I agree with your general thoughts, but I don't think a fact-checking thread is necessary. Instead, what we need is that users exercise discretion when replying to threads, and answer from a position of knowledge--not from an "understanding" or from marketing literature.
It's admirable that anyone should want to help--I understand the desire to do so, and that's why I'm here--but that "help" actually has to be helpful. Otherwise, it's a waste of the OP's time, the respondent's time, and the time of anyone who later comes across a thread with incorrect information. We're all busy people, and it serves no one--including Adobe--to provide anything but factual information about the software. A Google search for "premiere pro mvc editing" turns up this thread as the number one hit--that shows how potentially damaging that a thread with the wrong answer can be. That's why I have no remorse about calling out such incorrect information; this type of thing has a tendency to snowball, and it's breached epidemic proportions lately.
Again, I'm not trying to put the kibosh on anyone's desire to be helpful. I'm just making an open appeal that any responses be made with a keen awareness that, at least in Internet terms, they last forever. There is no shame in not knowing the answer.
Wow, I missed on the interpretation of the “New” section in the CS5.5 product page, and made the mistake of thinking that an improvement in AE applied to PrPro, and I started a fire storm. That was never my intention, and did both an [Edit], and offered two mea culpas.
I actually thought that with that “New” listing in the product page, I had done my homework, but admit that I did not play the linked tutorials, side-by-side, until later.
As for Todd’s article, I have read it many times, and have relied heavily on it. That 3D was not mentioned must be interpreted then as “it can be done, but only with Neo 3D,” I did not realize that by its omission, it had major ramifications.
I think that I need to just spend all my time in the food and wine forums, and bow out here.
Thanks for the ride folks,
This isn't a personal vendetta, Bill--just a personal crusade. Take it for what it's worth.
Well, having been jumped on by almost everyone in this forum for my mistake, I now take it VERY personally.
Here is hoping that no one else ever makes a mistake in the forum.
[I branched this off into its own thread.]
We've all made mistakes. I think that Colin was just trying to get us to all be more careful, and I appreciate that.
Colin has pointed out a couple of times recently when my After Effects knowledge has slopped over into my Premiere Pro answers---incorrectly so, because the programs do some things differently that I presumed that they did identically.
I've been much more careful about actually starting Premiere Pro and checking each answer. This has been good for me, and I'm sure that it has been good for the people asking the questions.
Bill, I hope that you continue to help out. I don't think that anyone was meaning to insult you.
Thanks for splitting this discussion off, and also placing it here.
I do have one request, however. I cannot find the original thread, prior to the branching. Do you have my original Reply anywhere?
Hierarchy - how it works sometimes....
Here's some thoughts about the forum and some help people get from the lesser planets and not so shining stars here.
1) Posters often get quick responses pointing them to posts or information the shining stars made available. So for references alone this means posters get faster responses... It's worth noting that sometimes posters don't know how to ASK the question they have, and the lesser planets sometimes manage to parse this into the appropriate response...
2) Sometimes posters have questions about where to find information about specific issues. Again, the lesser planets sometimes help guide them. For example, apparently not everyone can find all the groovy articles and help files and tuturorials available ( and being made now, added as we speak probably ). If finding the information was easy ( or if some posters were more familiar with search functions and had a bit more patience to look for the info ) half the questions here would not be asked. With infinite patience the lesser planets sometimes help in this area.
Now it happens that a giant planet was not perfect ( once out of a about the last thousand times answering posts ). This planet I refer to has helped so many so many times it is impossible to stress that enough.
and here is what " check your facts " amounts to in this instance....
excerpts from Colin ==========
Anyone intentionally ( intentionally ? ) or mistakenly misleading someone....( paraphrased )
INTENTIONALLY ? IS EQUAL TO MAKING A MISTAKE ?
It's admirable that anyone should want to help--I understand the desire to do so, and that's why I'm here--but that "help" actually has to be helpful.
This isn't a personal vendetta, Bill--just a personal crusade. Take it for what it's worth.
DELUSIONAL (personal crusade is OK - Hitler had one ) AND INSULTING ( take it for what it's worth -- which means suck eggs )
If you employees can't see this for what it really is.... which is simply someone insulting someone else in the disguise of being righteous, you might consider visiting your human resource section and see what material they have on people communicating with each other in positive ways.
Well... that's what I think about this particular situation and I can't wait to see the responses.... Try not to be "funny" or "silly" ( like mention scary snakes or cupcakes or any of the genuinely hilarious stuff that some people here improve the forum with ... and socialize with ... as being HUMAN in these serious threads might make someone believe "editing" and "entertainment" is supposed to be FUN.
> If you employees can't see this for what it really is.... which is simply someone insulting someone else in the disguise of being righteous, you might consider visiting your human resource section and see what material they have on people communicating with each other in positive ways.
Just like you and Bill are saying (correctly) that we should all be friendly and non-judgmental about a technical mistake, I think that it would be nice for everyone to be friendly and non-judgmental when a normally very generous and kind person says something in a way that you perceive as negative.
Bill made an error about 3D. Maybe Colin made a mistake in how he phrased his response. (I don't happen to think that he did, but I am a notoriously bad judge of such things, being the social equivalent of a bull with Tourette's in a china shop.) We can each mention the other's mistake and then just let it go, hoping that our friends take the constructive criticism in the helpful spirit in which it's intended.
Thank you. I had looked for the original thread, but was just not finding it.
PS - looks like the word, "expanded," was the one that got me into so much trouble. All of the links provided point to the use of Cineform Neo 3D.
We can each mention the other's mistake and then just let it go, hoping that our friends take the constructive criticism in the helpful spirit in which it's intended.
I agree... it's history...
well... oh oh...ummmm, there was this little silly reference to some article in the robodog times today...maybe that too can be accepted in the proper light ??
I know this thread is in the Lounge, and consequently I know that there is no telling what direction it will soon take. (didn't someone already mention snakes?)
But before that happens I just want to make a point, and that is as follows: The Premiere/Premiere Pro forums are as a rule some of the most civil of any of the other Adobe forums. Over the years (I've been coming here since Pr4.2), except for a few notable troublemakers who are no longer here, everyone is generally friendly, polite, considerate and helpful. I know that there is the occasional flareup, or sharp comment, but that is the rare exception, not the rule. So I doubt anyone will hold a grudge about that.
Now, about fact checking: With the arrival of PrPro CS5, and even more so with CS5.5, there have been some serious and (dare I say it?) unexpected new features. I expect and hope for similar improvements in future versions. So what applies to earlier versions does not always apply to these latest versions. Speaking for myself, I have to open CS5.5 and try some feature I haven't yet much used before I can with confidence describe it to others. Even with all the available tutorials and help files, I need the hands-on experience before I am convinced as to how something really works. I am sure any of us who want to help someone else wants to give the best and most accurate information. Delaying a response towards that end, even if it takes a few more hours or even days to respond, is well worth it. I encourage responders to do, or have done, the hands-on first.
Even with older versions of many of my Adobe programs, I do the very same thing, if for no other reason, than to make sure that I have the nomenclature down, and also the exact locations.
As for nomenclature, I am still trying to forge some of the "new and improved" terms into my mind. Same thing as when settings went to Sequences from global Project settings, and I still type "Sequence/Project Preset" in case a user of an older version happens by a more recent thread. Same in PrE, where almost all Export functions moved to the Share Tab. I'll type "Export/Share," to cover the newer version's location, but also cover the older ones, as well.
In this case, having CS5.5 open and running would not have helped me, as I have no 3D material to even try in it. I do not anticipate doing 3D, but was only hoping to point the poster to articles and tutorials on the subject, in hopes that they could help answer the question. Even with articles, containing existing links, I also test the links, if I have not done so recently, just to make sure that they function, and that they still lead to the intended site.
No, it was simply a matter of confusing articles on two new programs, confusion with the tag on the product page, and a bad choice of words. Should have led off with "IIRC," and now regret my not doing so.