The Big Picture

[Guest]

I think what is not being understood by some participants in these discussion is the scale of change which will follow the transition to the new forums.

Have a look at http://www.jivesoftware.com/products/clearspace-community and you'll see that the purpose of the Clearspace Community software goes way beyond the objectives that might be deduced of the current forums and their underlying software.

My personal take on things is that Adobe have decided that the whole style of the user interactions and community here is no longer appropriate to their corporate needs. There was a time when provision of a support forum was not seen as much related to the main thrust of company objectives, but those days have gone. Online communities are now one of the chief means of interaction between a corporation and its customers - and it's a two way channel. Interaction between those customers is also facilitated by within the online community but that's not necessarily deemed to be the key objective.

The forthcoming change represents, sadly, the end of this community and the creation of a new and very different one. The functional elements and the look and feel of their presentation in the Jive software are carefully designed to foster a particular style of interaction between users of Adobe software, and beween the users and the company. The functions and form are designed for an over-riding purpose and to support an overarching communications philosophy, not thrown in upon a whim.

It seems very clear to me that Adobe expects that the new community will have a significantly different flavour to the old, and that they will have anticipated that not all of the present members of this (and the Macromedia) communities will feel at home in the new one. There's no need to warn Adobe that some people will be unhappy enough not to return - they will have accepted that risk at the outset.

While there will be an inevitable loss of expertise, and it will be sad to see the last of some regular participants here, it seems clear to me that Adobe are hoping that the new style of community (moulded by the software they have chosen to create it) will bring in new members who may well have considerable expertise in the products, but who have not felt encouraged to participate in the style of community we have here now. The company will also be hoping that those newly requiring support will find the new site to be more effective and simpler to use than the old, and that the site will enable the company image and the strengths and usage of the product lines to be put across more clearly.

That, as I see it, is the big picture. There's not much point in discussing the points of detail unless in the context of the overall company objectives in making these changes - and if you disagree with the whole underlying premise of the changes, then there's little chance that you'll like much of the detail either.

[Ramón_G_Castañeda]

>That, as I see it, is the big picture.

A very blurry one. Hopefully it will be bright rather than dark.

[Guest]

Looks dark to me.

However I agree that quibbling over details is hardly conducive to getting a good replacement for the current two formats.

Will users still be allowed to criticise Adobe in this neutered environment, or will it just be an extended arm of the corporate PR machine?

[Kath-H]

Your post gives me the shivers, Oz. I don't fancy being 'moulded'.

[Kath-H]

>The functional elements and the look and feel of their presentation in the Jive software are carefully designed to foster a particular style of interaction between users of Adobe software, and beween the users and the company. The functions and form are designed for an over-riding purpose and to support an overarching communications philosophy, not thrown in upon a whim.

Big Brother. Shudder.

[Jacob Bugge]

I, for one, should like to see a comment/confirmation/denial from John concerning this.

I just had a less pleasant look at a couple of threads, including this one:

http://www.jivesoftware.com/clearstep/thread/1049

Apart from the specific contents, the actual information transferred is drowning and dragged out in poster decoration and indentation.

The site refers to certain user options, but they seem to refer to display of own information, not overall appearance.

[Guest]

The thread you linked to, Jacob, discusses the concept of "reputation management" - new one on me, but that illustrates the kind of thinking that goes into the forum features. Of course that doesn't mean that you have to like it, but it's not done for fun but for reasons that are the subject of theory and research. To counter them, it's not enough to say "I don't like it". The response to that would be something along the lines of "but it's good for you".

> I, for one, should like to see a comment/confirmation/denial from John concerning this.

What I've set out is my take on things as a personal view. He might indeed say that he thinks I've got it wrong, but if there's no comment, I wouldn't read anything into that.

[David_Powers]

FWIW, the Adobe Community Help system, for which I'm a moderator (for Dreamweaver), already uses a system of "Community Points". Moderators are asked to award points ranging from 5 to 50 for helpful comments. Unfortunately, most "comments" are questions, and 98% of the answers come from the moderators themselves. As a result, they end up earning most of the points, which are assessed by another moderator or administrator.

