1 person found this helpful
Claudio, the community help had a functionnality in which users could bring additional comments, corrections or links relevant to the topic at hand. It allowed many changes, and enhancements in the help files. (hence the "community" in its name) It especially welcomed linking to third-party content, and allowed "rightful" advertizing to one's site.
To foster comments, Adobe gave a points system, and appointed moderators, to help curate the comments.
But, over time, many users of the help files began to ask questions when a topic was not clear, or use the feedback mechanism to ask questions, sometimes remotely related with the article they were commenting on.
Adobe recognized this, and saw that most of the moderators spent a lot of time answering questions, while there are also forums dedicated to this very function, and where hundreds of other posters could help. I guess that it what prompted them to link Community help with the forums.
That said, I do agree that the phrase used to introduce the question could be re-worded, like it was skillfully done in this very thread.
Add to the confusion the fact that sometimes, some users do not finish asking the question, or delete it somehow, creating "empty threads" with the confusing sentence outlined earlier.
Rest assure that this discussion, like many others will be brought to the ears of the powers that be, but I can't promise an immediate change, even if it would be very welcome, and would help reduce confusion.
Ideally, there should be a way to limit posts to ACH, like comments or additions (even if they would be useful in there), and redirect only the questions to the forums.
Hello, Pierre, I had been missing you in this thread, as I think that similar problems must ocurr in the Forum in French. But first, an observation about this thread.
I found your message very helpful, as it explains clearly and briefly how we got to the point where we are, and also because you say you will do your best to have this situation corrected, which I believe without any doubt that you will do. But when I went to mark your message as helpful, I saw this:
Now, I couldn't possibly have marked your post as helpful before seeing it, so obviously I didn't do it. So, my question is: who has the authority to mark a post as helpful before the original poster has had a chance to read it? I always understood it was a privilege of the OP to mark a post as helpful or as the "correct" answer (and I don't agree with the latter). And I strongly object to any bulldozer crushing on my right to decide what I found useful or useless in any given thread.
As for the rest: thanks for your lucid explanation and for your promisse to try to help. Pity that Adobe seems to have formed almost impregnable barriers to the opinions of users of their products and of these forums...
I believe the How do I earn points section in this document has something to do with it:
As far as I know, for a while moderators have been able to tick answers as Correct/Helpful instead/on behalf of, and even overruling, the OP, thus also distributing points.
Edit: And what I am going to say a few minutes ago.
I also wish to thank you for taking care of the issue.
Jacob Bugge wrote:
Edit: And what I am going to say a few minutes ago.
Now, how many edits did it take to get that just right?
Jacob, it may be in the rules, but I most strongly object to anyone else deciding if any given message has been helpful for me.
Incidentally, if mods were one tenth as zelous in the Reader forum, I'd have quite a lot of points. From all those messages telling poor lost souls how to install Reader who never come back to say thanks, it worked.
I agree completely.
Just one. I edited, realized the opportunity, added the edit, took a deep breath, and pressed the button, hoping to be in time before a reply but not in time to be too early.
Claudio, as Jacob pointed it out, moderators and selected Adobe staff can mark a post as Correct or Helpful. I did not do it with mine.
It's been that way in community help for years, and here as well.
It is useful when there are posters using email, or to still point out helpful/correct posts in discussions with "hit and runners".
Especially the "correct" tag that marks the thread as such.
As shown on your screenshot, you can still "untag" helpful or corrects post if you feel so.
Maybe another mod/Adobe Employee wanted to give a nod to my explanation...
I don't get what you mean with the barrier between Adobe and its customers, this very forum, and the Adobe participation therein are the proofs that they care, and more than before!
Pierre, I already undestood that moderators and selected staff have the faculty to mark posts as correct or helpful. This may be beneficial or not, I am not sure, but that's not my point. What I object to is to anyone marking a post as correct or helpful before the original poster has had a chance to read it (unless in those cases where the OP doesn't come back in months or even weeks). It's just a matter of minimum courtesy. In this specific case, if I had answered to your post without marking it in any way, and anyone in the selected group had thought that your message was either correct or helpful, I wouldn't have minded his/her marking it accordingly. After all, I can always remove that rating if I don't agree with it, as you justly remark.
However, your message had been marked as helpful before I saw it, thus depriving me of the pleasure of marking it as such myself. I may be too old, but this was to me a very unpleasant example of bad manners. And I hope that nobody suggests that I had the option of "untagging" your message so as to "tag" it again myself...
As for the barrier between Adobe and users, despite the very valuable efforts form people like you, the list of unattended complaints/suggestions is unfortunately ever growing. A sad example were all those many months before the move of these forums to the Jive software, when too many of us spent a lot of time making countless suggestions for the new version to come, all of which were just thrown to the drain. And all the suggestions for improving the second new version of some weeks ago that remain unattended, while we experience frequent changes such as a new clasification of participants, salamis replaced by "+" signs, different backgrounds of messages from different types of participant that are more confusing that helpful, and the like.
Unfortunately, both these matters would really deserve to be discussed in new, separate tghreads.
I think that there is no way, if you did not reply for the other person to know if you had visited the thread. If he/she sees this discussion, maybe will they post a word rather than tag it with helpful (it might be a facebook/twitter habit) But I can understand your frustration, it might feel like someone opened a letter adressed to you (with the difference that a forum is public)
As for the suggestions to the current forum, we had several iterations, and several items have been implemented.
Also, the "changes" are mostly skinning or interface ones, I don't think that there is a way to implement new functionality. (And I'd also like new features, such as I'd like to have a checkmark for threads I posted in, or a full history of what I did)
Pierre, your message was marked as helpful within minutes of your posting it, and certainly before I answered it. In a fast paced thread like this, I think it would be polite to wait for, say, a day without the OP posting an answer to a message before deciding for the OP that the message had been helpful for him/her.
It seems that I am getting too old fashioned, so it's not worth spending more time discussing this matter.
From behind the scenes we can't tell who sets the post status on a message, nor who's read which reply. Unless the host comes back and admits to it, who tagged the helpful post will remain a mystery - sorry.
Generally we'll force marks on threads for two reasons - to allocate points to those who deserve the credit, and to clear the open question status so other users know it's been answered. Either way, we (are supposed to) wait until the OP has or hasn't taken action; though with some of the CH questions it's important to confirm the right answer quickly, so those reading via the application help system understand what's going on.
Back to the general point of the thread - all posts by CH are supposed to have a question as their first reply, it's clear that a small number are going wrong at the moment, but it's not obvious why.
If anyone sees a CH post without a question please click the Report button, file it as 'general abuse', and we can then pass it to the engineers as quickly as possible.
It seems that I am absolutely unable to present my case in a way that it is understood by others. Therefore, it's not worth wasting more time on this.
In case anyone is interested, my case is well summed up in my message #11 above:
why can't the message from CH be worded in such a way that people can understand what is happening?
Well, to be fair you kind of took it off topic with your discussion about others marking posts as helpful.
By the way, that sentence sums it up nicely - I finally got it. However, I think you wish for too much that it should all work right AND make sense at the same time. This is Adobe we're talking about, remember?
And that's the part (rewording the CH threads) that has been forwarded to the relevant persons, don't worry!