March 10, 2010 at 8:41 pm
Comments posted to this topic are about the item Separate Styles
March 11, 2010 at 1:26 am
Good article but I think you left out the big punchline, how would you describe this for the one's wondering? 🙂
March 11, 2010 at 4:25 am
There is no best way, there are people who prefer manuals while others would prefer articles.
March 11, 2010 at 6:08 am
BOL is okay for technical facts but I like reading the stories where an author solves a problem he/she had at work. It gives me ideas that I try to apply at my job. Also we can share best practices, career guidelines, etc. Things that are not covered in BOL.
March 11, 2010 at 6:29 am
As much as this is a good editorial, with good advice, it did leave one conundrum unaddressed...
If you say "Don't use auto-shrink" or any such advice coming from a seasoned SQL professional, you miss the fact that more novice users are going to struggle with the very simple question; "Why do they build a feature in, that seasoned professionals tell me NOT to use???"
This is where articles are helpful - you then go from "Do not use auto-shrink" to "Do not use auto-shrink BECAUSE..." - but too many of these articles are written by experts who write like experts, to experts. That is NO help to novice users, and though you can find thousands of articles with experts pontificating, its more rare to find a good article written by an expert but addressed properly to novice or intermediate users.
I think what is needed here, and in the entire technical writing arena in general, are basic writing skills such as knowing your audience, addressing your audience, and providing good explanations targeted to your audience - not just dictum of "don't do that, do do this". I have spent decades just cringing when I read some article where a clearly brilliant technical person, extremely well-versed in their technical knowledge... lacks the writing skills usually picked up by about the 6th grade.
Yes, it IS the reasons, it IS the explanations, but presentation in any "unique" way should be targeted to the audience intended - anyone who takes any writing course learns this in the first week.
March 11, 2010 at 6:54 am
I enjoy writing that goes beyond pure technical. BOL is useful for syntax, less helpful for understanding the complexities of the real world. As long as we get a good variety of content, life is good.
Not knowing but guessing, my thought is that auto-shrink makes a lot of sense for businesses (like cheap web hosting) that want to conserve disk space and aren't hugely worried about performance.
March 11, 2010 at 7:06 am
blandry (3/11/2010)
I think what is needed here, and in the entire technical writing arena in general, are basic writing skills such as knowing your audience, addressing your audience, and providing good explanations targeted to your audience - not just dictum of "don't do that, do do this". I have spent decades just cringing when I read some article where a clearly brilliant technical person, extremely well-versed in their technical knowledge... lacks the writing skills usually picked up by about the 6th grade.
Agreed.
I have spent the last 2 1/2 years learning as much as I can about SQL Server. I can get the mechanics (type this to do this) in BOL, but the understanding of when/why has either been learned painfully through trial and error or easily through the multitude of articles I have read.
I have noticed that as much as half of the articles are difficult to follow because of poor structure, grammar, and sometimes spelling. A couple of them were so bad I had to wonder why they were ever posted in the first place.
When I did a lot of technical writing in the past I used a software package (MS Word Addin??) that not only checked grammar and spelling, it also scored it for "readability" and "grade reading level". **I just checked and MS word has this built in.
The scores were based mostly on how many sentences in a paragraph, how complex the sentence structure, whether complex or simple words were used, etc.
I found that most adults grasped things pretty quick when I aimed for about the 9th grade level. Most executives required the 6th grade level because they had short attention spans and were looking for the most critical information quickly.
Perhaps it would help if the articles were run through such a package before posting. It would help posters by providing them with non-threatening feedback that could help them improve their writing styles.
This should result in more readable articles, which should benefit all of us.
March 11, 2010 at 8:34 am
I must say that the articles add a great deal to the understanding. True, the information is probably there in the BOL, however the conceptual subtleties are not so clear. Sometimes a writer explains something in a way that really creates an 'aha' moment, sometimes a writer who's learned it from the same path that you did, provides the magic key to understanding.
I periodically read articles about stuff that I've already leaned, because I still can get new insights.
I must say that I especially appreciate a writer who not only explains the right way, but also explains why the wrong way does not work, or is not advisable. Knowing why not to do someting imparts as much knowledge as being told how to do it.
...
-- FORTRAN manual for Xerox Computers --
March 11, 2010 at 8:57 am
Great editorial! You hit the nail on the head with this. SSC may have the same topic rehashed a number of times. I may read one article on a specific topic briefly, not really relate to it and move on (not learning). Another article on the same topic will come up down the road and I find myself completely engrossed, jumping over to SSMS and testing things out. Both articles could be bringing out the same points, but maybe I am at a point in time where the topic is more relevant, or the author is more inspiring in writing style, who knows.
All I know is I appreciate this approach, keep it up!
March 11, 2010 at 9:06 am
I think there's always room for a better explanation. There's even a web site devoted to the challenge of explaining things better: http://betterexplained.com[/url]. And, of course, there's How Stuff Works, which is really another site for promoting better explanations.
This is especially true with SQL Server. Books Online does well with basic descriptions, parameter specifications, etc. But in my opinion its examples are sometimes not the most helpful. It would be great if we could start putting together a "missing manual" version of BOL with a focus on more helpful and varied examples.
I would even go so far as to say that the formatting of BOL, sometimes with long stretches of hard-to-differentiate, small-point fonts, detracts from its accessibility. I think SQLTeam and Simple-Talk, as well as SQL Server Central and SQL Server Performance.com have well-formatted SQL articles and examples that, at least for me, enhance the learning experience. Videos such as those on SQLShare[/url] also help if they are well done.
- webrunner
-------------------
A SQL query walks into a bar and sees two tables. He walks up to them and asks, "Can I join you?"
Ref.: http://tkyte.blogspot.com/2009/02/sql-joke.html
March 11, 2010 at 9:48 am
I completely agree that the variety of articles adds greatly to the value of SSC and other web resources. I have extensive experience teaching not only various flavors of SQL (DB2, Teradata, SAS, SQL Server) but relational theory, data warehousing concepts, and, at University, tutoring many fields of mathematics, especially calculus, logic, and linear algebra. This includes not only instructing classes but compiling the materials and working one-on-one with business users to solve their particular challenges.
One thing I have learned is that there is never one right way to explain a concept. The audience is a critical factor in deciding how to work a topic, and with an open and popular website such as this, the audience can vary from experienced seasoned DBAs to SQL novices with no programming experience.
Not only do I think that it is useful, even necessary to have more than one article on a topic, I think it would even be helpful to have a target audience marker on the pieces to assist users in finding the right starting place. Something just indicating beginner, intermediate, advanced. Even with my 17 years in IT, there are still topics that I need to start on the basic level with. Something like this would provide additional guidance when searching the site for information, saving advanced users from rereading information that is foundational, while directing "newbies" to the information most likely to help them get started.
Just a thought.
😎 Kate The Great :w00t:
If you don't have time to do it right the first time, where will you find time to do it again?
March 11, 2010 at 9:52 am
Not only do I think that it is useful, even necessary to have more than one article on a topic, I think it would even be helpful to have a target audience marker on the pieces to assist users in finding the right starting place. Something just indicating beginner, intermediate, advanced. Even with my 17 years in IT, there are still topics that I need to start on the basic level with. Something like this would provide additional guidance when searching the site for information, saving advanced users from rereading information that is foundational, while directing "newbies" to the information most likely to help them get started.
I second this idea. It makes a lot of sense.
March 11, 2010 at 11:27 am
I like what SSC does for the audience. Allowing people to contribute to the community through forums, articles, scripts, and blogs. I think that even a "beginners" article holds content that may be of use to some of the more elite DBA's. The presentation style helps make learning easier for people as well. All in all, I'm glad to see the opportunities that SSC gives us.
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
March 11, 2010 at 11:37 am
dbaInTraining (3/11/2010)
Not only do I think that it is useful, even necessary to have more than one article on a topic, I think it would even be helpful to have a target audience marker on the pieces to assist users in finding the right starting place. Something just indicating beginner, intermediate, advanced. Even with my 17 years in IT, there are still topics that I need to start on the basic level with. Something like this would provide additional guidance when searching the site for information, saving advanced users from rereading information that is foundational, while directing "newbies" to the information most likely to help them get started.
I second this idea. It makes a lot of sense.
I "third" this idea! 🙂 Grouping the explanations by skill level would be very helpful. It could even help point beginners to warnings about which stuff they should not try yet, or what's not worth trying without help from a mentor, as well as what not to do and what is OK to do on production systems.
Thanks,
webrunner
-------------------
A SQL query walks into a bar and sees two tables. He walks up to them and asks, "Can I join you?"
Ref.: http://tkyte.blogspot.com/2009/02/sql-joke.html
March 12, 2010 at 8:28 am
When I started working with databases, I found Books Online, MSDN, and even most books on the subject to be far too advanced. They assumed a lot of "you already know this", even the ones written for beginners.
For example, it took me a long time to find a definition for "relational" (with regards to databases) that actually clarified anything. Most of the definitions I could find anywhere or get from anyone were circular. "Relational refers to a type of database that uses relations", "Relations are a way of storing data used by relational databases". That kind of thing.
So, when I write, I try to avoid that kind of thing. I judge the person or audience I'm writing for, and try to avoid skipping those basic assumptions.
It makes a big difference in clarity.
I'm working on a book on my experiences with learning how to DBA. It'll definitely be written to take this kind of thing into account.
- 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
Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 17 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply