Editor in Chief
-
I am just a SQL Server developer. I have no power to choose products for my company so even I go to SQL Server Central everyday, I totally ignore the advertisements (sorry, Apexsql, Red Gate...). I think the majority of the community is in the same boat. I use this website to post questions and I read the article for improving my SQL server knowledge. I sometimes answer the question of the day. Lately I started writing articles.
Some of the articles or discussion people complained about microsoft products or some other products. One of the thread in this forum sometime ago was 'Tools you need', people posted different tools they used.
Steve, I wonder once RedGate in control, could you still write some thread liked that when people praised other tools they used liked DBGhost, SQLDelta. Also what if someone writes an article and complains about Red Gate products, will you post it? I remembered in one of my article or one of my my post, I said Ab Initio was just an expensive toy.
Do we still have the freedome to express our opinion?
Can we post any questions or answer any post without anyone censor it? One time my former DBA David Benoit posted a DBA job and I wrote a post to say how bad the department and the company was. He called you to delete my post but you refused. I was happy about that because in some other website, my post would be deleted. Would this still be the same in the future?
My 2 cents.
-
I used to think the same thing, but learned that this isn't always the case. Sometimes, if we look at a tool and we like it, we can tell our management about it. If you press the case hard enough and show where the tool can be (or is) useful, you'd be surprised at how much of an impact you can make, especially if you introduce a tool to others and they start using it.
And that's partially the point of folks who are advertising on SQL Server Central. If you see the name of the tool, it'll stick with you, even if it is subconcious. But if you don't see the name at all, then they have little chance to make an impact, because companies don't tend to do elaborate source selections for a programming tool.
Case in point... one of the developers saw the PromptSQL review I did (this was before it was bought by Red Gate and renamed SQLPrompt). He shared it with the other developers where he worked and they ended up all grabbing some copies of it. He was a new employee at the company where he worked (I don't work with him) but it didn't take his management very long to agree with him. We saw the same thing where I work with DBGhost. A DBA, who has moved on to a new city and bigger and better things, introduced DBGhost in and it's a tool our DBAs now use. He first saw it as an ad on SSC.
K. Brian Kelley
@kbriankelley -
Steve,
Just keep up the fine work you've been doing so far. It's up to RedGate to prove that this site will remain independent. One thing I have noticed is that now that RedGate owns this site, there isn't anything on the site saying so (besides a couple of threads). The logo should be changed to reflect RedGate's ownership. Why? Because right now it makes them look more sneaky and trying to hide their ownership. People coming to this site have a right to know that it is owned by RedGate and not by the original SQLServerCentral group.
-SQLBill
-
Thanks and you'll still be able to express opinions. I think having a vendor section in the forums is a good idea and I'll work on getting something setup for discussions.
As far as changing the site to reflect Red Gate's ownership. I've changed some of the copyrights on the ASP side, but the source code is under control (code behinds, etc), and in a confused state. We didn't have the best system and I'm working to get a developer at Red Gate up to speed so we can get a few bugs fixed.
Not sure about the logo, I'd hate to see that changed, but I'll try to get some text up on the "About Us" section that reflects the change as well.
Just to be clear, as far as I know, advertising, meaning all advertising include Red Gate's, will be removed Dec 31, or maybe Jan 2 or 3, depending on how I feel
. There won't just be Red Gate ads here. Same for the newsletter, though I'm not sure how I'll rework that.Also I handle ALL advertising, including which ads run. I get them from the vendors and then load them. I have not changed ANY ads as a result of this sale. Not pulled any, not applied any "standards" or anything other type of censorship.
-
I would just congratulate the guys who have created and maintained this site, for finally being justly rewarded for their amazing efforts.
As to all the bleating about Red Gate ruining the site by turning it into an advertising forum for themselves, that would have to be a fairly stupid and shortsighted move. This site has survived because it successfully and admirably fulfilled an enormous need in the SQL community. As soon as it stops fulfilling that need I, like many others, will cancel my subscription "Voting with my feet".
So I would suggest to all those screeching indignantly - get on with your life, the deal has been done. If you don't like what Red Gate does then take a leaf out of Steve's book and at the same time stick it to Red gate by Building your own successful SQL site!!
