December 27, 2008 at 7:03 pm
Comments posted to this topic are about the item Changing Taxonomy
December 27, 2008 at 7:18 pm
December 27, 2008 at 11:26 pm
Just using the ideas you have mentioned in your editorial, I see one problem, most posters don't mention what version of SQL Server they are using when asking for help. OP's have posted questions in the SQL Server 2005 forums, get SQL Server 2005 answers, and then complained because they are using SQL Server 2000 and the code provided uses SQL Server 2005 features.
I think there should still be some breakdown between SQL Server 2000 and earlier versions and SQL Server 2005/2008. It is quite possible that many organizations may continue to use at least SQL Server 2000 for several more years as internal systems may not be migrated as long as they continue to provide service to the business. As some would say, why fix something that isn't broken.
My previous employer used Paradox to support remote offices, and the only reason we dropped the system was that Borland was not going to make Paradox Y2K compliant forcing use of that system. The same (or similiar) may happen with existing SQL Server 2000 applications.
December 28, 2008 at 6:23 am
I agree with you Lynn Petis ...but better will be like this:
SQL Server 2000
Administration
General
Backup & Recovery (backup, restore...)
Security and Auditing (logins, users, roles, schemas)
High Availability (Mirroring, Clustering, Log Shipping)
Performance and Tuning
Replication
Development
T-SQL - Any questions on the T-SQL language or code issues
.NET programming - With regards to querying SQL Servrs
SQL CLR - Assemblies
SQL Server 2005
Administration
General
Backup & Recovery (backup, restore...)
Security and Auditing (logins, users, roles, schemas)
High Availability (Mirroring, Clustering, Log Shipping)
Performance and Tuning
Replication
Development
T-SQL - Any questions on the T-SQL language or code issues
.NET programming - With regards to querying SQL Servrs
SQL CLR - Assemblies
SQL Server 2008
Administration
General
Backup & Recovery (backup, restore...)
Security and Auditing (logins, users, roles, schemas)
High Availability (Mirroring, Clustering, Log Shipping)
Performance and Tuning
Replication
Development
T-SQL - Any questions on the T-SQL language or code issues
.NET programming - With regards to querying SQL Servrs
SQL CLR - Assemblies
December 28, 2008 at 9:05 am
That's a pretty good layout... I like that. Especially when you make them all have the same layout. And, although it hasn't been mentioned, there is no need for a "newbies" section. It just dilutes the subjects.
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
December 28, 2008 at 9:21 am
I really don't want to go 2 levels deep, and I really question how complicated things have gotten. Plus, what's a newbie? They don't necessarily know to post there, at least lots don't, and then when do they stop being a newbie?
I'd like to get down to 4-8 forums in each version if we go that way. And then how much of an issue is it if there are posts in the wrong place? We have lots of that now, and the idea would be to reduce this by having less forums.
Is it better to ask the OP for the version or hope they posted in the right spot?
December 28, 2008 at 9:33 am
December 28, 2008 at 10:08 am
I would recommend that you don't get rid of the data corruption forum. It should be one that stands by itself for those cases where someone is really in need of recovering a corrupted databases.
Other than that, I agree with consolidating the groups as much as possible. Even to the point of consolidating the 2005/2008 forums instead of separate forums. Most of the functionality has not changed between the two - and, where a solution exists in 2008 only, the poster providing the solution can easily state that it is only valid in 2008.
Jeffrey Williams
“We are all faced with a series of great opportunities brilliantly disguised as impossible situations.”
― Charles R. Swindoll
How to post questions to get better answers faster
Managing Transaction Logs
December 28, 2008 at 10:45 am
Hmmmm. I dont know if this will be of any use. but what i feel is the structure be divided into two parts. a) Version b) Section.
A combo drop down for Version containing various versions
6.0
6.5
7
2000
2005
2008
with a default value of 2005 as major questions would be from this version at this time. Also, a striking header asking user to select proper version.
Second part contains section as mentioned in the editorial.
Administration
General
Backup and Recovery (backup, restore, detach, attach)
Security and auditing (logins, users, roles, schemas)
High Availability (Mirroring, Clustering, Log Shipping)
Performance and Tuning
Replication
Development
T-SQL - Any questions on the T-SQL language or code issues
.NET programming - With regards to querying SQL Servrs
SQL CLR - Assemblies
Miscellaneous
Anything not about SQL!
Humor
.....
.....
This will keep the page simple so users can scan through available sections quickly and post their queries in the most appropriate section.
This may ask for some major changes in that page and relevent backend but will make it simpler to use..... good for future... The column Forums in the detailed forum section could contain details like..
(2000) Replication, (2008) Backup and Recovery, (7.0) General etc....
Also, I've not taken into consideration another important aspect... ... that is various editions... like standard, enterprise.... I've seen users mentioning the editions if they're using lower editions.... syntaxes are almost same... only there is quantity of features that is different in various editions...
December 28, 2008 at 11:11 am
Jeffrey Williams (12/28/2008)
I would recommend that you don't get rid of the data corruption forum. It should be one that stands by itself for those cases where someone is really in need of recovering a corrupted databases.
Indeed. We're not CSS, but we do get a fair few posts in there. If those were in the general admin, they'd be much, much harder to find and they probably wouldn't get the assistance they currently do.
Even to the point of consolidating the 2005/2008 forums instead of separate forums. Most of the functionality has not changed between the two
I was thinking much the same thing. There aren't that many differences between the two. New features, sure, but most of the existing stuff behaves very similar. It was 2000-2005 that saw a major engine rewrite.
I admit, I don't use the forum home page at all, but maybe something like this would work...
SQL 2005/2008
General admin (for stuff that doesn't belong in any of the more specific admin sections)
Backup/Restore
Replication
Security/auditing
Data corruption
T-SQL
CLR Development
Performance Tuning
SQL 2000/7
General admin
Backup/Restore
Replication
Security
Data corruption
T-SQL
Performance Tuning
Business Intelligence
Analysis Services
Reporting Services
Integration Services
DTS
Design and Strategy (for discussions of the theoretical concepts or planning)
High Availability
Database Design
Relational Theory
Hardware
General Strategies (for stuff that doesn't belong in the more specific forums)
Outside of SQL
Other database platforms (for problems interacting with Oracle, DB2, MySQL, Progress, etc)
SMO/RMO/DMO
Powershell
If you could hide the editorial, QotD and article discussions forums completely (ie make them not browsable via the forum home page) it would reduce the clutter, reduce the size of all the pages (anyone checked to see how many kb the drop down box at the bottom of each page is?) and stop people posting irrelevance stuff in them
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
December 28, 2008 at 11:47 am
I like the way Gail broke things down. It makes more sence and is what I was generally thinking earlier when I was talking about a 2000 and earlier and 2005/2008 type of breakdown.
December 28, 2008 at 12:05 pm
Heh... of course, there's gonna be as many ideas as there are people on the forum. And, if you really want to make it simple, just put all the posts in a single forum labelled "Stuff about SQL Server". :P:hehe: Folks like me will find it because I look at all posts across the board.
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
December 28, 2008 at 3:03 pm
I certainly could use more help. That might be something we implement.
December 28, 2008 at 10:42 pm
I love the idea of condensing things a bit, however maintaining separation between sql versions is still a must in my opinion.
What about creating the generalized forums like you have but then having people create some meta data when they are posting; like some checkboxes for the version their post is about.
Then when people are viewing the forums they can have the options to filter posts down to just the posts tagged with the version/meta data they are interested in.
December 29, 2008 at 4:21 am
I think that what ps suggested, and what I was thinking, has some merit. It's a bit of work on your part though. A drop down for version but only on thread starters. After that firestorm settles out add filtering by version. Some folks, and you know who you are, might not want to see anything below 2000.
ATBCharles Kincaid
Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 99 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply