see the numbers on the folks who are only subscribed via email and those via the web.

That is easy. Download a sample of messages through the webservices.

Remove everything from your sample where the difference between creation

and modification dates is more then a second since those are the

messages that were edited afterwards. Off the remaining messages those

with a few millisecond difference between creation and modification

dates are created through the webinterface.

[Guest]

oh good lord, I am not going through any work for my query!  I was all but certain that information would be available, otherwise how does one keep track of their web stats?

Bottom line, just because you won't see the edit "comment" via the email replies does *not* mean that it should not be turned on for the web replies!  We already *know* we can't make this forum work for all formats anyway, so why not do what can  be done for the web view?

[Jochem van Dieten]

greenjumpyone wrote on 11/15/2009 2:13 PM:

oh good lord, I am not going through any work for my query! I was all but certain that information would be available

Of course that information is available. It just isn't public, so you

are going to have to do some work if you want it.

[Guest]

Nope, it's a deflection.

The main request still stands and it  has nothing to do with web stats or what's allowed by Jive software ... it's behavior modification of the moderators:  show respect for the readers, take a minute to state when a thread is locked (in the thread title) and take the time, heck you can copy/paste the text, to indicate who/what/when when edits/changes are made by the moderators to a post.

Bottom line:  it's simply common courtesy.

Message was edited by: greenjumpyone for a typo

[Claudio_González1]

Sorry, but most definitely no. I don't see why I should have to address Jive for anything. I am a user of Adobe products who frequent their forums. If Adobe cannot maintain a site with basic -and common- features such as this, it their responsibility, not mine. It is my responsibility to report such shortcomings when I notice them, but it's up to Adobe to do something -or nothing- about my reports.

What Adobe does or doesn't do with their user's reports tells users quite a lot about how much Adobe cares for them. By taking a look at this forum, I am afraid that the balance seems to be heavily on the negative side. Users have been reporting shortcomings since the very first day of the trial period, but results are nowhere in sight. Why, we are here, in middle November, still using version 2.5.7 of Clearspace, when we were told in May that some reported bugs had been corrected in more recent versions of the software. So, ask Jeeves? No, thank you. 

And this is not a criticism to you in particular, or to the moderators in general. You do what you can, with your different styles and peculiarities. Same as us users.

Correction: this is in response to message #20.

Message was edited by: Claudio González. Reason: correction.

[the_wine_snob]

I was asking in a somewhat hidden way for the information to be added manually on each locked thread. And that would be very time consuming if one was very busy locking threads

Ah, the "veiled reference." It was too subtle for me. I missed things, and apologize. I thought you were referring to the inclusion of the old Locked icon from the "good-old-days." Sorry to have been so daft on this one.

Mea culpa, mea culpa, my comments can be disregarded.

Hunt

[the_wine_snob]

Didn't a mod once say something to the effect of this Jiveware not supporting such a basic, trivial, common sense, and helpful feature?

You are probably correct, but I think I was sick that day and missed it.

There are other icons that differentiate attributes of a thread, and I pretty much find them useless. Heck, in the product fora, it's either a question, or a rant. There seems to be no icon for a rant. Now, a little padlock icon would be useful - more so than the question icon, at least from my standpoint.

I'm not pointing fingers at any particular forum software, but it seems that with a big client, such as Adobe, some of these little changes would be easier, than they seem to be. Of course, I do not know the details of the sale/service contract, or even how "things" work in the corporate world anymore.

Just musing,

Hunt

[the_wine_snob]

Claudio,

I completely agree with you. In the by-gone, olden-days of the Adobe forum, there was that little Lock icon that you mention. It is missed and I'd cast my vote to bring it back.

It was a great "touchstone" for sub-fora, like FAQ's, as newer users could easily see that ALL threads were Locked, and could quickly get the idea that they should only be reading, and not posting there - not even comments on the FAQ articles.

I'd actually take things a bit farther and have sub-fora, like the FAQ's locked at the main page level, with only the MOD's being able to post there. Stickies are seldom seen. If a user, such as myself, needs/wants to post to the FAQ page, then a PM to the MOD's should do the trick.

I am also in agreement on the speed of the fora and how frustrating it is to hit a "deadend," and have to Back, or otherwise navigate out of it. Any help in keeping our experiences pleasant and expedient would be appreciated, and I would hope that more could be done in that regard.

Good point,

Hunt