Product Communities

We don't worry about the time of due dates. We've always looked at end of the day as the deadline. Yes, sometimes we have to stay late to get it done on time. Now we have Workfront (in our 4th month) and the planned completion date has a time portion, which has cause some issues for us. Tracking On Time delivery, even 3 minutes past is considered late. We only worry about it going out on the date it was requested due. (We've worked around this with a custom field on a report, using the "cleartime" function, to get accurate reporting for our needs)We have two teams, one in Minnesota and one in Chile. We have a lot of issues with tasks and time off sliding up or down a day on the schedule because of the time zone difference. Makes for a scheduling nightmare! (we can work around this by setting every project and task due date to be ie. 5pm, but that's yet another tiny detail for our PM's to have to not forget) We'd rather not have to work around these iss

 Hi everyone,We use the Next or Previous panel to analyse navigation, and we compared it with paths rebuilt from our raw data (page events ordered by timestamp within each visit). The results are very close, which makes this panel really valuable. But I think two options are missing to reflect real user behaviour:Include repeat instances. The panel uses the "Non-repeating instance" model, so consecutive views of the same page (e.g. a search results page reloaded after each date change) disappear. Flow already offers "Include repeat instances". Having the same setting here would make both views consistent. Show visit entries. When the page is the first of the visit, there is no previous page, and these occurrences are excluded. A "No previous page / Entry" row would let the previous pages add up to 100% of the page's occurrences.Today we work around this with a manually edited segment, but it has to be rebuilt for every page and panel, which doesn't scale.Would others find this useful t

 When you want to set values for a picklist field in Admin you have to do them 1x1 In Forms with the “Advanced Editor” option we can paste in values We need this in field admin too 

Adobe Experience Manager (AEM) is a powerful enterprise content management system, but setting up a local development environment can be challenging. Traditional installations require significant manual configuration, consume considerable system resources, and often lead to "it works on my machine" scenarios.

Someone mentioned this earlier, to be able to hover over a request queue and it would show a description of what that request queue is for. Totally agree. But would love to be able to use that “What request so you want to submit?” area as a search bar. What if the user doesn’t know which request queue they should select. They know what they want, but they don’t know what team it should go to. Search “Email” “Paid Media” and it populates the Digital Marketing request queue. Or maybe type “Photo” or “Creative” and it maybe a couple options show up, rather than the entire list. More often than not, I have people submit generic requests to the wrong team because they don’t know where they should be routed. A search feature would be so useful.

When looking at your score, from the Unified Reviews AI Collaborator, there is no way to download the Fixes and Considers, you must stay on that screen. There needs to be a way to download those recommendations, instead of forcing us to keep that screen open the whole time.

Today, if you add a list of words in a Queue Topic Description each separated by a carriage return, when you hover over that queue topic on the Published Queue, the list of words are no longer separated by that carriage return, instead, the whole text appears similar to how it appears inside an Excel cell, without the ‘punctuation’. E.g.  Say the Queue Topic description says  First itemSecond itemThird itemFourth item Hovering over the Topic in the queue will read  First item Seconditem Third itemFourth item Being able to retain the structure is what I expected, and would like to see happen when hovering.

This is pretty simple. There's currently no way to export a milestone report like there is with other report views. I would love the ability to take a report using the Milestone view and export it into Excel.

Currently, collections on Content Hub can only be shared with people who also have log-in credentials for the portal. This doesn’t cover all business cases in day to day work, though.You want to be able to make CH collections public for anyone with the link as well.Why? Here are some examples:Agencies with short-term contracts don’t need accounts to access a specific subset of assets for a project. Sales or Product Management can share a collection of product data assets with a customer who can download directly A link to a collection with corporate assets can be shared on the intranet for everyone to access, even people who don’t usually use CH A Marketing colleague can share a collection of campaign assets with Sales regardless of their ability to log into CH or notThere should be an option to make collections public, which is linked to admin rights. Not everyone should be able to make any collection public for everyone with the link, but admins at least should be able to do it. 

We are looking for a product update that would allow for our authentication for the MCP server to be with persistent tokens -- rather than the expiration being at random and failing for our users. 

