Adobe always does this. The unintended consequence is that when a product is released that isn't fully QAd and vetted, the developers are thought to be inept. Adobe needs to learn that you only get one first impression.

Well said. I have training docs that actually say "Adobe product managers are clueless so just ignore this, they have no idea this is useless".

Putting them in separate companies is a lot more work but it affords you flexibility. All in one Company is easy but rigid and non-flexible. If you ever want to treat one company different than another, like with permissions, layouts, sharing options, etc., you want separate companies

"My second favorite (though it's still in testing) is a method of using the new field-level form validation to block creation of projects from templates that are meant to only be appended as ad-hoc tasks. I am determined to make that one work when I have time!"   I could SO use this!

THIS may help with that.

When I discovered I could circumvent reporting on things that were too many 'hops' away by adding a calculated field on an 'inbetween' object.

No, the problem is not solved. Adobe thinks they know what my users want more than I do and they're OK with cluttering up their menus with useless junk to try to pressure me to enable it. So now I have 86,000 (NOT a typo) users with something in their menu that they won't use and I can't hide it. It...

Yes. Here's how I do it: Successor(s) description=Task#, name, assigned to, planned completion date displayname=Successor(s) listdelimiter=<br> listmethod=nested(successors).lists styledef.case.0.comparison.icon=false styledef.case.0.comparison.leftmethod=handoffDate styledef.case.0.comparison.left...

Agreed Madalyn, it's not a complete solution and not easy to use but at least it's something.

Has anyone figured out how to add a double quote " in the filters? I tried escaping with a \ but it broke the IF statement.