Skip navigation
This discussion is archived
Noel Carboni 23,528 posts
Dec 23, 2006
Currently Being Moderated

Only 10 Posts Per Page Now?

Jul 11, 2012 7:20 PM

I swear it used to be that more than 10 posts were listed on a given page, yet now I see threads go to 2 pages with post number 10 (in other words, the OP and 1 through 9 are on the first page, 10 through 19 on the second page, etc.).

 

I looked through my preferences, and I don't posts per page as a configurable option anywhere (and I have no confidence I've looked in all the right places)...

 

Did my consciousness just change universes, or is this something that's changed? 

 

-Noel

 
Replies 1 2 Previous Next
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 11, 2012 7:27 PM   in reply to Noel Carboni

    It may have changed. I just looked at a couple of long postings in the InDesign forum and that seems to be the case.

     

    And this is a problem because....??

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • John Hawkinson
    5,572 posts
    Jun 25, 2009
    Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 11, 2012 7:36 PM   in reply to Steve Werner

    It's a problem because it makes it harder to read really long threads,

    especially to search within them.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 11, 2012 7:54 PM   in reply to John Hawkinson

    Doesn't seem like a problem for me, but there should probably be a setting where you can specify the number per page.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 11, 2012 11:56 PM   in reply to Noel Carboni

    It was 50 posts on every page, even during the time with missing post numbers. The first page had the OP and up to post #49, then post #50 to post #99, and so on.

     

    I am afraid someone changed the universe round us, again.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Pierre Courtejoie
    7,052 posts
    Jan 11, 2006
    Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 12, 2012 6:12 AM   in reply to Noel Carboni

    Hah! I just came back from my preferences, to see if I was the only one with 10posts per page...

    It feels like we are on a site paid by ads, where they make a page per paragraph...

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 12, 2012 7:25 AM   in reply to Noel Carboni

    Right under Discussions there is a dropdown box to set the number of items per page.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 12, 2012 7:52 AM   in reply to Curt Y

    Curt, you seem to be talking about the box in the main page of the forum, which controls the mumber of threads listed per page. This discussion is about the number of messages shown per page in each thread, which has been changed to ten and apparently with no user operable option to change this number.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 12, 2012 8:07 AM   in reply to Noel Carboni

    Noel,

     

    I agree with you. Multi-page threads can make general navigation a bit tougher, especially since the Last Post button has been removed.

     

    I know that one can go directly to the last post from the thread on the Main Page, but many like to view the OP, perhaps to refresh their memory of the details in the thread, and then go immediately to the last post, or so, to see if a solution has been offered. At least I know that I do.

     

    Like you, I might be working on dozens of threads/problems in a day, and keeping each thread in my memory is tough. That Last Post button was helpful to me.

     

    Having to navigate multi-page threads is not so easy, as they usually require much more clicking, than simple scrolling.

     

    I am sure that for some others, having the number of Replies limited to 8 (or similar) is a plus, but not for me. I suppose that each user has their own personal preferences on the layout of the forums themselves As Adobe has made a commitment to enhancing the users' experiences in the Forums, I feel that we should each state our desires. Those desires might, or might not make their way into the layout of the Forums, but at least with our input, they have more to work on, when considering changes. I have cast my "vote" with you on this one.

     

    Hunt

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 12, 2012 9:20 AM   in reply to Bill Hunt

    Checking into this.

     

    Jive did suggest to us lowering the number of messages per page for better performance, but we had not made a decision on that yet. This is a global setting, users can't select the number individually.

     

    As for the link to the last post, there is on in the initial post on the first page of a multi-page thread, but not on the subsequent pages. I'll see what can be done about adding it under the thread title that appears on subsequent pages.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 12, 2012 9:35 AM   in reply to adobe-admin

    Also note that in the meantime you can use the page numbers at the top to jump to the last page of replies...

     

    lastreply.png

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 12, 2012 11:06 AM   in reply to adobe-admin

    adobe-admin wrote:

     

    Also note that in the meantime you can use the page numbers at the top to jump to the last page of replies...

     

    Not in Firefox/Mac or Safari/Win:

     

    pages.JPG

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 12, 2012 11:09 AM   in reply to adobe-admin

    And aren't we mixing things? This thread is about the number of messages in each page of a given discussion.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 12, 2012 11:21 AM   in reply to adobe-admin

    John,

     

    If it was not clear from my earlier post here, I support the wish to get back to the usual number of messages per page.

     

    I have noticed no improvement in loading speed.

     

    In contrast, much time is wasted going from page to page instead of just running through posts.

     

    And when composing an answer, it is convenient, and sometimes crucial, to be able to scroll back and look at different posts, and sometimes quote from them.

     

    Having to open a new Tab and load it, just to be able to post as usual, is a serious waste of time.

