Skip navigation
This discussion is locked

Experiencing performance related issues in Lightroom 4.x

Aug 6, 2012 3:58 PM

  Latest reply: Victoria Bampton, Dec 18, 2012 11:37 AM
Replies 1 ... 27 28 29 30 31 ... 43 Previous Next
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 17, 2012 3:35 PM   in reply to BigCPixelbender

    BigCPixelbender wrote:

     

    The disk is fine.

    I'm assuming you've double-checked this, as opposed to just assuming.

     

    But, there should be a light-bulb pulsing inside your mind: "something *isn't* fine".

     

    Don't get me wrong: I have no stake in whether you use Lr or switch to another app... (my aim is not "defensive") - the best one to use is the one that runs the best...

     

    If Lr is behaving abnormally, its probably due to a bug in Lr - and I probably have gone on too long about it already - sorry...

     

    The disk I use for templates is the same as system disk, paging disk, temp disk, program disk...(but not catalog disk, and not photo disk) - not high performance... (and medium-powered system), but my book module loads *much* faster than yours. Hmmmmm......

     

    Rob

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 17, 2012 2:43 PM   in reply to Rikk Flohr

    Going back to Rikk's reply of 8 seconds to load Book...

     

    I never use the book module, so I"ve not tried to load it previously.  But, just for fun I just fired it up from Develop......  And started counting seconds on the wall clock...  I kid you not, and I'm not exaggerating........  It took almost 40 SECONDS for the thing to load and display...  So, whatever's going on with the 25 seconds, I"m seeing it too.  Once it loaded, I could go back and forth between Book and Develop in a second, but the initial load was incredibly slow.

     

    And I'm not using the batch file to start things...  During that 40 seconds I watched CPU 0,2, and 4, and they were very busy, although aggregate Usage was in the 25% range (which I presume wants to check all 8 threads, of which I"m only using 3)...

     

    Does the book module take a long time for the initial load for other PC users?

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 17, 2012 2:59 PM   in reply to DavePinMinn

    8 Seconds on my speedy new PC. 15 on my 3-year old MB 13inch.  In any case, 25-40 seconds seems like something is going awry.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 17, 2012 3:01 PM   in reply to DavePinMinn

    davepinminn wrote:

     

    ...It took almost 40 SECONDS for the thing to load and display...

    I postulate this is abnormal performance, and indicative of some problem. Does anybody disagree?

     

    PS - after loading, switching to the book module is almost instantaneous for me.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 17, 2012 3:13 PM   in reply to Rob Cole

    Yes, once it loaded I could switch into and out of the Book module as quickly as any other.  It was only the initial load that was incredibly slow.

     

    I also shut down LR, restarted it, and went back into Book, and it only took a second or 2...

     

    It does load a lot of SOMETHING 'cause memory usage jumped from what it was initially (I didn't look) to right around 4.5 GB, of which lightroom.exe is just under 2GB.  So something is doing a lot of something.  Again, I don't use Book, so I'm not sure if there's some bizarre thing mine is doing by default...

     

    Rikk, on your speedy new PC are you loading everything from SSDs?  'Cause otherwise, presuming we're all using 7200 rpm SATA drives, once the CPU hands a request off to the disk, everything goes on hold until the data comes back, so I'm not sure why there's such a drastic performance difference... 

     

    When you jump from Library to Develop, and start walking through RAW images, do you have a feel for approximately how long the "Loading" stays on?  'Cause that's one area I see as extremely slow compared to V3.  And my RAW files are just 12 megapixel D300 files.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 17, 2012 3:23 PM   in reply to DavePinMinn

    No SSDs on my machine.  I am waiting for larger capacity.

     

    1-2 seconds loading for uncached images Library to Develop Canon 5DMKII files.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 17, 2012 3:32 PM   in reply to DavePinMinn

    davepinminn wrote:

     

    When you jump from Library to Develop, and start walking through RAW images, do you have a feel for approximately how long the "Loading" stays on?  'Cause that's one area I see as extremely slow compared to V3.  And my RAW files are just 12 megapixel D300 files.

    It takes about 2-4 seconds for me, depending on editing (D300 raws), which is a little slower than Lr3 (which is to be expected due to CA, NR, & PV), but not a lot slower (win7/64, AMD).

     

    Note: I have turned loading indicator off, since I can start editing after about 1 second.

     

    PS - I have catalog & previews on SSD, and separate (plain vanilla internal) hard disks for system (including Lr program) and data (photo files).

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 17, 2012 4:46 PM   in reply to Rob Cole

    Yup, that's about the times I'm seeing for D300 .dng files........