The points don't have any tangible value, but are meant to be a way of identifying the most helpful people, with a view to identifying suitable people to invite as future moderators. Whether the introduction of Community Points in the forums will work any better is, to my mind, doubtful. However, there's no way of telling until it's tried.

I'm sure some people will treat it as a game to see how quickly they can build up a score. If that results in better quality posts, everyone gains. Since you can't award points to yourself, I suppose it might work.

[Ramón_G_Castañeda]

From everything I've read in the various threads here, it would seem that the forums will cease to be the Adobe user to user forums. It's Adobe's prerogative, naturally, and stressing that would render all these discussions moot.

[Kath-H]

Probably going to be run from an Indian call centre.

[David_Powers]

Most of what I have read appears to a lot of ranting by people who don't seem to want to move from their own comfort zone. I'm just as unhappy about the loss of NNTP support as others are about the idea of avatars and titles.

What matters to me in the end, though, is the quality of content and ease of use. To suggest that they will cease to be user-to-user forums is nonsense.

[Jacob Bugge]

>Most of what I have read appears to a lot of ranting by people who don't seem to want to move from their own comfort zone.

Then read the countless other posts, not only here in this new discussion forum, but also in the original forum about changes, especially the thread beginning thus:

PECourtejoie, "Forum Feature Requests" #1, 12 Aug 2006 3:27 pm

The vast majority of posts have been part of a genuine and dedicated effort to uphold and improve the forums, by a large number of serious, dedicated, and concerned, members, some of whom may occasionally burst into more emotional and colourful statements, especially when faced with statements that seem to indicate that all the effort, with all the suggestions, explanations, testing, and arguments, has been wasted because it will just be swept away.

Some of us, namely those able to get access, worked hard, wholehearted, and unreserved, during the nightmare of the latest attempted forum merge, answering questions and reporting back, partaking in the joint effort to keep the forums running.

>What matters to me in the end, though, is the quality of content and ease of use.

That is exactly what has been the main focus of all the countless posts mentioned above.

[_Phos_four_dots_]

"Reputation management."

I smell a new detestable buzzphrase.

There's a guy who fancies himself a "reputation manager" who is linked with trying to pay people off if they'll remove from their blogs negative posts about Cash4Gold.com.

He's a skeezy douche working to manage the reputation of a sleazy company.

I have more thoughts about the larger discussion as started by Peter, but I need to build up a good head of steam first before I commit them to type.

I may need to hire an R.M. by the time I get done.

:)

[PJonesCET]

wonder how much trouble it would be to setup an Adobe products group outside of Adobe.

FileMaker Pro has one in which a group out of Australia runs. Its not associated with FileMaker other than is listed as suggested support groups.

Migh be something we could look into. If the changes are to drastic.

[David_Powers]

> The vast majority of posts have been part of a genuine and dedicated effort to uphold and improve the forums

I don't doubt the sincerity of the majority of people. I think everyone wants an easily searchable, clean system that's easy to use. I went to look the thread you suggested. It certainly begins with a lot of positive ideas, most of which I would agree with.

Unfortunately, that thread has more than 330 posts; and the only way to see the first 199 is to go through them five at a time, because the "Show all messages" link always starts at message 200. Looking through the later messages, many of them degenerate into the sort of rant I originally referred to. It seems as though there's the same mix of serious posters and inveterate ranters over here in the Webx forums as in the former Macromedia ones. :(

As far as I can tell, all the recent noise is about what people fear the new forums will be like. I haven't seen comments from anyone who has seen how Adobe proposes to configure the Jive Clearspace software. Presumably anyone who has seen it would be under NDA, and can't say anything. For all I know it could be wonderful, or it could be terrible. Until I've actually tried it, I won't be able to make up my mind.

[Jacob Bugge]

It should be possible to see about 40 at a time, using First/Next; it may be necessary to set the number of posts to the maximum in the preferences.

If you look through the lot you will find many serious and constructive posts by every poster with occasional posts that may be seen as rants.

And there is more than just guesswork and fear, as can be seen from this thread, with a rather explicit confirmation, concentrated within the first 5 posts and further elaborated later:

Forums Operations, "Just one question about basic performance" #1, 12 Feb 2009 9:17 am

[David_Powers]

I have the default settings. Just checked, and it should show a maximum of 36 messages a page, but I get no more than five, sometimes as few as two.

I've taken a look at the other thread. I was very impressed with John Cornicello's detailed explanation of the planned features Forums Operations, "Just one question about basic performance" #14, 13 Feb 2009 3:45 pm. All this business about "the end of user to user forums" is nonsense. It sounds like John is doing his level best to create a system that will attract new users without destroying everything that has gone before.

[PJonesCET]

Some of my recent post appear to be rants. And to some degree that might be. It more directed out of the two sign in fiasco's we had the last 2 times they tried merging system.

I'm not a particular fan of the Macromedia design of the DreamWeaver newsgroup. I was once a poster to and still might be able to if I knew my Username and password. But the group was difficult to read because of all the dark Gray and the slowness of the design.

If they can just get transition to what ever new system that happens without having to sign in every day, or sign in with every post; I can deal with what ever design that comes along.

AS for my post about avatars. It was just to try to explain That avatars are no big deal and depending upon they way they are handled don't necessarily have to take up much screen space or for that matter Server space. I recently, posted an example in which the file was 72dpi, about 1x!" and only 8K. Some people have an aversion to avatars. No group that I am on demands that I use an avatar.

Finally, people have been fussing about under certain peoples name a 3 letter title is given so that people know that they have more knowledge than some. we are talking about at minimum 3 letters and at most 3 words. People can make of titles, what they want. Just because you have a Title doesn't necessarily special. I worked in a school system for almost 18 years. I found out the people that had, and were impressed with titles often didn't have horse sense enough to know to put an umbrella over their head when it was raining, and thought they were above anyone else. Other that had the same titles just give it the value it really was, Just a piece of paper, to let people know they went through some training. It didn't change who they were or, how they interacted with people.

So you can take what I just wrote worth a grain of salt. But, much of the recent conflict on the groups. is much ado about nothing. Just an expression of our fears (And I'll admit yes, my own as well).

[Bill12]

If you read some of John's comments about the last time around, it is clear he felt he was fighting a brick wall. A lot of what he was trying to do would probably have been a success, but he was battling the powers that be that wanted something different. At least that is my take on what he mentioned.

He has tried to be informative, posting a sample screen shot of a page as it might look. That example is the basis for many of the concerns over space and such. Giving the option for setting the display to allow avatars or not, a simply format as here or a fancy layout, and many other display options. They would be simple to set in the preferences as are threaded messages and such in the sample forums that have been pointed to. There might be more constructive input (less ranting) if a sample forum with the new style and options was setup, rather than everyone guessing based on past history and the tidbits that have come out. Adobe might actually find some useful suggestions in such a case.

[Jacob Bugge]

Try 99999 messages per page, and expect 1/2500 of them.

Some great things about the appearance of the forums and the threads, which could still be great if you could at least choose to work within a simplified version:

b In the forums:
Seeing just the topic titles, aided by the flagging, gives the ultimate efficiency: you can pick the relevant threads at a glance, and you can run through the topics over the last few days, or much more depending on activity, so nothing slips if you visit regularly. About 40 topics visible at the time is probably the rule.

b In the threads:
The one line post headings also give the ultimate efficiency: you can read the posts with minimum distraction, and you can archive threads using a minimum of space. Information about the poster is only one click away.

[PJonesCET]

The ideal situation for me is the email notice I receive about the newest post on topics. I click the link within that email post and read just the latest comments. I don't have to deal with sort through directories of different newsgroups. and the sort through the topics that have new replies.

I only read the latest post on, only the groups to which I am subscribed. If they retain that Then I don't care what it look like.

[Ann_Shelbourne1]

Re: #20:

Exactly, Jacob.

What appears to be happening now is that people who have little knowledge or experience in the use of the original ADOBE applications; or of the more than ten-years of successful operation of the exemplary ADOBE User to User Forums; are attempting to force their NNTP infested Macromedia (MicroEffective) environment on the rest of us.

The attitude of the MM Forum so-called ACEs who have posted in these threads illuminates perfectly why I have avoided their Forums like the plague because a visit guarantees a perfectly horrible and frustrating experience.

Ozpeter, who started this thread may be a delightful individual and an excellent host in the Photography Forum but he came this way via the Adobe take-over of Scintillium; is a sound-recording engineer by profession; and, as far as I know, has scant knowledge or experience of Professional Graphic Arts software; or of the established and highly esteemed reputation of the genuine ADOBE Forums.

Macromedia was bought-out by Adobe.

MM has ceased to exist as a separate entity, and their former Forums are generally deemed to be an abject failure, so why are the opinions of their former personnel and Forum operators even being considered?

In other words, as failed non-entities, their opinions should be discounted entirely.

[David_Powers]

Failed nonentities? Thank you. You've given me the biggest laugh in years. When Adobe announced its planned acquisition of Macromedia, CEO Bruce Chizen was asked what was the primary motivation behind the acquisition. He gave a one-word answer: Flash. (http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article.cfm?articleid=1399).

Who is Adobe's Chief Technology Officer? Kevin Lynch of Macromedia.

What is the main focus each year of MAX, the flagship Adobe conference? Flash.

Macromedia had technology that Adobe had failed to develop successfully itself, so it went out and bought it.

Sure Adobe has some brilliant products in its original line-up: Photoshop, Illustrator, InDesign. But your knowledge of the expanded Adobe and the direction in which it's heading is woefully off the mark.

[Guest]

> Ozpeter, who started this thread may be a delightful individual and an excellent host in the Photography Forum but he came this way via the Adobe take-over of Scintillium; is a sound-recording engineer by profession; and, as far as I know, has scant knowledge or experience of Professional Graphic Arts software;

Guilty! (I would add that I am far more active as a host in the Lounge and Audition forums than in the Photography forum). But I believe I have a contribution to make in this discussion based on substantial experience in a number of online communities, and the experience I have of being part of a very happy Syntrillium community which was forced to become part of this equally happy but radically different Adobe community is, I think, relevant to the present situation.

> In other words, as failed non-entities, their opinions should be discounted entirely.

That's so bizarre as to be not worth further discussion. Wild statements of that kind do not lend credence to the person expressing them - which is a pity, as I would like to feel that Ann's views will continue to be at least considered in all this.

> I wonder how much trouble it would be to setup an Adobe products group outside of Adobe.

That's exactly what some of the Syntrillium forum members did, as they personally felt that this forum did not suit them. It is warmly regarded by Adobe as another good place from which to get advice and assistance on Audition-related matters. There's also the close relationship between the official Premiere Elements forums and the unofficial one which is operated by some of the hosts there - they frequently refer people from here to there when relevant, and Adobe has no problem with that at all. Consequently, if the changes here motivate some people to set up one or more independent forums configured to their liking, I would expect Adobe to be untroubled about that, and indeed insofar as possible, supportive.

> There might be more constructive input (less ranting) if a sample forum with the new style and options was setup, rather than everyone guessing based on past history and the tidbits that have come out. Adobe might actually find some useful suggestions in such a case.

That's coming, we've been told. And it will reflect some but not necessarily all of the views expressed in these discussions. It will give rise to further comments (many, many comments...) and where those comments are intelligently, constructively and rationally presented I am sure they will be carefully considered.

However, as the title of this discussion is intended to convey, sometimes it will not be possible to change some aspects of the form and function of the new forums, simply because certain elements are necessary to fulfil the overall Big Picture objectives - which I may or may not have correctly interpreted, but let's not lose sight of the fact that there's a Big Picture of some kind involved in this.

[Ramón_G_Castañeda]

Bruce Chizen had the good fortune of leaving Adobe after realizing the monumental overpayment and blunder involved in the MacroMedia merger. Hit and run.