Post reply

Are the posted questions getting worse?

  • August 4, 2012 at 6:15 am

    #1521696

    bitbucket-25253 (8/3/2012)

    Steve Jones - SSC Editor (8/3/2012)

    FYI, since some of you submit questions. I'm no longer accepting images of code.

    Please feel free to debate me.

    A. I consider the QOD as a teaching exercise, and/or a test of past learning.

    B. No more images makes the QOD a copy and paste exercise, for far too many people, who value the point more then they value what they could have learned.

    C. Note how masses scream when they believe an answer is wrong. One reads nothing but "gimmie my points".

    D. As if you did not have enough to do.. rewrite your original article on the QOD, omitting most of the history of how it evolved, but add emphasis that is is a LEARNING TOOL[/B], but errors may occur for we all are but human. And suck it up, no points will be awarded after the fact and yes who said life is fair, but that is the way it is and the way it wil be in the future

    E. Add a new rule for submittal, if the author elects to use an image, and there is an error in the image of the code and that error negates what the author has said is the correct answer or answers, then the submitter will have not less than 100 points deducted from their over all total point score. Thus putting the burden of submitting a valid QOD on the back of the individual submitting the QOD for publication.

    Anyone else care to join the debate ?

    I agree with your points A and C. For point B, I've observed that many of the people you refer appear to just type a copy of the text in the image into SSMS, so it appears that using images doesn't eliminate the copy and paste approach, just change the copy mechanism (maybe people are not reading and typing, but using character recognition software). On point D, I suspect that those who read an article about QotD are largely the same as those who think of it primarily as a self-help aid so a new article like the one you describe would be preaching to the faithful and thus achieve little or nothing. On point E, I can't see why an error in an image should be treated differently from an error in text - all that would do is provide a mechanism to discourage the use of images, and that could be done more effectively by the method Steve proposes (just ban them).

    The problem with images is generally their illegibility. Often this isn't the fault of the person providing the image: in the case of yesterday's QotD, the image appears to be of text in Courier New, a font which is notoriously hard to read accurately for people used to reading proportional fonts because the spaces included in a narrow character padding it to reach the fixed width look too much like real spaces, and at 10 point size which is rather small for some people (particularly if they are using very small screens) - but the originator can't be blamed for using that typeface, because that's what SSMS uses by default (on my laptop it uses Luncida Sans Unicode 10 point because that's the typeface I told it to use). In other cases the image quality has been poor - presumably the submitter either pushed it down to too small resolution or set the quality on jpeg compression too low - and that just makes the legibility problem worse.

    Edit: The 1st Aug QotD (XML) used an image where the text was displayed in notepad using a proportional font (I don't know which one) with what looks as if it was a rather small number of pixels per character (so that diagonal lines in letters like "m" were clearly staircases, not straight). Whatever font that is, I find it much easier to read than Courier New, despite it being a rather ugly font.

    Tom

  • August 4, 2012 at 6:35 am

    #1521698

    WayneS (8/3/2012)

    I'm curious... how many Threadizens here would be interested in forming a QotD team to verify the questions? I'm thinking that if we can get 10 folks, that would be one question every 2 weeks. 22 folks would be about one per month. Who would be willing to commit to this? Maybe commit for a six month period?

    I know that Steve has had problems with such a group in the past... initially several enthusiastic folks, then it quickly dwindles to just a few. I'm looking for people that would seriously commit to this. But I also want to get enough folks that it doesn't become a burden on them. Reviewing 1 or 2 questions a month seems like a decent number for me.

    (Steve: maybe on the question, put a "Question verified by ..."?)

    I would commit to being on such a group. Any others?

    Edit: Steve, I would not schedule any QotD for publication until it has been approved by the verifier. That way, things do not become pressure filled on the reviewer to get something done by a certain date.

    I would be willing to commit to such a group, but only on the basis of not more than 2 questions a month and no guarantee of turn-around in less than 2 weeks. (I could probably handle more than that, and faster, but not guarantee it.)

    Tom

  • August 4, 2012 at 6:36 am

    #1521699

    WyaneS

    I'm curious... how many Threadizens here would be interested in forming a QotD team to verify the questions?

    +1 Me

    And forget about my E statement was made tongue in cheek ..

    If everything seems to be going well, you have obviously overlooked something.

    Ron

    Please help us, help you -before posting a question please read[/url]
    Before posting a performance problem please read[/url]

  • August 5, 2012 at 11:06 pm

    #1521816

    WayneS (8/3/2012)

    Steve Jones - SSC Editor (8/3/2012)

    FYI, since some of you submit questions. I'm no longer accepting images of code.

    Please feel free to debate me.

    First, I agree with A-D of what Ron said. (haven't thought E through enough to decide yet).