     

    That would be necessary in this case, where I should like to state the post # I was referring to at the top; in this case there is only one, but in many threads there may be several, so a woolly reference may create confusion.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 12, 2012 11:46 AM   in reply to Claudio González

    Yes, you are mixing things up. Your screen shot is of the overview showing a list of threads. We are talking about being within a thread, as shown in my screen shot.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 12, 2012 12:10 PM   in reply to adobe-admin

    adobe-admin wrote:

     

    Yes, you are mixing things up. Your screen shot is of the overview showing a list of threads. We are talking about being within a thread, as shown in my screen shot.

     

    Yes, you are right, my fault for not enlarging your image. Incidentally, wouldn't it be nice to have page numbers displayed the same way in all forum main pages? I would think that it is far more frequent to have multipage forums than multipage threads...

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 12, 2012 2:52 PM   in reply to adobe-admin

    Thank you for raising it a bit to fifteen, John, although fifty would still be better.

     

    To elaborate a little on the reasons for the longer pages:

     

    At least in the Illustrator forum, often the helpers make a joint effort and elaborate on what the others have said, even a while back, especially in connexion with woolly and/or complicated questions, and when the thread is long enough to  create the need for one to stand in for another that has left for the day.

     

    In those cases, any unnecessary break in the thread is particularly inconvenient.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 12, 2012 5:10 PM   in reply to Noel Carboni

    While I agree with Jacob, I will take what I can get, and will say "thank you!" Fifteen is better than 10.

     

    Gettin' closer,

     

    Hunt

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 12, 2012 7:09 PM   in reply to adobe-admin

    adobe-admin wrote:

     

    Jive did suggest to us lowering the number of messages per page for better performance, but we had not made a decision on that yet.

    But it has been implemented anyway?

     

    Where could possibly be a performance gain when users have to go through more pages?

     

    Sorry, this is not a bad idea, but an incredible stupid one!

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • John Hawkinson
    5,572 posts
    Jun 25, 2009
    Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 12, 2012 7:11 PM   in reply to Pat Willener

    Pat, are you asking the question honestly?

    The performance gain is the web server can serve the page faster because

    it has to retreive fewer posts per HTTP transaction, i.e. fewer database acesses per page.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 12, 2012 7:17 PM   in reply to John Hawkinson

    But the average user has to spend much more time navigating through the messages, doesn't he?

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 12, 2012 7:53 PM   in reply to Claudio González

    Well, if you were to really think about it, navigation down, say 30 Replies, takes less time, than to navigate many pages of 10 posts.

     

    Hunt

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 12, 2012 7:55 PM   in reply to John Hawkinson

    John,

     

    At the end of the day, it should be about how effective things are for the ultimate user. If they have to navigate many pages, that can be a negative for many. A simple scroll, regardless of how things happen at the server end, might well be preferable to many.

     

    Hunt

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 12, 2012 10:10 PM   in reply to Noel Carboni

    There might also be a difference between the "average" user who comes here to seek help with one problem, and the people who spend a lot of time in these forums trying to help these users.

     

    It really should be these helpers - volunteers, staff - who should get the benefit of best performance.  Making them (us) paginate more is definitely not helpful!  Oftentimes we do have to read through an entire lengthy topic, just to get all the facts straight before responding.  (Users can get very touchy if we suggest something that they have already tried in post #17.)

     

    Paginating forward is bad enough, but for those who experience the double back arrow bug, going back soon becomes a nightmare.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 13, 2012 7:27 AM   in reply to Noel Carboni

    Noel,

     

    I do not know about server configuration, or how the number of threads might affect load times, but I see basically four types of forum subscribers, and each will likely read a thread in a different way:

     

    1. OP's with a problem or question - they will likely subscribe to their thread, and follow each Reply, looking for a solution, or answer. This will likely be done in a fairly linear manner.

    2. Someone coming to the forums, in search of a solution to a problem, or answer to their question, before they post about it - they will probably not be subscribed to a thread, yet, as they are searching, and again, will probably read threads (completely, or at least skim them) to find an answer, or solution.

    3. A subscriber, who mostly reads the threads, to see if they can help the OP, or anyone, who might have tagged onto a thread with the same, or similar problem - this type of subscriber probably fits most of the people replying in this thread (fess up - you know who you are). These subscribers might read the OP, and then the follow-up, only the first time. The next time that they visit that thread, you want to see the new Replies quickly, to see if all possible help has been offered, and if not, then they will try to solve the problem, or answer the question. This type might also need to see the OP again, just to refresh their memory of the problem/question, as some might be working dozens of threads in a day. After their first visit, it's usually off to that last page, or at least the last few Replies.

    4. A subscriber, who is here for the social interaction mostly. They might only care about the OP, and Replying to that, with little regard for what else might have been posted.

     

    Obviously, there will be some similarity in how each uses the forums, some "cross-over," but like that #3 person, their usage might change dramatically, after the first visit to a thread.

     

    The Adobe Forum Team has a tough call, in how to structure the forums to accommodate all types, in the best manner, and with the fewest hangups. They also have to consider that many of those type #1's & #2's will often be first-time users, and can be a bit lost, and overwhelmed by the entire process of using the forums. The type #3's usually have a pretty firm grasp on how the Adobe Forums work - or at least "worked," before a most recent change. The type #4's might, or might not be new to the forums. Also, they might be old-timers, who are just getting back into using an Adobe product, and might not have visited the "new" Adobe Forums yet. Or, they might be new users, just dropping by with a "Hello. My name is ____ ." Insuring that each type (and variations on each type) receives the ultimate experience in these forums is not an easy task.

     

    Just thinking there,

     

    Hunt

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 13, 2012 8:11 AM   in reply to Bill Hunt

    The reduced number of messages per page is a real pain.  It takes more time to navigate several pages than just scroll.  Lets get back to 50, or at the very minimum 30.

     

    Because I do not have photographic memory, I find when I am typing my answers I scroll through the message threads and frequently have to go back and re-read the Original Post and other responses.  If you are on page 3 and have to go back and look at page 1 from my test IT CAN NOT BE DONE!  You loose your reply box and have to start over.  This just is not workable!

     

    I have said this before, and will say it again, every time there is an "improvement" there is a step backwards in convenience.  As posts above have stated this probably does not affect the visitor asking a question, but for those that spend hours a week responding to questions it is a killer of the incentive to help to Adobe customers. 

     

    If Adobe wants to retain the unpaid Help line they should make every effort to satisfy the heavy responders first.  They need to listen to the people that take the effort to send in comments on this forum.  We still have not gained back what was lost 2 months ago on the "forum improvements".

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 13, 2012 8:25 AM   in reply to Bill Hunt

    In my ignorance, I would think that these suggestions should not be too difficult to implement (I have seen them in other non-Adobe forums):

     

    1. A box for adjusting the number of posts each user wishes to see per thread page, with just a few choices like 10-30-50-100, default at the lower number, but "sticking" after the user makes another choice.

     

    2. Go to first and go to last buttons in the appropriate places, coupled with Back buttons that really take one back to where one was.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 13, 2012 9:36 AM   in reply to Claudio González

    Claudio,

     

    I am in agreement with you, on both of those points.

     

    Hunt

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 13, 2012 11:13 AM   in reply to Bill Hunt

    Bill Hunt wrote:

     

    Claudio,

     

    I am in agreement with you, on both of those points.

     

    Hunt

    Bill, tonight I'll make a special toast for this...

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 13, 2012 12:56 PM   in reply to Claudio González

    Claudio,

     

    If you're talking Santa Rita Casa Real, then I am all in!

     

    Hunt

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 13, 2012 4:55 PM   in reply to Bill Hunt

    Since my comment was #29 probably no one reads the previous page.

     

    Does anyone else have a problem replying on page 1 + X and then having to go back to look at question on page #1? 

     

    For me he reply box is gone and you have to start over.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 13, 2012 6:26 PM   in reply to Curt Y

    Curt Y wrote:

     

    Since my comment was #29 probably no one reads the previous page.

    I did read your post #29, and it is a problem for me as well.  The only way to do this now is to open a new browser tab, and re-read the topic separately.

     

    It appears to me that someone is intentionally making things more difficult for the regular forum users.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 14, 2012 2:09 AM   in reply to Noel Carboni

    In going through old screenshots from last May to check this issue, it struck me that we used to get a large number of posts per page BEFORE they finally begun numbering each post sequentially.

     

    Just saying…

     

    Adobe Forums_ openthread.png

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 14, 2012 2:10 AM   in reply to Curt Y

    Curt,

     

    I also read your post #29.

     

    And the issue was stated in my post #14.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 14, 2012 2:19 AM   in reply to station_two

    station two,

     

    The post number on each page was (reduced to) 50 ever since the days of the fair forums, long before the post numbers were lost this year.

     

    As I mentioned in post #5, which is even longer gone than post #14 and post #29.

     

    This thread seems to confirm our concern.

     

    And by the way, the old escape, to tick Print Preview under Actions to the left is gone. When you ticked that, all posts in the whole thread were listed in a simplified form, across the whole width. View as PDF is also gone.

     

    I used the Print Preview to get whole threads in a compact form for archiving of especially important threads.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 14, 2012 2:23 AM   in reply to Jacob Bugge

    Jacob,

     

    I was only attempting to poke some humor at Jive by implying that it had been only their inability to count posts that had kept them from limiting the number of posts per page.  Obviously, I failed in that attempt. 

     
    |
    Mark as:
1 2 Previous Next

More Like This

  • Retrieving data ...

Bookmarked By (0)

Answers + Points = Status

  • 10 points awarded for Correct Answers
  • 5 points awarded for Helpful Answers
  • 10,000+ points
  • 1,001-10,000 points
  • 501-1,000 points
  • 5-500 points