     

    My perception is that it's SIGNIFICANTLY slower - taking at LEAST twice as long to finish loading as V3, but even if it's only 25% slower, that's a lot.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 18, 2012 12:51 AM   in reply to DavePinMinn

    davepinminn wrote:

     

    ...even if it's only 25% slower, that's a lot.

    As a point of reference, very rough guestimate for me: PV2010 is 10-15% slower, and PV2012 is 25-50% slower. Significant, to be sure, but not extreme. And, I consider this "normal" performance.

     

    I see some people reporting >100% slower - that's extreme (and abnormal). Anyway, I think it's worth keeping in mind whether we're talking about normal slowness vs. abnormal slowness.

     

    Lr4's auto CA is more CPU intensive, as is defringe, and NR and such are being applied at all magnifications now - time is the cost: this should be expected. Personally, I'd like to see some optimization, but my point is that it's normal...

     

    And, PV2012 is more sophisticated, and takes more CPU - expect PV2012 to be signficantly slower compared to PV2010. But if it's too much slower - you got a bugaboo problem.

     

     

    davepinminn wrote:

     

    Yup, that's about the times I'm seeing for D300 .dng files........

     

    taking at LEAST twice as long to finish loading as V3

    Anyway, if Lr4 is over twice as slow as Lr3, then you have abnormal Lr4 performance. However, the times I quoted for D300 raws (2-4 seconds), which you say are over double what you saw in Lr3, are not anywhere near double for me. Are you saying that you were able to render D300 raws in less than 1-2 seconds in Lr3? - not me, maybe I had abnormal Lr3 performance and didn't even know it...

     

    Rob

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 18, 2012 12:36 AM   in reply to DavePinMinn

    From: "davepinminn

    Does the book module take a long time for the initial load for other PC

    users?

     

    2-3 seconds for my fast desktop PC (SandyBridgeE i7 3930, with SSDs) -

    slightly quicker than going into Develop for the first time. After the first

    time, both are near instantaneous.

     

    Bob Frost

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 18, 2012 1:04 AM   in reply to Sacha_

    After weeks of absolutely nasty performance with LR4.1 I today tried the trick someone posted here a while ago. I started LR via a batch file:

     

    start "lightroom" /high /affinity 15 "c:\Program Files\Adobe\Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 4.1\lightroom.exe"

     

     

    This actually slowed my LR4 down by half on an i7 with 16Gigs.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 18, 2012 1:14 AM   in reply to SavagePhoto

    From: "SavagePhoto

    My results were undenyable that LR has issues with hyperthreading at least

    on my intel chip and asus motherboard.

     

     

     

    No difference between hyperthreading enabled and disabled on my Intel i7

    3939 on Intel mobo. LR is fast with both.

     

    Has anyone with problems tried running the latest version of Intel's INF

    program, that tells the chipset how to communicate with the various bits of

    the computer? Some of these problems seem like internal communication

    problems. And loading the latest Bios for your mobo would be a good idea;

    that also cures bugs in internal communications.

     

    Just a thought!

     

    Bob Frost

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 18, 2012 1:18 AM   in reply to SistersCountry

    This actually slowed my LR4 down by half on an i7 with 16Gigs.

     

    Strange! I'm running Win 7 btw.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 18, 2012 1:22 AM   in reply to bob frost

    Great idea Bob.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 18, 2012 10:22 AM   in reply to Rob Cole

    I've never used Book, but I tried it today.  It took 4 seconds to get into the Book module (or at least until I get an error message saying there were too many images or something).  It took a similar amount of time to get into Develop Mode.

     

    It seems like there are two kinds of people in the world.  Those that think 4 seconds is great (the "Modals") and those that think 4 seconds stinks (the "Nonmodals").

     

    The Modals have bought into Adobe's thinking.  They dutifully work in one Module for hours, then they move to the next Module, and the next Module.  They don't move back and forth much if at all.  They are deadly efficient.  They are communists.  Kidding.

     

    The Nonmodals crave freedom.  When they read about "photo-centric workflow" in the marketing literature, they thought it meant I can do what I want when I want to the photo.  Awesome!  I can look at a bunch of photos, increase the contrast in one, make one black and white, print one, look for all of my Tahiti shots, make a book, print a photo in any order I want. 

     

    No!  To all you Nonmodals out there, this is not Lightroom.  Lightroom was written by the Modals for the Modals.  Some Nonmodal ideas creep in here and there (such as Collections being included in Develop Mode), which confuses the issue.  But at the end of the rainbow, Lightroom is a Modal program at heart.  For the Nonmodals, if it took 1 second to switch from Library to Develop, that would be too much.  In fact even the act of switching is counterproductive and creativity-inhibiting. 