    However: the only reason that I can see to NOT accept images is to make the QotD's easier to pre-validate the answers prior to publishing. If this is the plan (either by yourself or with a team), then I fully support this.

    I'm curious... how many Threadizens here would be interested in forming a QotD team to verify the questions? I'm thinking that if we can get 10 folks, that would be one question every 2 weeks. 22 folks would be about one per month. Who would be willing to commit to this? Maybe commit for a six month period?

    I know that Steve has had problems with such a group in the past... initially several enthusiastic folks, then it quickly dwindles to just a few. I'm looking for people that would seriously commit to this. But I also want to get enough folks that it doesn't become a burden on them. Reviewing 1 or 2 questions a month seems like a decent number for me.

    (Steve: maybe on the question, put a "Question verified by ..."?)

    I would commit to being on such a group. Any others?

    Edit: Steve, I would not schedule any QotD for publication until it has been approved by the verifier. That way, things do not become pressure filled on the reviewer to get something done by a certain date.

    Count me in.

    There are no special teachers of virtue, because virtue is taught by the whole community.
    --Plato

  • August 6, 2012 at 12:07 am

    #1521824

    opc.three (8/5/2012)

    WayneS (8/3/2012)

    Steve Jones - SSC Editor (8/3/2012)

    FYI, since some of you submit questions. I'm no longer accepting images of code.

    Please feel free to debate me.

    First, I agree with A-D of what Ron said. (haven't thought E through enough to decide yet).

    However: the only reason that I can see to NOT accept images is to make the QotD's easier to pre-validate the answers prior to publishing. If this is the plan (either by yourself or with a team), then I fully support this.

    I'm curious... how many Threadizens here would be interested in forming a QotD team to verify the questions? I'm thinking that if we can get 10 folks, that would be one question every 2 weeks. 22 folks would be about one per month. Who would be willing to commit to this? Maybe commit for a six month period?

    I know that Steve has had problems with such a group in the past... initially several enthusiastic folks, then it quickly dwindles to just a few. I'm looking for people that would seriously commit to this. But I also want to get enough folks that it doesn't become a burden on them. Reviewing 1 or 2 questions a month seems like a decent number for me.

    (Steve: maybe on the question, put a "Question verified by ..."?)

    I would commit to being on such a group. Any others?

    Edit: Steve, I would not schedule any QotD for publication until it has been approved by the verifier. That way, things do not become pressure filled on the reviewer to get something done by a certain date.

    Count me in.

    Count me in as well.

    Need an answer? No, you need a question
    My blog at https://sqlkover.com.
    MCSE Business Intelligence - Microsoft Data Platform MVP

  • August 6, 2012 at 1:50 am

    #1521857

    WayneS (8/3/2012)

    Steve Jones - SSC Editor (8/3/2012)

    FYI, since some of you submit questions. I'm no longer accepting images of code.

    Please feel free to debate me.

    First, I agree with A-D of what Ron said. (haven't thought E through enough to decide yet).

    However: the only reason that I can see to NOT accept images is to make the QotD's easier to pre-validate the answers prior to publishing. If this is the plan (either by yourself or with a team), then I fully support this.

    I'm curious... how many Threadizens here would be interested in forming a QotD team to verify the questions? I'm thinking that if we can get 10 folks, that would be one question every 2 weeks. 22 folks would be about one per month. Who would be willing to commit to this? Maybe commit for a six month period?

    I know that Steve has had problems with such a group in the past... initially several enthusiastic folks, then it quickly dwindles to just a few. I'm looking for people that would seriously commit to this. But I also want to get enough folks that it doesn't become a burden on them. Reviewing 1 or 2 questions a month seems like a decent number for me.

    (Steve: maybe on the question, put a "Question verified by ..."?)

    I would commit to being on such a group. Any others?

    Edit: Steve, I would not schedule any QotD for publication until it has been approved by the verifier. That way, things do not become pressure filled on the reviewer to get something done by a certain date.

    I quite enjoy the QOTD and learn some interesting things from them. When they're badly presented, described or demonstrated I do get a tad irritated at them. So I'd be happy to be part of a team that verified them. Checking them should be a learning experience too.

    Steve Hall
    Linkedin
    Blog Site

  • August 6, 2012 at 7:45 am

    #1522044

    Koen Verbeeck (8/6/2012)

    opc.three (8/5/2012)

    WayneS (8/3/2012)

    Steve Jones - SSC Editor (8/3/2012)

    FYI, since some of you submit questions. I'm no longer accepting images of code.

    Please feel free to debate me.

    First, I agree with A-D of what Ron said. (haven't thought E through enough to decide yet).

    However: the only reason that I can see to NOT accept images is to make the QotD's easier to pre-validate the answers prior to publishing. If this is the plan (either by yourself or with a team), then I fully support this.

