How to post comments on externally linked articles

Question

Post reply

How to post comments on externally linked articles

YSLGuru

SSC-Insane

Points: 21661
More actions
September 26, 2008 at 2:13 pm

#193337

When an article is a guest article or something that is accessed outside the SQLServerCentral website, like the one today (2008/09/26) from Brian Walker titled SQL Server database design disasters: What not to do, is there any way to have a Posts or Comments section as with articles internal to the site? I've read numeorus articles with extrenal links that I'm certain would have generated asizeable number of comments/posts. I would think that all we'd need to do is instead of automatically re-directing the link from SQLServerCentral.com to an external site, you'd go to a standard Article page on the website which would from there re-direct to an external page on the net. This would allow for mainataining discussions on all articles as well as add these to the briefcase and such.
Thoughts?
Thansk
Kindest Regards,
Just say No to Facebook!

Viewing 14 posts - 1 through 13 (of 13 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply

Steve Jones - SSC Editor SSC Guru Points: 736270 More actions · Answer 1

We tried this at one point and almost no one commented. Once they hit another site, they tend to comment there.

I think comments are best left on that site, with the article.

Jeff Moden SSC Guru Points: 1004363 More actions · Answer 2

Man, would I like to be able to comment here on external articles so I don't have to sign up for every forum that has a "dangerous code" article. The article today about "Compare Dates" has to be one of the dumbest, most dangerous solutions I've seen in a while. With only 16 rows of data, the author managed to generate more than a Cartesian Join's worth of internal rows adding up to 280 rows on 1 leg and 66 on the other.

Further, lot's of these sites don't have a method for feedback. If I'm going to rate an article as "poop", it would be nice if people on SSC knew why... 🙂

--Jeff Moden

RBAR is pronounced "ree-bar" and is a "Modenism" for Row-By-Agonizing-Row.
First step towards the paradigm shift of writing Set Based code:
________Stop thinking about what you want to do to a ROW... think, instead, of what you want to do to a COLUMN.

Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.

Helpful Links:
How to post code problems
How to Post Performance Problems
Create a Tally Function (fnTally)

YSLGuru SSC-Insane Points: 21661 More actions · Answer 3

Thanks Jeff for helping make my case for this feature. I haven't read that article yet but it sounds like I need to (LOL).

Ed

Kindest Regards,

Just say No to Facebook!

Steve Jones - SSC Editor SSC Guru Points: 736270 More actions · Answer 4

Not a bad point, we'll talk about adding these in there automatically.

Do we pop external articles in another browser? Do we frame things? I hate frames, BTW.

Lynn Pettis SSC Guru Points: 442467 More actions · Answer 5

Jeff Moden (10/27/2008)
Man, would I like to be able to comment here on external articles so I don't have to sign up for every forum that has a "dangerous code" article. The article today about "Compare Dates" has to be one of the dumbest, most dangerous solutions I've seen in a while. With only 16 rows of data, the author managed to generate more than a Cartesian Join's worth of internal rows adding up to 280 rows on 1 leg and 66 on the other.
Further, lot's of these sites don't have a method for feedback. If I'm going to rate an article as "poop", it would be nice if people on SSC knew why... 🙂

Okay, I agree.

Based on the article and the data provided therein, here is my solution (works in SQL Server 2005, and should work in SQL Server 2000 as I did not use a CTE, but a derived table).

select

x.PersonID,

x.Version,

x.DEDate,

case when z.InSequence > 0 then 1 else 0 end as OutOfOrder

from

PersonRecord x

inner join (

select

a.PersonID,

sum(case when a.DEDate < isnull(b.DEDate, getdate()) then 0 else 1 end) as InSequence

from

PersonRecord a

left outer join PersonRecord b

on (a.PersonID = b.PersonID

and a.Version = b.Version - 1)

group by

a.PersonID) z

on (x.PersonID = z.PersonID)

😎

YSLGuru SSC-Insane Points: 21661 More actions · Answer 6

Steve,

I'd still launch the other sites article in another Window like currently happens. The difference between how it works now is when you click on the link to the article from the SQL Server newsletter or an search on that story, you are taken to a SQL Server Central page, like you would be with an article hosted on SQL Server Central, and on that page have a link to the external sites page. This way no matter if an item in the newsletter is hosted on SQL Server Central or an external website, users are always taken to a page on SQL Server Central where they can post messages and read the article or click the link that points to the external site.

On a side note, doing the newsletter like this could have some security benefits. Currently when someone recieves the newsletter, if they have strong email security and the newsletter contains a link to a site not trusted for them, does that cause problems with them getting the newsletter? If the newsletter has only links to SQLServerCentral.com or RedGate then you cut down the number of sites you have to whitelist in your email.

Just a thought.

Thanks

Kindest Regards,

Just say No to Facebook!

Jeff Moden SSC Guru Points: 1004363 More actions · Answer 7

Lynn Pettis (10/27/2008)
Jeff Moden (10/27/2008)
Man, would I like to be able to comment here on external articles so I don't have to sign up for every forum that has a "dangerous code" article. The article today about "Compare Dates" has to be one of the dumbest, most dangerous solutions I've seen in a while. With only 16 rows of data, the author managed to generate more than a Cartesian Join's worth of internal rows adding up to 280 rows on 1 leg and 66 on the other.
Further, lot's of these sites don't have a method for feedback. If I'm going to rate an article as "poop", it would be nice if people on SSC knew why... 🙂
Okay, I agree.
Based on the article and the data provided therein, here is my solution (works in SQL Server 2005, and should work in SQL Server 2000 as I did not use a CTE, but a derived table).
select
x.PersonID,
x.Version,
x.DEDate,
case when z.InSequence > 0 then 1 else 0 end as OutOfOrder
from
PersonRecord x
inner join (
select
a.PersonID,
sum(case when a.DEDate < isnull(b.DEDate, getdate()) then 0 else 1 end) as InSequence
from
PersonRecord a
left outer join PersonRecord b
on (a.PersonID = b.PersonID
and a.Version = b.Version - 1)
group by
a.PersonID) z
on (x.PersonID = z.PersonID)
😎

I haven't tested it, but that still contains a triangular join.

--Jeff Moden

RBAR is pronounced "ree-bar" and is a "Modenism" for Row-By-Agonizing-Row.
First step towards the paradigm shift of writing Set Based code:
________Stop thinking about what you want to do to a ROW... think, instead, of what you want to do to a COLUMN.

Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.

Helpful Links:
How to post code problems
How to Post Performance Problems
Create a Tally Function (fnTally)

Lynn Pettis SSC Guru Points: 442467 More actions · Answer 8

Where is there a triangular join in this query? I am joining row i to row i + 1 using an outer join, then this derived table is then joined to the original table. Not sure how that equates to a triangular join.

I know the execution plan looks a heck of a lot better, and the response time is extremely improved over the code from the article. Don't have the exact times, but less than 1 sec versus 4 seconds and that is with only a few rows of sample data.

Maybe I'm missing something still and there is still a much better way still to be found.

😎

Jeff Moden SSC Guru Points: 1004363 More actions · Answer 9

Oh, my bad... low levels of Caffeine. You're correct, not a triangular join. Read too quickly. Sorry, Lynn.

--Jeff Moden

RBAR is pronounced "ree-bar" and is a "Modenism" for Row-By-Agonizing-Row.
First step towards the paradigm shift of writing Set Based code:
________Stop thinking about what you want to do to a ROW... think, instead, of what you want to do to a COLUMN.

Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.

Helpful Links:
How to post code problems
How to Post Performance Problems
Create a Tally Function (fnTally)

Lynn Pettis SSC Guru Points: 442467 More actions · Answer 10

Not a problem, I just thought I might have missed something somewhere. So, should this be written up as counter-point article to the one that started this?

😎

Jeff Moden SSC Guru Points: 1004363 More actions · Answer 11

Yeah... but they wouldn't like my title for it... "Ready, Aim, Fire all Pork Chops!" 😀

--Jeff Moden

RBAR is pronounced "ree-bar" and is a "Modenism" for Row-By-Agonizing-Row.
First step towards the paradigm shift of writing Set Based code:
________Stop thinking about what you want to do to a ROW... think, instead, of what you want to do to a COLUMN.

Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.

Helpful Links:
How to post code problems
How to Post Performance Problems
Create a Tally Function (fnTally)

Lynn Pettis SSC Guru Points: 442467 More actions · Answer 12

Just use that as the working title. :w00t:

Steve could always retitle it prior to publishing.

😎

Steve Jones - SSC Editor SSC Guru Points: 736270 More actions · Answer 13

Steve Jones - SSC Editor

SSC Guru

Points: 736270

October 28, 2008 at 9:14 am

#890709

😛