Explore product-specific spaces to ask questions, share insights, and learn best practices.
Recently active
In the old SAINT data export user-interface, we had the ability to filter the results exported based on number of rows (which we can still do), dates (which we can still do) and key values (which we cannot do). When we are addressing data changes by our users and trying to update a subset of the page classification values, this ability to fetch only a subset of the data that needed to be addressed was critical. Sadly we no longer have that ability in the new classification set interface. If it could be added back, that would be a tremendous boon for us. I know we can get this via the API, so the underlying code is there, it would be great if it were added back to the user interface as well.Thanks!
This article makes the case for setting up a lightweight Workfront release management process, and shows how it's easier to implement than most people assume.Key points:The problem: Untested changes going live in Workfront can catch teams off guard and erode trust. The fix doesn't need to be heavy: Release management just means having a repeatable way to plan, test, approve, and communicate changes — not a bureaucratic approval chain. Two sandboxes, two jobs: SB02 (Sandbox 2) is where technical building and testing happens; SB01 (Sandbox 1) is where real users validate changes before go-live. Keep sandboxes fresh: Regular refreshes (SB02 more often, SB01 before major testing cycles) keep testing environments realistic — stale sandboxes give false confidence. Environment Promotion moves things along: Workfront's built-in packaging tool lets you move configuration changes (forms, fields, templates) between environments reliably, instead of manually rebuilding them each time — build → com
Hi, I have a Dispatcher filter rule to allow for DELETE method for a specific url path. It works fine on my local AEM instance Dispatcher. The same errors out “406 Not Acceptable”Can you please suggest a fix for the AEMaaCS environment?The following is how the rule looks in the sites_filters.any file./0123 { /type "allow" /method "DELETE" /url "/service/xyz.json”
When updating the panel date ranges, the Comparison Dates stay the same. This means we as users have to delete the old comp dates and percentage change metrics, then create new ones. On bigger “recycled” dashboards, this takes FOREVER! This one improvement would save me hours and hours and hours every year.Thanks! RR
Hi everyone,I’ve been trying to build this project without much success. Here’s the command I used last:```mvn -B archetype:generate ^ -D archetypeGroupId=com.adobe.aem ^ -D archetypeArtifactId=aem-project-archetype ^ -D archetypeVersion=23 ^ -D aemVersion=6.5.0 ^ -D appTitle="My Site" ^ -D appId="mysite" ^ -D groupId="com.mysite" ^ -D frontendModule=general ^ -D includeExamples=y```I am on windows and I do use cmd with administrator privileges. I’ve tried numerous versions of the command above and I haven’t managed to get it running. Sometimes the build command fails, other times the `mvn clean install` or `mvn clean install -PautoInstallPackage` or `mvn clean install -PautoInstallSinglePackage` fails. And the times that both work and I can see the project in AEM it is still not functioning properly. For example I get an error when trying to create a page. My question is more general as I’m trying to understand how this all works. I have the AEM 6.5.0 version.From aem-project-archetyp
Hi all,I'm trying to understand a specific aspect of AJO's decisioning capability. Does AJO's decisioning engine have the ability to generate/select offers purely on its own — using only internal AJO/AEP configuration (like offer eligibility rules, priorities, and constraints) — without needing to pull any profile or event data from an external/3rd party source into AEP?
Hi All,I'm trying to understand a discrepancy in visitor counts between Adobe Analytics and an Adobe Target activity using A4T reporting.I created a new Adobe Target activity that targets all visitors landing on a specific URL, and the activity is configured to use Analytics for Target (A4T) reporting.However, I noticed the following:Adobe Analytics reports approximately 500 unique visitors for this URL. The new Target activity shows only 250 unique visitors. I also have another existing Target activity running on the same URL, which includes an additional mobile segment as part of the audience criteria. That activity is showing approximately 390 unique visitors in Analytics.Since the new activity is targeted to all visitors on the URL, I would expect all visitors landing on that page to qualify for the activity.Could anyone help me understand what might be causing this discrepancy between the Analytics unique visitor count and the Target activity unique visitor count?Thanks,
Event Forwarding governance and optimization are becoming increasingly difficult as implementations scale and additional rules are introduced. While the current monitoring experience provides an aggregate compute-time view, it lacks the visibility needed to understand which individual rules are responsible for overall resource consumption. This creates a significant operational challenge because teams can identify that compute-time usage has increased, but they cannot determine what is driving the increase, which rules are contributing the most, or where optimization efforts should be focused. As a result, troubleshooting becomes highly manual, requiring teams to review rules individually, make assumptions about potential bottlenecks, and perform extensive testing without any data-driven insights.To address this gap, the Event Forwarding monitoring UI should provide rule-level compute-time attribution that allows users to understand exactly how much compute time each rule consumes duri
I’m currently trying to create a fusion scenario to map the Workfront Core project status to a Planning record’s status field so there is more parity between the two objects. I’m running into this very odd issue where for some Planning Workspaces I am able to successfully map the status but in other workspaces I can’t. I’m an Admin and the owner of all workspaces so I don’t think it’s an issue with permissions but given how complicated Planning sharing is I haven’t fully ruled that out.The fusion scenario throws no obvious errors and appears to execute successfully, however in the output bundle I get is below, and I know the record ID it’s saying doesn’t match does exist: { "body": { "data": { "status": "failed", "total": 1, "succeeded": 0, "failed": 1, "requestId": "[Request ID redacted for privacy]", "results": [ { "requestIndex": 0,
While initially excited about the NEW Email Designer, I’ve found it to be incredibly frustrating to work with. I would appreciate any support with the spacing issue I’m having. I’ve included images of how my email looks in Marketo and how it looks once sent via Gmail. You can see the spaces between sections at the top and bottom of the email. I can confirm that there is no extra padding in any of the components/fragments of my template. While I can see the HTML, in the design studio, it’s locked so I can’t make any changes. I have watched every tutorial and asked as many users I can find and can get no solution. Additionally, there’s no way to bring in plain rich text without losing our brand fonts, weights etc. UGH. Not having the ability to upload our brand fonts/colors in the new designer and having it hold while working on an email is crazy. To have to add a custom color for every usage is very frustrating.
There should be a setting in the new launch to be able to track s.products without going to the custom code to build the product string.Kind of like how the old GTM had a checkbox to enable e-commerce tracking and it would just read the dataLayer Enhanced Ecommerce (UA) Developer Guide | Google Tag Manager for Web Tracking | Google Developers
Hi everyone,I’m trying to identify duplicate records in our Marketo database using a Smart List with the “Email Address is duplicate” filter.The Smart List is showing 6 records, but when I go to the People tab and search for the email addresses of those records, I’m unable to find another person record with the same email address.Has anyone experienced this before?I’m trying to understand:- Why would the “Email Address is duplicate” filter return records when I cannot find the corresponding duplicate records in the People tab?- Could this be related to deleted/merged records, workspaces/person partitions, indexing, or Smart List data refresh?- Is there a reliable way to identify the actual duplicate records that Marketo is detecting before we proceed with a database cleanup?Any guidance on how to troubleshoot this would be greatly appreciated.Thanks!
I’m facing Adobe Analytics Error “Error code: 500-001: Page loading fail”.I’m not sure why this error happens. Full error message is below:The page could not be loaded correctly. Please verify your login and try again. If this message continues to appear, please contact customer support with the following reference information: EIM Instance ID 230e11a2-ab1a-11f1-8dfe-2f547bb1e87c.
Hi Team,I’m working on a use case where I need to trigger a Workfront Fusion flow when a Smart Campaign is run/activated in Marketo.The requirement is:When a Smart Campaign is activated/run in Marketo, the Fusion flow should be triggered. The flow should check whether the Communication Limit option is unchecked for that campaign. If the Communication Limit is unchecked, the Fusion flow should proceed and send the email. If the Communication Limit is checked, the flow should not send the email.Is there any way to trigger a Workfront Fusion flow when a Marketo Smart Campaign is activated/run? Also, is there a Marketo REST API that can return the Communication Limit setting for a Smart Campaign?Any guidance or recommended approach would be greatly appreciated.Thanks!
Please build API where you can store the user activity from 12 months to var node and so that based on that we can able to identify the how many active users are there from past 12 months.
Thank you to Jyothitha Chandran (Product Manager) and Mayank Gaur (Senior Product Manager), for a great session exploring how AEM Dynamic Media and Adobe Journey Optimizer work together to deliver personalized experiences at scale. We appreciate all the insights, demos, and roadmap updates! Session SummaryMayank and Jyothitha demonstrated how teams can create and manage Dynamic Media templates and bring them into AJO to build personalized, reusable content for omnichannel campaigns. The team showcased how AJO can combine profile and external data for real-time personalization, dynamically tailoring elements such as product names, prices, images, and regional content. Mayank shared a look at the product roadmap, including deeper Dynamic Media integration within the AJO email designer, expanded open-time personalization, and AI-assisted workflows, while gathering customer feedback to help shape future capabilities. Session MaterialsSlide Deck Webinar Recording Consolidated Q&A Additi
Current behavior allows an invalid, nonexistent, or blank Program Name value to be treated as "Is Any" rather than returning no results or generating an error. In my example, I have a list of program names provided to me by a team member. I put it in the Member of Program is and pasted them all in along with a constraint of status = Event > Registered. The smart list gave me thousands of results. In reality, none of those programs I put in the Member of Program criteria was even valid. So why would it show me any results?This behavior is counterintuitive and creates a significant risk for audience selection, reporting accuracy, and operational decision-making. If a user enters an invalid Program Name, the Smart List appears to function correctly while silently broadening the audience. As a result, configuration errors can go undetected and may lead to unintended campaign execution or inaccurate reporting.From a product usability and data integrity perspective, an invalid filter valu
If the Custom Action is used in live journey I am not able to change the payload, authentication etc?
Feature Request: Timed & Milestone-Based Comment Access 💡 OverviewCreative reviews happen in stages. Early on, teams need private space to draft assets and give feedback without outside eyes. Later, final reviewers need to see past comments to understand why decisions were made—without gaining permanent access.This feature adds a smart visibility gate that automatically reveals past comments to later reviewers only when their turn begins, and locks access once their review is done.👥 Who Is Involved? Audience 1 (Core Team / Project Leads): Runs the project, manages review stages, and makes final calls. Audience 2 (Creative Partners / Vendors): Works privately with Audience 1 during initial creation. Audience 3 (Final Reviewers / Business Stakeholders): Steps in at the end to review the work and provide sign-off. ⚙️ How It Works Keep Early Work Private Audience 1 and Audience 2 work together in a private space. Audience 3 cannot see drafts or internal comments during th
I have several report builder reports that got out to many stakeholders. Anytime a change is made to one of the reports, it needs to be rescheduled so that the report will send with the changes. Simply going in to edit the schedule of the report and selecting “current workbook” does not actually update the file sent to the latest file with the changes. Because of this, the schedule needs to be set up from scratch again, which can be quite tedious when the recipient list is long and each individual needs to get re-entered because publishing lists are no longer an option.
We would like the ability to limit users from being able to delete a task assigned to them. We don’t log hours we we are unable to remove that ability from them in the Project Preferences. The issue is when we try to remove the delete functionality from them, it also removes the ability for them to complete the work on the task. We tried going a layout template route as well suggested by support. According to support, Layout Templates only control the Delete action in the task Details view; there isn't a way to hide that same action in the project's task list (grid) view, since that's tied directly to the Delete permission on the Access Level. Because unchecking Delete at the Access Level can also block completing multi-assignee tasks, there isn't a configuration that fully satisfies both goals (deletion blocked everywhere, completion always working) at the same time today.
After a marketer gives feedback on a piece of creative work, the designer should be able to open that proof and review the feedback and the markups that were made on the proof correct? Today, our designers reported that once they were notified of “Needs Work”, they can’t open the proof. Is that by design? Is there a different workflow they should be following to access that feedback?We are on Workfront with Adobe Cloud Storage and using the Frame Viewer for unified review and approvals. Any help would be appreciated.
From Audiences to Insight: Identifying Your Most Valuable Customers If you're running Adobe Real-Time CDP, you've already done the hard part. Your data sources are connected. Identities are stitched. Profiles are unified, and your team can build an audience and activate it across channels in minutes.So, here's the question worth sitting with: open your audience builder right now. Can you segment on how much each customer is actually worth to your business, ranked, current, and ready to activate today?Most Real-Time CDP teams can't. And the reason isn't a gap in Real-Time CDP. It's that the attribute you'd need to segment on doesn't exist on the profile yet.The limits you've probably already hitReal-Time CDP gives you computed attributes, a genuinely useful way to aggregate event-level data up to the profile. If you need a count of purchases in the last 30 days, that's exactly the right tool.But computed attributes work within the boundaries of the Profile Store. They operate on a pre-d
Many teams use fixed-date tasks such as launch dates, event dates, or email send dates. In these scenarios, predecessor tasks often need to be completed a specific number of business days before the fixed-date task and automatically adjust when that date changes.Currently, Workfront does not provide a reliable native way to maintain these offsets. While the As Late As Possible (ALAP) task constraint may appear to be a potential solution, using ALAP can create unintended impacts to the overall project timeline, making it difficult to support this type of scheduling without manual updates or custom automation.We would like Adobe to evaluate enhancements to ALAP and related scheduling capabilities to better support deadline-driven work. This would reduce the need for custom automation, simplify template maintenance, and make native scheduling functionality more effective for a broader range of planning scenarios.
Just checking if anyone using connecting Adobe analytics data to PowerBI via 2.0 API connector. We have already migrated our reports to use 2.0 implementation and data refresh works fine on powerBI desktop. However, we published to PowerBI, the refresh fails during user authentication throwing an error “ This API endpoint has been discontinued”. Tried deleting and republishing the data source but still fails.Anyone that has come across this? Thanks.
Already have an account? Login
No account yet? Create an account
Enter your E-mail address. We'll send you an e-mail with instructions to reset your password.