IntroductionURL management in Adobe Experience Manager can look deceptively simple.A visitor requests:https://www.example.com/es/cursos/javawhile the corresponding AEM resource might live at:/content/acme-learning/es/courses/javaSomewhere between the browser and the JCR repository, the public URL has to become an AEM resource.But that is only half of the problem.When AEM generates a navigation link, canonical URL or sitemap entry, the reverse operation must also work:/content/acme-learning/es/courses/java ↓https://www.example.com/es/cursos/javaAEM provides several mechanisms that participate in this process: Apache HTTP Server mod_rewrite Dispatcher Sling Resource Mapping ResourceResolver.resolve() ResourceResolver.map() sling:alias sling:vanityPath redirects sitemap generation The difficulty is usually not understanding what each feature does individually.The difficult part is knowing which layer should solve which URL problem.This article follows a request from

We cannot get the Computed Attributes value distribution to show anything but non-zero values. We were recently informed by Ultimate Support that a minimum success rate of 30% is required for Computed Attributes. This is also where we learned that the 30% was not only a minimum threshold for the Value Distribution/Sample Profiles QA piece, but also for getting the Computed Attribute in and of itself to populate at all. This is an extremely high target threshold and unrealistic for many of our real-world applications. We did ask Ultimate Support if and how clients have adopted Computed Attributes given those requirements and we learned that there have not been many Adobe clients who have, and confirmed that many other clients have expressed similar concerns as we have. Can the Computed Attributes value distribution minimum success rate be optimized & improved beyond the current 30% minimum threshold? 

To provide context for AI skills and callable agents within Marketo, it would be beneficial to be able to import documents in Word/Google Doc or Excel/Google Sheets, PDF, Slides/Powerpoint to provide the Adobe agent skills with context to operate, beyond the current MD file format that is available.  Documents that can be uploaded could be:Lifecycle definitions Picklist values required for CRM sync validation rules Instructions for how program templates get customized in “create program” use cases. This idea will enable marketers and ops to provide context to agents in a more user-friendly UX and low-code format.  

Marketo Engage users who have significant investment in email assets build in the legacy email designer need a “push button” way to convert old email assets to the format used by the new email designer.  Adoption of the New Email Builder is being hampered because New Email Designer assets are fundamentally different asset types, and switching to the new email editor for organizations that have significant investments in nurture programs are akin to doing a full Marketing Automation migration, which is not to be desired. 

Hi, We have a set up that include a number of shared profiles with large number of mapping rules.One profile is used for QA and one for production configuration.QA profile extends in multiply EDS site configurations, like pre production, development, test automation environment etc.Profile config: https://www.aem.live/docs/admin.html#tag/profileConfigSite config: https://www.aem.live/docs/admin.html#tag/siteConfigUse case When we update this shared profile with new configuration rules, as mapping, we expect that all related Site configurations reflect changes we add into base profile.After profile update changes do not reflect in all related site configurations.For now, each related Site config should be updated via POST to Admin API with same configuration to refresh config and apply on site.This behavior lead to have non actual configurations across related sites if not refreshed via API.Requested featureInvalidate site configurations for all related to profile sites when profile is

When we open a record in full-screen mode or in a new tab, the Record Type “Features” is displayed at the top, as highlighted in red in Screenshot 1. However, when we open the record directly in the minimized view, as shown in Screenshot 2, the Record Type “Feature” is not displayed at the top. Could we also display the Record Type in the minimized view? This record is a connected record. 

Behavior (current)When a reviewer/approver opens a proof via the Proof HQ direct link, the decision buttons (e.g., approve / changes required) do not display. When the same proof is opened via the Workfront proof link, the decision buttons display correctly. Suggested feature ideaEnable the decision buttons in the Proof HQ direct link proof viewer whenever the user has decision permissions for that proof, so reviewers can complete approvals regardless of whether they access the proof from the Workfront link or the Proof HQ link.

Many content-rich websites with extensive knowledge bases are experiencing a significant increase in traffic from AI scrapers, crawlers, and data harvesting bots. In our case, this has been an ongoing challenge for several months. While the impact on reporting accuracy is already substantial, the more immediate concern is the associated increase in Adobe Analytics server call consumption, which can lead to unexpected overages and additional costs.What makes this challenge different from traditional bot traffic is that these are not a small set of well-known bots that can be managed through static signatures or conventional bot rules. The traffic is highly distributed, frequently changes behavior, and often originates from a large number of sources, making it significantly harder for customers to identify and mitigate on their own.Given the broad impact across digital analytics implementations, could Adobe consider a more proactive partnership model with customers? For example:Maintaini