    I'm curious... how many Threadizens here would be interested in forming a QotD team to verify the questions? I'm thinking that if we can get 10 folks, that would be one question every 2 weeks. 22 folks would be about one per month. Who would be willing to commit to this? Maybe commit for a six month period?

    I know that Steve has had problems with such a group in the past... initially several enthusiastic folks, then it quickly dwindles to just a few. I'm looking for people that would seriously commit to this. But I also want to get enough folks that it doesn't become a burden on them. Reviewing 1 or 2 questions a month seems like a decent number for me.

    (Steve: maybe on the question, put a "Question verified by ..."?)

    I would commit to being on such a group. Any others?

    Edit: Steve, I would not schedule any QotD for publication until it has been approved by the verifier. That way, things do not become pressure filled on the reviewer to get something done by a certain date.

    Count me in.

    Count me in as well.

    Count me in.

  • August 6, 2012 at 8:17 am

    #1522079

    For those that don't get the simple-talk newsletter, Grant has an awesome article published in today's newsletter. Catch it at http://www.simple-talk.com/sql/performance/the-seven-sins-against-tsql-performance/L[/url].

    Wayne
    Microsoft Certified Master: SQL Server 2008
    Author - SQL Server T-SQL Recipes

    If you can't explain to another person how the code that you're copying from the internet works, then DON'T USE IT on a production system! After all, you will be the one supporting it!
    Links:
    For better assistance in answering your questions
    Performance Problems
    Common date/time routines
    Understanding and Using APPLY Part 1 & Part 2

  • August 6, 2012 at 8:31 am

    #1522087

    rodjkidd (8/6/2012)

    Koen Verbeeck (8/6/2012)

    opc.three (8/5/2012)

    WayneS (8/3/2012)

    Steve Jones - SSC Editor (8/3/2012)

    FYI, since some of you submit questions. I'm no longer accepting images of code.

    Please feel free to debate me.

    First, I agree with A-D of what Ron said. (haven't thought E through enough to decide yet).

    However: the only reason that I can see to NOT accept images is to make the QotD's easier to pre-validate the answers prior to publishing. If this is the plan (either by yourself or with a team), then I fully support this.

    I'm curious... how many Threadizens here would be interested in forming a QotD team to verify the questions? I'm thinking that if we can get 10 folks, that would be one question every 2 weeks. 22 folks would be about one per month. Who would be willing to commit to this? Maybe commit for a six month period?

    I know that Steve has had problems with such a group in the past... initially several enthusiastic folks, then it quickly dwindles to just a few. I'm looking for people that would seriously commit to this. But I also want to get enough folks that it doesn't become a burden on them. Reviewing 1 or 2 questions a month seems like a decent number for me.

    (Steve: maybe on the question, put a "Question verified by ..."?)

    I would commit to being on such a group. Any others?

    Edit: Steve, I would not schedule any QotD for publication until it has been approved by the verifier. That way, things do not become pressure filled on the reviewer to get something done by a certain date.

    Count me in.

    Count me in as well.

    Count me in.

    If it is one or two a month without too much pressure on deadlines, count me in as well.

  • August 6, 2012 at 8:55 am

    #1522098

    Lynn Pettis (8/6/2012)

    rodjkidd (8/6/2012)

    Koen Verbeeck (8/6/2012)

    opc.three (8/5/2012)

    WayneS (8/3/2012)

    Steve Jones - SSC Editor (8/3/2012)

    FYI, since some of you submit questions. I'm no longer accepting images of code.

    Please feel free to debate me.

    First, I agree with A-D of what Ron said. (haven't thought E through enough to decide yet).

    However: the only reason that I can see to NOT accept images is to make the QotD's easier to pre-validate the answers prior to publishing. If this is the plan (either by yourself or with a team), then I fully support this.

    I'm curious... how many Threadizens here would be interested in forming a QotD team to verify the questions? I'm thinking that if we can get 10 folks, that would be one question every 2 weeks. 22 folks would be about one per month. Who would be willing to commit to this? Maybe commit for a six month period?

    I know that Steve has had problems with such a group in the past... initially several enthusiastic folks, then it quickly dwindles to just a few. I'm looking for people that would seriously commit to this. But I also want to get enough folks that it doesn't become a burden on them. Reviewing 1 or 2 questions a month seems like a decent number for me.

    (Steve: maybe on the question, put a "Question verified by ..."?)

    I would commit to being on such a group. Any others?

    Edit: Steve, I would not schedule any QotD for publication until it has been approved by the verifier. That way, things do not become pressure filled on the reviewer to get something done by a certain date.

    Count me in.

    Count me in as well.

    Count me in.

    If it is one or two a month without too much pressure on deadlines, count me in as well.

    Wayne - will you make a "formal" presentation of the subject to Steve or shall we just wait for Steve to read this ?

    If everything seems to be going well, you have obviously overlooked something.

