March 5, 2009 at 3:55 pm
I absolutely agree... right now, there's a "Rate Topic" button in the upper right quadrant of the screen... if you look at the topics in any given week, you might see one or two ratings and that's it. An "Accepted Answer" flag wouldn't be right because a lot of folks will frequently take code that just isn't right compared to other code on any given thread. We have to remember that people are asking for help because they don't know what they're doing...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
March 5, 2009 at 7:17 pm
Steve Jones - Editor (3/5/2009)
A lot of what Gus has listed are reasons I'm concerned about this.I think things work well as is. Relatively few people would likely use any "improvements"
And it's not exactly like things have been failing around here with the current system either.
"The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood"
- Theodore Roosevelt
Author of:
SQL Server Execution Plans
SQL Server Query Performance Tuning
March 5, 2009 at 8:23 pm
Just padding my posts here, but I really don't see how answer ratings would contribute much. This is a discussion board, so all the meat is in the discussion. Any value in the thread is only available to those willing to dig in and try to understand the content.
Look at a typical thread:
1. OP asks a question. It often has incomplete information, ambiguous statements, vaguely defined requirements, and very poor English.
2. A few of the regulars take a shot at responding by posting a solution for their best guess about what the real problem is or asking for additional information. Others post replies that are clearly off the mark or just outright wrong.
3. If the OP responds at all, they may clarify the situation, or post something that muddies the water even more.
Repeat 1 through 3 until the problem is solved, or every one gives up in despair. If the OP uses any solution at all, it's likely because it was the only one they could understand or seemed to be the least work.
I doubt having the OP rate it would contribute very much or that many would even bother. I also doubt that that many people would pay much attention to the ratings.
March 5, 2009 at 9:25 pm
Just some thoughts here.
Any number of times I've seen the substantially the same question appear, just with different data and column names. Concatenation of values from different rows into one column is the first one that comes to mind. Do you think that most OPs read anything that they could find with a search or do they just ask their question in lieu of a search? It has been pointed out that some people may be unfamiliar with the common SQL terminology for an issue because they've never been exposed to it. I believe that is often the case because so many titles to questions are unhelpful, or even totally misleading, as to the true nature of the questions.
When I run across some of these, I've started trying to remember to tell people that if they want more information they should search on particular terms (for instance CONCATENATE or CONTENATION, TALLY TABLE or NUMBERS TABLE). Lynn has a string of links to articles discussing commonly-discussed issues. It seems like it might be a good idea to identify more commonly discussed issues and tag them, the way articles are tagged. The first time a tag was added, a message could be inserted saying additional articles could be found by searching on such and such a tag. A link could even be provided to run the search. That way people groping to learn the ropes could quickly be put in touch with all articles and discussions on similar issues.
Obviously this won't please people who just want a question answered, rather than to be guided to further research. But if substantially the same problem has been presented, and code examples provided elsewhere, it's a shame to let them go to waste. I think I would use such a tool if it were available on this site.
__________________________________________________
Against stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain. -- Friedrich Schiller
Stop, children, what's that sound? Everybody look what's going down. -- Stephen Stills
March 5, 2009 at 10:30 pm
Michael Valentine Jones (3/5/2009)
Just padding my posts here, but I really don't see how answer ratings would contribute much. This is a discussion board, so all the meat is in the discussion. Any value in the thread is only available to those willing to dig in and try to understand the content.
{image of me standing up and applauding}
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
March 5, 2009 at 10:36 pm
Bob Hovious (3/5/2009)
Just some thoughts here.Any number of times I've seen the substantially the same question appear, just with different data and column names. Concatenation of values from different rows into one column is the first one that comes to mind. Do you think that most OPs read anything that they could find with a search or do they just ask their question in lieu of a search? It has been pointed out that some people may be unfamiliar with the common SQL terminology for an issue because they've never been exposed to it. I believe that is often the case because so many titles to questions are unhelpful, or even totally misleading, as to the true nature of the questions.
When I run across some of these, I've started trying to remember to tell people that if they want more information they should search on particular terms (for instance CONCATENATE or CONTENATION, TALLY TABLE or NUMBERS TABLE). Lynn has a string of links to articles discussing commonly-discussed issues. It seems like it might be a good idea to identify more commonly discussed issues and tag them, the way articles are tagged. The first time a tag was added, a message could be inserted saying additional articles could be found by searching on such and such a tag. A link could even be provided to run the search. That way people groping to learn the ropes could quickly be put in touch with all articles and discussions on similar issues.
Obviously this won't please people who just want a question answered, rather than to be guided to further research. But if substantially the same problem has been presented, and code examples provided elsewhere, it's a shame to let them go to waste. I think I would use such a tool if it were available on this site.
And between what Micheal and you have just said, NOW people understand why it's, many times, appropriate to just politely point to an article instead of writing the same bloody code for the 1,000th time... as has been so aptly stated before, we don't get paid for this and the OPs should at least try to solve their own problems, first.
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
March 5, 2009 at 11:09 pm
the OPs should at least try to solve their own problems, first.
Heartily Agree.
BTW do we get points for "deleted" post ? :hehe:
"Keep Trying"
March 5, 2009 at 11:10 pm
Michael Valentine Jones (3/5/2009)
Just padding my posts here, ...
Aha! The true culprit has finally revealed himself! 😀
(seriously though, that's probably my favorite line in this entire thread, Michael)
[font="Times New Roman"]-- RBarryYoung[/font], [font="Times New Roman"] (302)375-0451[/font] blog: MovingSQL.com, Twitter: @RBarryYoung[font="Arial Black"]
Proactive Performance Solutions, Inc. [/font][font="Verdana"] "Performance is our middle name."[/font]
March 5, 2009 at 11:16 pm
I can't knock Michael. I think I'm "Chasing Mays" in this thread alone.
(Ring up another post... KA-CHING!!)
__________________________________________________
Against stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain. -- Friedrich Schiller
Stop, children, what's that sound? Everybody look what's going down. -- Stephen Stills
March 5, 2009 at 11:20 pm
Bob Hovious (3/5/2009)
I can't knock Michael. I think I'm "Chasing Mays" in this thread alone.(Ring up another post... KA-CHING!!)
Nah, this thread is too short for that. Now on the other hand there is that other thread that just keeps going, and going, and going ...
(KA-CHING!)
March 5, 2009 at 11:27 pm
DOH!!
It's almost 12:30 here and I'm getting lost about what threads I'm in. Time for bed.
fnord KA-CHING fnord
__________________________________________________
Against stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain. -- Friedrich Schiller
Stop, children, what's that sound? Everybody look what's going down. -- Stephen Stills
March 6, 2009 at 2:34 am
Jeff Moden (3/5/2009)
I absolutely agree... right now, there's a "Rate Topic" button in the upper right quadrant of the screen... if you look at the topics in any given week, you might see one or two ratings and that's it.
And in just about every case I've seen, 4 or 5 stars, even for really way-out discussions
Michael Valentine Jones (3/5/2009)
Repeat 1 through 3 until the problem is solved, or every one gives up in despair.
:hehe:
Too true. I wonder what the % is of the first to the second
On the answered posts, take a look at this forum: http://sadeveloper.net/forums/default.aspx (my local hunting grounds). Posters are ranked on numbers of posts, like here and there is also an option to mark a post as an answer, it's not limited to one per thread and it doesn't close the thread. Seems to work fairly well, though we have nowhere near the traffic of this site. Site appears to be down currently, I think they're upgrading, hopefully will be up later today or tomorrow
Gail Shaw
Microsoft Certified Master: SQL Server, MVP, M.Sc (Comp Sci)
SQL In The Wild: Discussions on DB performance with occasional diversions into recoverability
March 6, 2009 at 8:16 am
Gail,
I'll check them out, but they appear to be down now. Or down from the Denver area.
The only hesitation I have with changing color or marking something as an answer is that it gives more credibility to that answer and people might not read the rest of the discussion. I guess they might not do that anyway, but I get slightly concerned that the first thing that "appears" to work will be marked correct by an OP.
March 6, 2009 at 9:50 am
Here's a great example of how "mark as correct" or "mark as answered" really works. All of the answers are preserved, one or more are flagged up.
So what is the main difference between New Scientist and SSC? Well, it has to be volume - you would need to employ someone full-time to cover all the threads in SSC, and as we all know, nobody is completely familiar with all aspects of SQL Server, which means a captive audience of selected experts. They've got better things to do. The second key difference is immediacy - it doesn't matter if it takes three months to flag up the responses in NS. Three days is a long time here.
In any case, the best or, more rarely, the correct answer here is usually blindingly obvious.
For fast, accurate and documented assistance in answering your questions, please read this article.
Understanding and using APPLY, (I) and (II) Paul White
Hidden RBAR: Triangular Joins / The "Numbers" or "Tally" Table: What it is and how it replaces a loop Jeff Moden
March 6, 2009 at 9:56 am
Chris Morris (3/6/2009)
In any case, the best or, more rarely, the correct answer here is usually blindingly obvious.
To you, Chris, or to someone who knows that they're doing. Might not be to me, or to some other reader who doesn't have any experience in the topic at hand.
---------------------------------------------------------
How best to post your question[/url]
How to post performance problems[/url]
Tally Table:What it is and how it replaces a loop[/url]
"stewsterl 80804 (10/16/2009)I guess when you stop and try to understand the solution provided you not only learn, but save yourself some headaches when you need to make any slight changes."
Viewing 15 posts - 61 through 75 (of 97 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply