Post reply

Correcting superseeded articles

  • January 13, 2011 at 4:47 am

    #245346

    Today i answered a forum question about replacing cursors with a while loop.

    This is now bad advice, Brad schulz's articles http://bradsruminations.blogspot.com/search/label/Cursors go into a lot of depth on this point.

    The issue is should we ( the site) be tidying up old articles with a "SuperSeeded" message ?

    Such as this...

    http://www.sqlservercentral.com/articles/Advanced+Querying/replacingcursorsandwhileloops/1956/


    Clear Sky SQL
    My Blog[/url]

  • January 13, 2011 at 7:05 am

    #1273007

    Sounds like a worthwhile endeavor. I assume you would want to point to newer articles with updated information?

    What about if the information is still valid for an older version, but there are now better ways for newer versions?

    Maybe something where an article can be "assigned" to what versions of SQL it's applicable to at the time of release would help out some here also.

    Dave, are you volunteering to head up this project? You wouldn't be alone, but I'm not sure how much time I would have to devote to this.

    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

  • January 13, 2011 at 10:21 am

    #1273167

    I would actually like to get new articles written, and then add a note in the article to link to the new one as a "better" way.

    Don't forget that finding a better solution doesn't mean the old one is invalid, or inapplicable 100% of the time. There are often multiple ways to solve things, and some are better in some situations. There are sometimes constraints that can prevent someone from using a new solution, so have a second one is good.

  • January 14, 2011 at 1:30 am

    #1273434

    Agreed that an article should not be replaced or removed , after all you can sometime learn a better lesson by doing things the wrong way :-). And as you say , because something in the article may be wrong / out of date / not best practice that does not negate the article 100%.

    IMO we should be linking forward as well as backwards though.

    Here's how i see the problem:

    Joe Blow developer knows that cursors are bad.

    googles for 'Replace Cursor'.

    Sees that his trusted site 'SSC' has an article in the 6th place.

    Reads article and replaces cursor with a while loop.

    If we can 'intercept' him whilst reading the article , that can only be a good thing for the user,

    SSC's technical reputation and 'the community' in general.

    Downsides Admin, Editorial control ,Less consulting cash for TheSqlGuru 😀


    Clear Sky SQL
    My Blog[/url]

  • January 14, 2011 at 8:42 am

    #1273597

    Yep, that makes sense. I'd like to get a standard section/piece of text at the top and bottom of each article to do the forward/back pointers.

  • January 14, 2011 at 8:59 am

    #1273613

    Or even a link to 'key' discussion points for new articles.

    I would imagine the majority of browsers would not read the full discussion following an article publication.


    Clear Sky SQL
    My Blog[/url]

  • January 14, 2011 at 9:32 am

    #1273629

    Yes, most people don't read discussions. I have tried to add a note to controversial articles to point people to the articles, but haven't typically pointed to new articles.

Viewing 7 posts - 1 through 6 (of 6 total)

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