    Ron

    Please help us, help you -before posting a question please read[/url]
    Before posting a performance problem please read[/url]

  • August 6, 2012 at 9:06 am

    #1522100

    QotD peer-review has been suggested a number of times. There have been threads on specifically that subject.

    I think there have been some technical and/or editorial barriers on it. For example, people who review a question need to be barred from getting points for answering the question. There needs to be a mechanism in place to bar discussion of the question before it's issued for general consumption - that's not technically feasible, it needs to be more of an NDA, and it raises liability and copyright questions. And a few other points. I don't remember all the details from prior discussions on the subject.

    - Gus "GSquared", RSVP, OODA, MAP, NMVP, FAQ, SAT, SQL, DNA, RNA, UOI, IOU, AM, PM, AD, BC, BCE, USA, UN, CF, ROFL, LOL, ETC
    Property of The Thread

    "Nobody knows the age of the human race, but everyone agrees it's old enough to know better." - Anon

  • August 6, 2012 at 9:19 am

    #1522110

    WayneS (8/3/2012)

    bitbucket-25253 (8/3/2012)

    WayneS

    I was checking SQLSat156 (Providence, RI) to see if the speakers had been selected yet, and I count 5 Threadizens that have submitted for it. Sure would be nice if all of us get selected.

    Did a quick check a few minutes ago and found the following scheduled for at least 1 presentation,. So would say you will meet

    Jason Brimhall, Grant Fritchey,Jeff Moden and Jack Corbett

    Cool & the gang .

    What about Cool and the Gang?

    Jason...AKA CirqueDeSQLeil
    _______________________________________________
    I have given a name to my pain...MCM SQL Server, MVP
    SQL RNNR
    Posting Performance Based Questions - Gail Shaw[/url]
    Learn Extended Events

  • August 6, 2012 at 9:30 am

    #1522116

    Steve Jones - SSC Editor (8/3/2012)

    FYI, since some of you submit questions. I'm no longer accepting images of code.

    Please feel free to debate me.

    How about other images?

    Jason...AKA CirqueDeSQLeil
    _______________________________________________
    I have given a name to my pain...MCM SQL Server, MVP
    SQL RNNR
    Posting Performance Based Questions - Gail Shaw[/url]
    Learn Extended Events

  • August 6, 2012 at 9:37 am

    #1522124

    WayneS (8/3/2012)

    Steve Jones - SSC Editor (8/3/2012)

    FYI, since some of you submit questions. I'm no longer accepting images of code.

    Please feel free to debate me.

    First, I agree with A-D of what Ron said. (haven't thought E through enough to decide yet).

    However: the only reason that I can see to NOT accept images is to make the QotD's easier to pre-validate the answers prior to publishing. If this is the plan (either by yourself or with a team), then I fully support this.

    I'm curious... how many Threadizens here would be interested in forming a QotD team to verify the questions? I'm thinking that if we can get 10 folks, that would be one question every 2 weeks. 22 folks would be about one per month. Who would be willing to commit to this? Maybe commit for a six month period?

    I know that Steve has had problems with such a group in the past... initially several enthusiastic folks, then it quickly dwindles to just a few. I'm looking for people that would seriously commit to this. But I also want to get enough folks that it doesn't become a burden on them. Reviewing 1 or 2 questions a month seems like a decent number for me.

    (Steve: maybe on the question, put a "Question verified by ..."?)

    I would commit to being on such a group. Any others?

    Edit: Steve, I would not schedule any QotD for publication until it has been approved by the verifier. That way, things do not become pressure filled on the reviewer to get something done by a certain date.

    I think this is a good idea. I'd be willing to commit. My concern is to ensure enough people can do it. Times get hectic for all of us and could put a decent delay on these questions if our other priorities required more time than usual.

    Jason...AKA CirqueDeSQLeil
    _______________________________________________
    I have given a name to my pain...MCM SQL Server, MVP
    SQL RNNR
    Posting Performance Based Questions - Gail Shaw[/url]
    Learn Extended Events

  • August 6, 2012 at 9:55 am

    #1522140

    bitbucket-25253 (8/6/2012)

    Wayne - will you make a "formal" presentation of the subject to Steve or shall we just wait for Steve to read this ?

    I've sent Steve a PM about this.

    Right now, it looks like we have nine suckers, err, volunteers for this. I'd really like to see this around 15-22, so that the load isn't too heavy on anyone.

    Wayne
    Microsoft Certified Master: SQL Server 2008
    Author - SQL Server T-SQL Recipes

    If you can't explain to another person how the code that you're copying from the internet works, then DON'T USE IT on a production system! After all, you will be the one supporting it!
    Links:
    For better assistance in answering your questions
    Performance Problems
    Common date/time routines
    Understanding and Using APPLY Part 1 & Part 2

Viewing 15 posts - 37,291 through 37,305 (of 66,712 total)

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