SQLcentralServer.com rules
-
Ever since hearing the announcement of the sale, the business analyst side of me has been asking 'why'? I can see that the sale gives (very justified) dues to Steve, Brian and Andy but what does it give RedGate? In the light of the 'no advertising' statements (and Steve has mentioned *meaning all advertising, including RedGate's*) I am left thinking the purchase was made primarily for a very focused list of email addresses (and any other information that was provided in the 'personal' section of your profile). Let's face it, conversion of even a very small percentage of the 100k++ members would provide some return on investment.
I guess I'm a little interested to know how the Privacy Policy comes in to play, especially with respect to the 'We do not sell, rent or share any customer information' section. Another Privacy section on the site reads ' We do not under any circumstance give your email address to vendors to email you'. What happens when 'we' in this sentence is actually now referring to a vendor? Does this mean that RedGate does not own and has not bought the database of 100k+ email addresses of people that could be reasonably identified as 'interested' in SQL Server and/or supporting tools? Surely the entire DB of users was included in the transaction? I'm assuming the sale of the site as a whole would mean that the email addresses weren't sold per se more that they formed part of the goodwill of the site, however if I was at RedGate I would be reviewing the terms of use for the site and making modifications where necessary.
Since meeting Brian in 03 I've been a big fan of SSC.com (to the point of leaving other forums as they wouldn't let me post direct links back to here for the correct answers) and will continue to be until such time as the commercial interests of RedGate impact my involvement here (if they ever do). I'd like to send a personal thanks to Brian, Steve and Andy for their hard work in building such a great site and congratulations on seeing some return for this work. A last parting question re: the advertising - if RedGate is justifiably confident that their products are superior to most, if not all, competitors would it not make commercial sense to take the money from ApexSQL, Idera etc and let them advertise anyway? Seems to me your competitors would be funding your acquisition of the site.
Steve.
-
I occured to me that I have at least one anecdotal story that may point to how the editorial policy may be applied. I wrote an article for Simple Talk on how we did some extensive stress testing on three different database designs. We extensively used Quest Benchmark Factory for the tests. I detailed all this in the article. They published it all without comment (well, except for cleaning up my grammar). What's more, they wanted me to write another one. At no point was there even a suggestion to remove the references to Quest.
I fully grant this is one instance out of possibly thousands, but I think it might be indicative of their intent.
"The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood"
- Theodore RooseveltAuthor of:
SQL Server Execution Plans
SQL Server Query Performance Tuning -
My first thoughts when I read this was that it was a really great thing for those of you that built this site. You've seen your hard work turn into some real cash at alast.
It wasn't until later that day that I started wondering what changes would be in store. I must admit that my primary concern was the possibility that Red Gate would turn the SSC member list into their own personal contact/SPAM list. This is sort of the reason I stopped visiting SWUG (I signed up for one of their webcasts on SQL Server security, and it turned out to be a 1/2 hour advertisement for one of their advertisers. And to make things worse, I had to tell the vendor three times to stop calling me before they finally stopped).
My blog: SQL Soldier[/url]
SQL Server Best Practices: SQL Server Best Practices
Twitter: @SQLSoldier
My book: Pro SQL Server 2008 Mirroring[/url]
Microsoft Certified Master: SQL Server, Data Platform MVP
Database Engineer at BlueMountain Capital Management[/url] -
Thanks again for the comments. Rest assured everyone is looking these over and they will be considered before anything is changed.
The email list is now in fact Red Gate's and thanks for pointing that out. I'd forgotten we had that listed. The terms of service should still be in effect and the marketing group at Red Gate (separate from publishing), shouldn't get their hands on this list.
-
this is a great question
"A last parting question re: the advertising - if RedGate is justifiably confident that their products are superior to most, if not all, competitors would it not make commercial sense to take the money from ApexSQL, Idera etc and let them advertise anyway? Seems to me your competitors would be funding your acquisition of the site. "
This is a great question (and you will wait a loooooooong time to get a great answer). If Red-Gate products are so great why spend so much efforts suppressing the ability of other vendors to communicate with / give information out to customers? For example, I can't advertise my Diff tools on sql-server-performance because of an anti-competitive clause RG had SSP put in my contract. and now i won't be able to advertise here at all. or Idera, or Quest of SQLAccessories etc Red-Gate's new business model seems to be to prevent customers from even finding vendors - a heck of a lot cheaper than hiring 10 more developers to improve your software!