     

    My advice to Nonmodals (you know who you are): learn to love it, live with it or go elsewhere.

     

    I confess to being a Nonmodal.  I cannot efficiently and mercilessly go through a thousand photos adding keywords and ratings before trying to "Develop" the best one I see.  Ok, maybe I am a Seminonmodal because sometimes I try to pick out the best 12 pictures before I start developing.  But deep down I want to jump around.  That is how my creative energy flows.

     

    Modals are just as valid as Nonmodals, but whenever attacking or defending Lightroom, we all need to recognize that it is not a swiss army knife.  It is a tool for Modals to get their work done, and us Nonmodals have to bear it because there is no competition that does the same stuff.

     

    I've read that Aperture is Nonmodal, but that doesn't help PC users much because it is written for Apple and probably has other issues any way.

     

    Apart from the Modality issue, I do think that Adobe purposely skruwed with users by releasing what was essentially a beta product and then FORCED users to upgrade because it dropped support for the latest cameras (Nikon D800 and Nikon D4) in LR3.  I mean come on, even the biggest fanboys and girls can see that, can't you?  Btw, if they hadn't pulled that stunt, there would be a lot less complaining because many people who didn't like LR4 for any reason would have stuck with LR3 for a short while until it got ironed out.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 18, 2012 11:00 AM   in reply to Another Photographer

    I and many others don't consider 4 sec acceptable for moving around lightroom.

     

    First hit on Book or first hit on Develop? it has work to do -- when do you want it to do it??  After that I am sub-second in moving from module to module.

     

    I also tried starting LR and going to Develop just under 4 sec -- from then on its fine -- I have no problem with that.

     

    Now I understand others don't have the subsequent sub-second invocations -- that would be a problem.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 18, 2012 11:21 AM   in reply to Dennis Smith

    I want it to do the work before I click on Develop so that when I do click on Deveop it's seamless.

     

    Alternatively, I don't want there to be a Develop Module at all.  It can be done that way.

     

    Or they could be clever about it and instead of giving me the ^... I mean the hourglass when I click on the Develop Module, they can make me think I'm already in the Develop Module.  Realistically, I am not going to do anything in the first 4 seconds any way.  So why not make me think I'm already in instead of freezing the computer for 4 seconds?  You'd think with 6 cores and 64 GB of RAM they can figure out a way to improve the user experience?

     

    But if you're a modal thinker it doesn't matter.  What's four seconds if you've just spent 12 hours in Library and now you're to spend another 12 hours in Develop?  Just don't go back and forth and the world is good.

     

    I was playing around with a MBP at the Apple store the other day.  I was flipping through photos on the default photo program.  It feels snappy.  LR doesn't feel snappy even when flipping through JPGs in the Library Mode.  It's the Modal thinking taken to another level.  When you're looking at a photo, boom you're looking at that photo.  Flipping to another photo, well the program has to do a lot of work for that to happen.  Even if true, why not preload the adjacent photos?  Today's machines can have up to 64 Gig, you can preload a couple of JPG previews without a problem.  But to LR the user experience doesn't matter because they're catering to Modals, i.e. people who have to go through thousands of photos to meet a deadline not people who want to enjoy the experience, i.e Nonmodals.

     

    Try flipping through photos with the mouse wheel, (ii) the arrow keys and (iii) with the pointer.  Oddly enough, three very different feels.  They all stink, but one is worse than the others.  Have they thought about the user experience?

     

    At the end of the day, it's a Modal program at a very deep level and Nonmodals will never be comfortable with it but we have very little choice.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 18, 2012 11:26 AM   in reply to Another Photographer

    Aperture is extremely quick on my older MBP (2010 with i5 2.3GHz, 8 gigs of RAM).  Lightroom on the other hand.....  The main advantage that LR4 has is the updated Develop module and PV 2012.  From an organizational standpoint, Aperture organizes by project - extremely easy to understand/follow/get stuff done.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 18, 2012 12:48 PM   in reply to BigCPixelbender

    If Lightroom was designed from the ground up to be what it is, we wouldn't see the seam between library & develop. It exists, because Lightroom was designed to share ACR with Photoshop.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 18, 2012 1:33 PM   in reply to Rob Cole

    Rob Cole wrote:

     

    If Lightroom was designed from the ground up to be what it is, we wouldn't see the seam between library & develop. It exists, because Lightroom was designed to share ACR with Photoshop.

     

    Rob,

     

    Are you saying Lightroom is modal because it "shares" the raw pipeline with Photoshop?  Sorry, but I

    don't think that makes any sense.

     

    And please clarify that first sentence.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 18, 2012 1:52 PM   in reply to Bob_Peters

    As it stands, Lightroom must be able to plug in new versions of ACR released for Photoshop. That's a constraint. Without that constraint, the Lightroom team would be free to redesign Lightroom to eliminate the seam (e.g. common image view).

     

    I really don't know enough about the internals to provide details - call it a hunch...

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 18, 2012 2:18 PM   in reply to Rob Cole

    I have no idea whether you're right about your hunch Rob, but what I had always read on the boards is that Adobe has an idea about how photographers should progress through the editing process.

     

    It's a little bizarre that a software programmer decides that while I'm rating a photo I need one set of truncated developing tools on hand, but when I'm "developing" a photo I need the full set of developing tools.  What if I want to xyz while rating photos? 

     

    Noooooooooooooo! That will slow you down and you won't meet your deadline, sonny.  Sorry.  You must rate before you develop, ok?  Trust us, it's for your OWN good.  When you're a grown up you'll understand.

     

    They're essentially big-brothering, micromanaging, and helicopter parenting us.  Works for some folks, but not for others. 

     

    And this has contributed to at least some of their woes.  They've got two rendering pipelines, so apparently they haven't had time to finetune EITHER one of them for speed.  And they haven't figured out how to elegently transition from one rendering engine to the other.  For some people it's too slow, for other people too jarring. 

     

    And for some people it's pointless even when it works because we haven't adopted their workflow.

     

    If it were me I'd nuke the Library and redesign Develop into a kickarse Working Module.

     

    But that ain't going to happen, so I take a deep breath and enjoy working my photos under the watchful gaze of helicopter Ma-dobe.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 18, 2012 2:27 PM   in reply to Rob Cole

    Rob Cole wrote:

     

    As it stands, Lightroom must be able to plug in new versions of ACR released for Photoshop. That's a constraint. Without that constraint, the Lightroom team would be free to redesign Lightroom to eliminate the seam (e.g. common image view).

     

    I really don't know enough about the internals to provide details - call it a hunch...

     

    I don't buy that "hunch" and here is why:  If you zoom to 1:1 in the Library module and the 1:1 preview doesn't yet exist then the image must be rendered from the raw data.  That requires acess through what you appear to be thinking of as the "modal barrier".

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 18, 2012 2:39 PM   in reply to Another Photographer

    My hunch, continued...

     

    I suspect the rigid workflow model was developed by the marketing department, not the Lightroom design team.

     

    I postulate that Lr design was governed by ACR constraint, then Adobe said: "how are we going to sell this thing?"

     

    Again, sheer speculation on my part...

     

    Rob

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 18, 2012 2:46 PM   in reply to Bob_Peters

    It seems to me that the design of Lightroom is optimized for internal considerations, not useability - but I could be wrong.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 18, 2012 3:00 PM   in reply to Rob Cole

    Rob Cole wrote:

     

    It seems to me that the design of Lightroom is optimized for internal considerations, not useability - but I could be wrong.

     

    You're tap dancing

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 18, 2012 3:02 PM   in reply to Rob Cole

    Rather than blundering on about marketing departments or nonmodals and  modals, use Google and look up the interviews Phil Clevenger did about the UI design.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 18, 2012 3:05 PM   in reply to Bob_Peters

    I am confessedly biased. It seems that a less modal design could be used with equal success by those who prefer to do all one thing then another, yet the reverse of that is not true.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 18, 2012 3:18 PM   in reply to Rob Cole

    Rob Cole wrote:

     

    a less modal design could be used with equal success by those who prefer to do all one thing then another, yet the reverse of that is not true.

     

    Very well put Rob. 

     

    John--When I have a moment I will look up this dude's inteviews to find out why he made a UI that doesn't work for me.  It will be interesting to see how badly you had misrepresented his ideas in the past .

     

    All-after 77 pages of discussion, is there any consensus on how to make LR4 perform well for the unfortunate number for whom it does not perform well?

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 18, 2012 3:22 PM   in reply to john beardsworth

    Phil Clevenger would be a fool if he said: "Lightroom design kinda sucks for the user, but it makes it easier for us to offer Lightroom without redesigning ACR/Photoshop" even if it was the truth.

     

    Moral of the story: Just because Adobe is serving cool-aid, doesn't mean you have to drink it.

     

    Disclaimer: I have not seen the interview...

     

    Rob

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 18, 2012 3:31 PM   in reply to Rob Cole

    Look up the interviews and keep the conspiracy theorizing where it belomgs. All this modularity discussion is pretty irrelevant to this thread.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 18, 2012 3:41 PM   in reply to Another Photographer

    Another Photographer wrote:

     

    Rob Cole wrote:

     

    a less modal design could be used with equal success by those who prefer to do all one thing then another, yet the reverse of that is not true.

     

    Very well put Rob.

    Thanks - every now and then I get "a little wood on the ball" .

     

     

    Another Photographer wrote:

     

    All-after 77 pages of discussion, is there any consensus on how to make LR4 perform well for the unfortunate number for whom it does not perform well?

    Dunno 'bout consensus, but in a nutshell:

     

    1. Know whether your box is executing it normally or not (some slowerness is normal, some not...). - if not:

    2. Try to get your box into a condition that doesn't trip up Lr4.1. If unsuccessful:

    3. Wait for Lr4.2. If still unsuccesful, consider an alternative product.

     

    Note: Some people who have trouble with Lightroom, do NOT have trouble with ACR. One approach for the interim is to use Photoshop/ACR/Bridge for now, and resume with Lightroom once it's working better for you. Of course this assumes you have it to use...

     

    Rob

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 18, 2012 3:42 PM   in reply to Rob Cole

    Rob Cole wrote:

     

    3. Wait for Lr4.2.

     

    Rob

    I am lazy and I am not on a deadline so wait I will.  I am also waiting for Capture NX3 and the second coming of Elvis, and I think I know which of these three will happen first (but hey, surprises do happen).

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 18, 2012 3:45 PM   in reply to john beardsworth

    johnbeardy wrote:

    All this modularity discussion is pretty irrelevant to this thread.

    Just fixing a typo.  Did you notice that some users experience wait times of 25 seconds to change Modes?  And the best you could hope for is 4 seconds on a first attempt?

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 18, 2012 4:45 PM   in reply to Another Photographer

    Another Photographer wrote:

     

    johnbeardy wrote:

    All this modularity discussion is pretty irrelevant to this thread.

    Just fixing a typo.  Did you notice that some users experience wait times of 25 seconds to change Modes?  And the best you could hope for is 4 seconds on a first attempt?

     

    Right. That's how this somewhat tangential discussion about modules got started - what is normal time for switching modules.

     

    Lightroom design is:

    1. Do not load module until first use (after Lr restart).

    2. Initialize some things only upon demand.

     

    So, book module took longer to load the very first time, for me, than it does again after restarting Lightroom. I assume that's because a bunch of stuff got initialized upon the first use, that does not need to be reinintialized for reuse. But the module itself always needs to be reloaded after restart.

     

    At the risk of stating the obvious, if Lightroom is not performing normally (e.g. not using all cores when it should...), it will take longer to load the book module.

     

    To me, a few seconds to load new modules after Lr restart, is just fine, since subsequent access is instantaneous, but if it's taking inordinately long, I'd take it as a warning sign...

     

    Rob

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 18, 2012 11:34 PM   in reply to john beardsworth
     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 18, 2012 11:47 PM   in reply to bob frost

    Already been there and done that. For a short moment it made a difference (a bit faster) but after some hours working in LR speed is like it was before. So no solution.

    Usually LR4.1 gets slower and slower during usage. Even closing and reopening LR doesn't help. One of the painful operations is the spot removal tool which on my machine usually takes one to two seconds after clicking the mouse to get placed. Interestingly sometimes it really FLIES, means it reacts instantly without any delay. Strange.

     

    I'll have to try the affinity-trick for e longer period and see how much this solves my problems.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 18, 2012 11:47 PM   in reply to bob frost

    It's good to know they've acknowledge the problem but to say after all this time they have no idea what causes it just beggars belief.

     

    I also want to call out this "corrupt preferences" nonsense. It's just a plain text file so a) corruption should be clearly visible and the support staff should ask for a copy to verify this and b) LR should catch and report any syntax errors caused by corruption.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Victoria Bampton
    5,302 posts
    Apr 1, 2008
    Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 19, 2012 5:02 AM   in reply to Sacha_

    Sacha, have you tried this yet? http://forums.adobe.com/message/4366597#4366597

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 19, 2012 5:00 PM   in reply to Victoria Bampton

    I think I found a solution that would work for me:

     

    (1) Provide support for Nikon D800, Nikon D4 and latest Canon cameras in LR3.

    (2) Refund LR4 upgrade price for people who have problems with LR4.

    (3) In the meantime, Adobe, take your time do all of the required testing to iron out the issues with LR4.

     

    Sounds fair, doesn't it?

     
    |
    Mark as:
1 ... 27 28 29 30 31 ... 43 Previous Next
Actions

More Like This

  • Retrieving data ...

Bookmarked By (3)

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