When custom objects get data transmitted initially, this is “Added to Object” activity that gets logged; however, there was times where this information then gets updated; such as status changes or watch times updated. There are triggers for “Custom Object is updated” however, since update activities are not logged in the Activity Log, then trigger tokens get skipped and logic flows get skipped. I have this case E-002408984 from a Marketo program that I was trying to create logic on Samples orders and to create an interesting moment. If you are added to Sample Object as status shipped, then pull trigger tokens for PN, Qty and ship date into an interesting moment. I also added if Sample object is updated, status changes to shipped, then pull trigger tokens for PN, Qty and ship date into an interesting moment; however, these were failing anytime “updates” were done on a prospect. Sample items can come in daily as “processing” and then next API call can be updated as ‘shipped’ hence why I

The Mention widget should automatically prioritize active conversations by moving any existing thread with a newly added comment to the top of the widget. This would improve visibility and help users quickly identify and respond to recent activity.Currently, users must scroll through the widget to locate new comments if the original thread was created some time ago, since thread placement is based on the thread's start date rather than the most recent comment. Reordering threads based on the latest activity would create a more intuitive and efficient user experience.

SUMMARYMake open tracking a per recipient decision driven by a person field, evaluated at send time, instead of an asset level setting. One email asset would then serve both consenting and non consenting recipients, and native Opened Email activity would still be generated for the consenting recipients only.TODAYThe only control over the open pixel is the asset level flag isOpenTrackingDisabled, exposed as the "Disable Open Tracking" checkbox in Email Settings and on the Emails Asset REST API. It is all or nothing for the asset.Adobe's own CNIL guidance therefore instructs customers to build two variants of every email, one tracked and one untracked, plus a Smart Campaign Choice step on a consent field to route recipients between them. Adobe Support has confirmed this is the only supported approach.Setting isOpenTrackingDisabled to true suppresses the pixel for every recipient of that asset, and Opened Email is a system activity that cannot be written back through the REST API, so ther

We cannot seem to get the Value Distribution for Computed Attributes to show any non-zero values? We were recently informed by Ultimate Support that a minimum success rate of 30% is required for Computed Attributes. This is also where we learned that the 30% was not only a minimum threshold for the Value Distribution/Sample Profiles QA piece, but also for getting the Computed Attribute in and of itself to populate at all. This is an extremely high target threshold and unrealistic for many of our real-world applications. We did ask Ultimate Support if and how many clients have adopted Computed Attributes given those requirements and he shared that there have not been many Adobe clients to his knowledge who have, and confirmed that many other clients have expressed similar concerns as we have. Hence the idea & feature enhancement request raised here.

The Adobe Analytics API 1.4 is scheduled for decommissioning this summer, yet critical endpoints from this legacy API have not been integrated into API 2.0. This creates a significant gap in functionality that will impact many organizations relying on programmatic management of Adobe Analytics configurations.Missing Critical Functionality:The most important missing feature is the ability to programmatically:Create new Adobe Analytics variables (props, eVars, events) Modify existing variable configurations Delete variables when no longer neededCurrently, API 2.0 forces users to manually manage these variables through the Adobe Analytics interface, which is:Time-consuming for bulk operations Error-prone for complex configurations Incompatible with automated deployment workflows Difficult to integrate with CI/CD pipelinesBusiness Impact:Without this functionality in API 2.0, organizations will lose the ability to:Automate variable management across multiple report suites Maintain consiste

Problem / Current Limitation:Currently, Content Fragment Models (CFMs) in AEM do not support version tracking. When a model's structure (fields, data types, validation rules, etc.) is modified, there is no way to see:What specifically changed (which field was added, removed, renamed, or had its type/config altered) Who made the change When the change was made Why the change was made (if a comment/reason was provided)This creates accountability and governance gaps, especially in environments where multiple authors/developers manage models that drive content used across channels. Untangling the impact of a model change (e.g., a breaking change to a field type) after the fact is difficult or impossible today.Proposed Enhancement:Introduce native version history for Content Fragment Models, similar to how AEM Pages already support versioning. Specifically: What to track: Model structure changes: field additions/removals/renames, data type changes, validation rule changes, default values.

Description - When a users share a segment with a group of users or individual, there should be an option to decide edit rights - edit copy or edit original. Why is this feature important to you - Our Analytics community is mixed with foundational to advance users and we are often sharing components based on expertise level. This feature would help us to democratize more of the IP across teams. How would you like the feature to work - The sharing prompt should work much like workspaces. Edit copy - Edit Original- Read Only. Current Behaviour - Today we can only ask the user to clone segments from the components section, if they want any specific universal segments OR work based on trust that the user wont make an update and would be careful.