Why not let vendors continue to advertise at least in SSC newsletter where RG says it will continue to advertise (if "annoying" banners were such a problem)? I would continue to advertise if given the chance. But my contract was cancelled and I was simply notified.
The to this question answer is clear from the actions taken - when you find it harder and harder to compete on the merits of your software you can either invest in improving your products to become more competive, buy your competition ... or prevent people from hearing about your competition. RG has taken the latter route and their moves don't speak well for their own confidence in their products to compete directly, in an open and fair marketplace. So they have worked to close the market. Some people keep saying this is a new event, "give them the benefit of the doubt" When in fact, this is just the latest in a series of moves they have made (including silencing competition on sql-server-performance) going back several years all forming a very disturbing pattern.
How does this benefit the community?
Brian Lockwood
President
ApexSQL - SQL Developer Essentials -
From afar and in an environment where we don't need to rely on vendor tools (at least not yet), I use this site to ask questions about HOW to do things - and to answers questions when I think I know. So long as that continues, people like myself probably won't have an issue.
Adevertising? What advertising. It must be a personal trait but I have paid no attention to any advertising. Probably becasue I'm not looking specifically for anything. Perhaps that is a little narrow minded but from my point of view, I'll pay attention to the ads when I need something. Then, Google is my friend.
As for editorials, I like to see the stuff that Steve comments on and writes about. Often it is very thought provoking and you are also allowed to draw your own conclusions. So long as that continues to happen I won't feel like this site has degraded in any way.
-
Aw, thanks, Steve
-
No fair! Since we've been talking about conspiracies, I sense a Steve conspiracy!
K. Brian Kelley
@kbriankelley -
Steve,
I have to ask how much censoring will take place about Red Gates products when there are problems. Also, when a competitor has a better product or a competing product out before Red Gate will they censor their advertising? My opinion is to be truly independent, Red Gate or any other software provider, owner, or operator should not be allowed to restrict advertising or content as long as it is not offensive.
Loren Moore
-
Loren,
Great questions and I have no idea. We haven't gotten into the "review" process and I haven't heard of any censorship of the forums. AFAIK, I'm the only one administering this site right now, and I haven't done any.
There also hasn't been any censorship of advertising. Ads still come from the various vendors to me and I load them. I only require a change when there is a technical problem (size, format, etc.), not because of content and no one at Red Gate has asked me to change ads. I'm not sure where the rumors about advertising being changed have come from, but it's not something I'd be willing to do.
My understanding of the ad removal in 2007 is that all ads, including Red Gate ones, will be removed. If that changes, it will be new to me as well as you.
On the reviews, just so we're clear. We've never "censored" or let an advertiser change reviews. We've contracted with authors to write one and then we give the advertiser the opportunity to review it. If they see something technically wrong or incorrectly written, they can let me know and I'll work with the author. If the author agrees to the change (maybe they did something wrong), we'll change it. We do also allow vendors to comment on the reviews, and if you check out some of them (http://www.sqlservercentral.com/columnists/dpoole/sqlexaminerreview.asp), you'll see comments in another color.
We have allowed vendors to "suppress" the review. They still pay for it, so we can pay the author, but there have been a few bad reviews and we've agreed not to publish them. I know that sounds bad, and maybe it is, but we (used) to have to balance their needs with ours and yours. It's a legitimate argument that the reviewer might have a skewed viewpoint or not use the product the way it's intended. I know I've run into that and I can understand them not wanting bad press for a reason that may not be valid. Or not wanting it out there when the author refuses to change something. Or because there are enough bugs that they want to go back to development and make changes. We've never wanted to ruin someone's business.
I'm not sure if that policy will continue or how reviews will change. I have a few outstanding requests out there and need to email authors to see if anyone's interested. One's a Red Gate product, but I have 2-3 others that are not.
And if you want to write a review....
, email me (sjones@).
Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 47 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply