June 25, 2008 at 3:40 am
Ok, I think next QotD could be "how to write a query to increase the scores of those who (correctly) answered just 2 to today's QotD?"
June 25, 2008 at 4:18 am
I know I picked the 2nd one too....
June 25, 2008 at 5:55 am
Extremely poor. I had ticked the second one and got it wrong when it's clearly right, as demonstrated in this thread.
June 25, 2008 at 6:34 am
A.) No judgement was made, was just posing a question.
B.) You ask for no judgement on what hasn't yet been done, and then go on to try and justify why what may or may not take place could be a reasonable choice? One might as well say that supporting a QoTD feature is just too much trouble - to which I will respond that anyone having sufficient experience in a forum environment to justify getting seriously involved in supporting one in any fashion, ought to know what's involved AS WELL AS what's expected long before beginning, and be capable of brushing off any negative press and moving on without a hitch. What you're suggesting says that such a person shouldn't or couldn't be expected to behave in that kind of PROFESSIONAL manner, and I beg to differ. The simple fact is that getting it right IS sometimes the most important thing - especially when you have perhaps thousands of folks relying on you to do so. Whenever a website shows any consistent signs of not being reliable, it's reputation suffers significantly, and most folks know this and thus make their voices loud in order that they be heard and responded to, so as to help avoid the loss they might incur if said site suddenly became less available or otherwise impaired by reputation. Make sense?
Steve
(aka smunson)
:):):)
P.S. It's because we care !!!
majorbloodnock (6/25/2008)
smunson (6/24/2008)
If their reaction is that childish, then where's the professionalism associated with publishing a website of this caliber? You can't be a pro and then react to every user disappointment in your site as if you're just going to take your ball and go home.Please don't judge someone on what they haven't yet done - especially when there's no legitimate hint that it even will be done.
Steve hasn't stopped the QOTD. He hasn't threatened to stop the QOTD. He has said there's a lot more work than is apparent in sanity checking a QOTD. He has said the amount of SSC's daily time that can be devoted to the QOTDs is less than is necessary to guarantee problem-free questions. He has said that if we want decent questions then more of us should step up to the mark and propose some.
Steve (aka sgmunson) 🙂 🙂 🙂
Rent Servers for Income (picks and shovels strategy)
June 25, 2008 at 6:53 am
Then I will make the assumption that you'll be the first to volunteer to vet future QotD and willing to stick with it through thick and thin. I would consider it, but I also know that between my work and my life, I don't know how much time I have extra to be a part of such a group.
P.S. I also care, and realize that the QotD is much more of a fun sideline than a serious educational aspect of this site. Look back at some of the humorous QotD that have been given.
The meat of this site are the forums and its participants, not the QotD.
😎
smunson (6/25/2008)
A.) No judgement was made, was just posing a question.B.) You ask for no judgement on what hasn't yet been done, and then go on to try and justify why what may or may not take place could be a reasonable choice? One might as well say that supporting a QoTD feature is just too much trouble - to which I will respond that anyone having sufficient experience in a forum environment to justify getting seriously involved in supporting one in any fashion, ought to know what's involved AS WELL AS what's expected long before beginning, and be capable of brushing off any negative press and moving on without a hitch. What you're suggesting says that such a person shouldn't or couldn't be expected to behave in that kind of PROFESSIONAL manner, and I beg to differ. The simple fact is that getting it right IS sometimes the most important thing - especially when you have perhaps thousands of folks relying on you to do so. Whenever a website shows any consistent signs of not being reliable, it's reputation suffers significantly, and most folks know this and thus make their voices loud in order that they be heard and responded to, so as to help avoid the loss they might incur if said site suddenly became less available or otherwise impaired by reputation. Make sense?
Steve
(aka smunson)
:):):)
P.S. It's because we care !!!
majorbloodnock (6/25/2008)
smunson (6/24/2008)
If their reaction is that childish, then where's the professionalism associated with publishing a website of this caliber? You can't be a pro and then react to every user disappointment in your site as if you're just going to take your ball and go home.Please don't judge someone on what they haven't yet done - especially when there's no legitimate hint that it even will be done.
Steve hasn't stopped the QOTD. He hasn't threatened to stop the QOTD. He has said there's a lot more work than is apparent in sanity checking a QOTD. He has said the amount of SSC's daily time that can be devoted to the QOTDs is less than is necessary to guarantee problem-free questions. He has said that if we want decent questions then more of us should step up to the mark and propose some.
June 25, 2008 at 6:55 am
smunson (6/25/2008)
A.) No judgement was made, was just posing a question.
OK. That's the way it came across, but I'm happy to apologise if that wasn't your intention and I've misunderstood.
B.) You ask for no judgement on what hasn't yet been done, and then go on to try and justify why what may or may not take place could be a reasonable choice?
Not at all. I have made no justification whatsoever; merely summarised what has been said before. No more, no less. I'm happy to see Steve praised or damned for what he has said or done, but not for what he has not, so it seemed sensible to set out exactly those points. If you're reading more into my comment than that, I suspect you're falling into the same trap I just fell into above (regarding your A.) point). Since I've just done it, I can vouch for how easy it is to do 😉
As for the rest, perhaps the QOTD is becoming a lot of trouble. The forum is a free resource, so there's a limit to the effort we can expect to be put in. Whether or not "a lot of trouble" is now "too much trouble" is pure conjecture, but I'd imagine the more people take it too seriously, the higher that "too much trouble" score will creep compared with the value the forum and its members get out of the QOTD resource.
And I agree that mistakes in the QOTDs aren't doing SSC any favours.
Semper in excretia, suus solum profundum variat
June 25, 2008 at 7:23 am
majorbloodnock (6/25/2008)
smunson (6/25/2008)
A.) No judgement was made, was just posing a question.OK. That's the way it came across, but I'm happy to apologise if that wasn't your intention and I've misunderstood.
It wasn't my intention to do any more than make folks think about the question. Thanks!
majorbloodnock (6/25/2008)
B.) You ask for no judgement on what hasn't yet been done, and then go on to try and justify why what may or may not take place could be a reasonable choice?
Not at all. I have made no justification whatsoever; merely summarised what has been said before. No more, no less. I'm happy to see Steve praised or damned for what he has said or done, but not for what he has not, so it seemed sensible to set out exactly those points. If you're reading more into my comment than that, I suspect you're falling into the same trap I just fell into above (regarding your A.) point). Since I've just done it, I can vouch for how easy it is to do 😉
Yes, you summarized, but since all I had were the words you provided, sans any statement that says you are just summarizing, it would be pretty hard to infer any intent other than a justification, and thus I apologize for the misinterpretation, as I recognize the difficulty in translating thought and intent to the written word.
majorbloodnock (6/25/2008)
As for the rest, perhaps the QOTD is becoming a lot of trouble. The forum is a free resource, so there's a limit to the effort we can expect to be put in. Whether or not "a lot of trouble" is now "too much trouble" is pure conjecture, but I'd imagine the more people take it too seriously, the higher that "too much trouble" score will creep compared with the value the forum and its members get out of the QOTD resource.And I agree that mistakes in the QOTDs aren't doing SSC any favours.
And here you go back in the same direction as you appeared to be going before - suddenly the QOTD is potentially more trouble than it's worth, and I have to say that the very existence of this debate over it's value is proof enough of it's value.
It just seems that some folks have so little intolerance for ANYTHING that even remotely resembles a negative thought, that they'll settle for less than they deserve merely to avoid conflict. That just seems to me to be less than appropriate where something of significant value is concerned. It's not the conflict that's the important thing, it's how one resolves it.
And I agree with you wholeheartedly on the QOTD boo-boos not doing SSC any favors (American spelling). It's because I highly value SSC that I choose some level of conflict lest that valuable resource become less valuable.
Steve
(aka smunson)
:):):)
P.S. to Lynn Pettis - I would choose not to volunteer myself for something of the nature of QOTD - not because of the potential for user complaint, but merely because I have very little time for any kind of volunteer effort, much less something with a daily deadline that's based on a time zone from across the pond. IOW, I simply do not have the time. My point was that whatever the time requirement or level of negative feedback, whomever IS doing it CAN be expected to do it right and take care of it professionally. If the number of problems were minimal, then this would likely have been a rather odd occurrence instead of a much larger issue.
Steve (aka sgmunson) 🙂 🙂 🙂
Rent Servers for Income (picks and shovels strategy)
June 25, 2008 at 7:45 am
smunson (6/25/2008)
majorbloodnock (6/25/2008)
smunson (6/25/2008)
A.) No judgement was made, was just posing a question.OK. That's the way it came across, but I'm happy to apologise if that wasn't your intention and I've misunderstood.
It wasn't my intention to do any more than make folks think about the question. Thanks!
majorbloodnock (6/25/2008)
B.) You ask for no judgement on what hasn't yet been done, and then go on to try and justify why what may or may not take place could be a reasonable choice?
Not at all. I have made no justification whatsoever; merely summarised what has been said before. No more, no less. I'm happy to see Steve praised or damned for what he has said or done, but not for what he has not, so it seemed sensible to set out exactly those points. If you're reading more into my comment than that, I suspect you're falling into the same trap I just fell into above (regarding your A.) point). Since I've just done it, I can vouch for how easy it is to do 😉
Yes, you summarized, but since all I had were the words you provided, sans any statement that says you are just summarizing, it would be pretty hard to infer any intent other than a justification, and thus I apologize for the misinterpretation, as I recognize the difficulty in translating thought and intent to the written word.
majorbloodnock (6/25/2008)
As for the rest, perhaps the QOTD is becoming a lot of trouble. The forum is a free resource, so there's a limit to the effort we can expect to be put in. Whether or not "a lot of trouble" is now "too much trouble" is pure conjecture, but I'd imagine the more people take it too seriously, the higher that "too much trouble" score will creep compared with the value the forum and its members get out of the QOTD resource.And I agree that mistakes in the QOTDs aren't doing SSC any favours.
And here you go back in the same direction as you appeared to be going before - suddenly the QOTD is potentially more trouble than it's worth, and I have to say that the very existence of this debate over it's value is proof enough of it's value.
It just seems that some folks have so little intolerance for ANYTHING that even remotely resembles a negative thought, that they'll settle for less than they deserve merely to avoid conflict. That just seems to me to be less than appropriate where something of significant value is concerned. It's not the conflict that's the important thing, it's how one resolves it.
And I agree with you wholeheartedly on the QOTD boo-boos not doing SSC any favors (American spelling). It's because I highly value SSC that I choose some level of conflict lest that valuable resource become less valuable.
Steve
(aka smunson)
:):):)
P.S. to Lynn Pettis - I would choose not to volunteer myself for something of the nature of QOTD - not because of the potential for user complaint, but merely because I have very little time for any kind of volunteer effort, much less something with a daily deadline that's based on a time zone from across the pond. IOW, I simply do not have the time. My point was that whatever the time requirement or level of negative feedback, whomever IS doing it CAN be expected to do it right and take care of it professionally. If the number of problems were minimal, then this would likely have been a rather odd occurrence instead of a much larger issue.
Just as I don't have time either, understood. The real point here, is that too many people complain excessivily, don't offer any solutions to help out, and if asked to assist propably wouldn't, even if they had the time. The attitude today is everything should be perfect always, and anything else is unexceptable. The problem with that, however, is that is not possible. Mistakes will happen, and with the QotD, bad questions and/or answers will occur. I have no problems with the problem being brought to the communities attention, but when you read nothing but complaints and whining from everyone, it gets to the point of the ridiculous.
The QotD is, and I am definitely repeating myself, not the meat of this site. I enjoy reading and answering the QotD, some of them make me think, some teach, some reinforce what I already know, but it isn't why I come to this site. I have learned so much more from the forums than I ever could from OJT or learning on my own. I have found new ways of thinking about problems and new solutions to old ones I had fixed (some have actually been better). And, more importantly, I have been giving back to this community for all the help it has given me.
I feel that I have made some friends on this site as well. There are quite a few people here that I would like to someday meet in person. Some live here in the States, and some overseas. But even if that never happens, they are still here, and I can rely on their experience and wisdom. Regardless of the QotD, the forums and the people are what make this site one of the best resources for SQL Server on the web today.
😎
June 25, 2008 at 7:52 am
Lynn,
Well put. I couldn't have said it better myself.
(I considered doing a quoted reply, but I wasn't sure whether or not we get points for acreage.)
😀
June 25, 2008 at 8:42 am
While I understand your point, why diminish the value of SSC by allowing something like QOTD to go so far off kilter? Perhaps it's time to consider making it the QOTW (weekly) or QOTM (monthly), in order to insure that the time necessary to get it right can be actually be spent?
Also, I suggested a solution - it was called fixing it by doing the right thing for the right reason(remove the bad question and restore the points for all correct answerers and issue the mea culpas). What concerns me is being lumped into the whiners category. QOTD requires some amount of resource to be done correctly, and all I ask is that either the resource be provided or someone step up to the plate to state that the resources simply aren't available and scale back the implementation to meet available resources. Isn't that what the likes of Grant Fritchey, Jeff Moden, Matt Miller, and so many others preach in their posts with respect to SQL and DBA job skills? Why should the operation of this website be any different?
Steve
(aka smunson)
:):):)
Lynn Pettis (6/25/2008)
smunson (6/25/2008)
majorbloodnock (6/25/2008)
smunson (6/25/2008)
A.) No judgement was made, was just posing a question.OK. That's the way it came across, but I'm happy to apologise if that wasn't your intention and I've misunderstood.
It wasn't my intention to do any more than make folks think about the question. Thanks!
majorbloodnock (6/25/2008)
B.) You ask for no judgement on what hasn't yet been done, and then go on to try and justify why what may or may not take place could be a reasonable choice?
Not at all. I have made no justification whatsoever; merely summarised what has been said before. No more, no less. I'm happy to see Steve praised or damned for what he has said or done, but not for what he has not, so it seemed sensible to set out exactly those points. If you're reading more into my comment than that, I suspect you're falling into the same trap I just fell into above (regarding your A.) point). Since I've just done it, I can vouch for how easy it is to do 😉
Yes, you summarized, but since all I had were the words you provided, sans any statement that says you are just summarizing, it would be pretty hard to infer any intent other than a justification, and thus I apologize for the misinterpretation, as I recognize the difficulty in translating thought and intent to the written word.
majorbloodnock (6/25/2008)
As for the rest, perhaps the QOTD is becoming a lot of trouble. The forum is a free resource, so there's a limit to the effort we can expect to be put in. Whether or not "a lot of trouble" is now "too much trouble" is pure conjecture, but I'd imagine the more people take it too seriously, the higher that "too much trouble" score will creep compared with the value the forum and its members get out of the QOTD resource.And I agree that mistakes in the QOTDs aren't doing SSC any favours.
And here you go back in the same direction as you appeared to be going before - suddenly the QOTD is potentially more trouble than it's worth, and I have to say that the very existence of this debate over it's value is proof enough of it's value.
It just seems that some folks have so little intolerance for ANYTHING that even remotely resembles a negative thought, that they'll settle for less than they deserve merely to avoid conflict. That just seems to me to be less than appropriate where something of significant value is concerned. It's not the conflict that's the important thing, it's how one resolves it.
And I agree with you wholeheartedly on the QOTD boo-boos not doing SSC any favors (American spelling). It's because I highly value SSC that I choose some level of conflict lest that valuable resource become less valuable.
Steve
(aka smunson)
:):):)
P.S. to Lynn Pettis - I would choose not to volunteer myself for something of the nature of QOTD - not because of the potential for user complaint, but merely because I have very little time for any kind of volunteer effort, much less something with a daily deadline that's based on a time zone from across the pond. IOW, I simply do not have the time. My point was that whatever the time requirement or level of negative feedback, whomever IS doing it CAN be expected to do it right and take care of it professionally. If the number of problems were minimal, then this would likely have been a rather odd occurrence instead of a much larger issue.
Just as I don't have time either, understood. The real point here, is that too many people complain excessivily, don't offer any solutions to help out, and if asked to assist propably wouldn't, even if they had the time. The attitude today is everything should be perfect always, and anything else is unexceptable. The problem with that, however, is that is not possible. Mistakes will happen, and with the QotD, bad questions and/or answers will occur. I have no problems with the problem being brought to the communities attention, but when you read nothing but complaints and whining from everyone, it gets to the point of the ridiculous.
The QotD is, and I am definitely repeating myself, not the meat of this site. I enjoy reading and answering the QotD, some of them make me think, some teach, some reinforce what I already know, but it isn't why I come to this site. I have learned so much more from the forums than I ever could from OJT or learning on my own. I have found new ways of thinking about problems and new solutions to old ones I had fixed (some have actually been better). And, more importantly, I have been giving back to this community for all the help it has given me.
I feel that I have made some friends on this site as well. There are quite a few people here that I would like to someday meet in person. Some live here in the States, and some overseas. But even if that never happens, they are still here, and I can rely on their experience and wisdom. Regardless of the QotD, the forums and the people are what make this site one of the best resources for SQL Server on the web today.
😎
Steve (aka sgmunson) 🙂 🙂 🙂
Rent Servers for Income (picks and shovels strategy)
June 25, 2008 at 10:28 am
Steve
(aka smunson)
First, Steve probably hasn't seen this thread yet, as he may be off at a conference. I know that when he learns about an issue such as this, he takes the appropriate action and makes the necessary corrections and sends out his apologies. The constant complaining about not getting "my points back" over and over is whining. Do these points really mean anything? Does the fact you didn't get awarded a point really going to matter next week, or next year? Is it going to cost you your job? Come on, if we are all professionals, like we say we are, we need to step up and realize that things go wrong, and whining about it isn't going to make it better.
Yes, individuals like Jeff, Grant, Gail, et al preach do it right from the beginning. But I can assure you, they make mistakes as well. Part of that is called development, or experimentation. Has any one out there written the perfect nontrivial sql query/store procedure/trigger/... the first time they sat down to write it? Probably not. Sometimes the first iteration my be a slow ponderous beast that returns the correct answer. Now the goal is to improve the process, find the better solution before going into production. I'm sure that some of the guru's out there can do this faster than others (a matter of experience).
I also place the constant complaining about bad questions/answers as complaining. All I can say is it happens, get over it. We may not have the time to volunteer and vet questions, but how about stepping up to the plate and providing some QotD instead? Do I think I could do a better job than some of the others I have seen? Possibly, depends on what topic I would choose. I just haven't taken the time to try and write one. But there is another difference, I'm not one of those complaining about the bad questions/answers all the time. (No, I am just complaining about the complainers because that bothers me more than the bad questions/answers.)
I may, in the near future, try my hand at writing a QotD. I finally took the time to write an article for SSC (and it will be published shortly), and I am in the process of writing another one. I'm sure I will get some flames on my article, but I also know that others will provide valuable feedback (contractive criticism) which I will welcome.
😎
June 25, 2008 at 12:59 pm
I hear you Lynn... I just think we're clashing on a difference of either specific values or perspective. My values say that if I were going to run SSC, I could not and would not accept a QOTD that wasn't reviewed and vetted by several other people beyond the author, and those doing the vetting wouldn't be able to participate in any QOTD they vetted. The vetters would likely include several of the best site participants, and I would hope for a pool of vetters such that I could rotate among different sets of vetters for each QOTD. It's also quite likely I would make that process weekly instead of daily, as daily deadlines are very difficult to meet with just one person involved, never mind a larger pool.
My perspective says I simply can't imagine implementing anything like QOTD in any way that was WITHOUT the caveats I specified above, nor can I imagine anyone else being willing to do so without them, as the whining and complaining that would certainly ensue would only hurt the site's reputation, and I cannot see any way to make up for that kind of a loss that makes doing a QOTD type of thing worth the effort. This is primarily because I would know ahead of time the kind of grief involved in having to fix problems and listen to gripes and whines, AND, that just setting up the coding on who could participate in any given question would not be trivial. Again, just my perspective. Besides, my mother always told me that if you're going to do something, do it well. My version of "do it well" requires more effort than others might envision, but I know from experience that it tends to produce good results.
Steve
(aka smunson)
:):):)
Steve (aka sgmunson) 🙂 🙂 🙂
Rent Servers for Income (picks and shovels strategy)
June 25, 2008 at 1:15 pm
Seriously guys, I can't believe you are all talking about this still. I think its time to move on. There are more fun and exciting things going on in the SQL Server world. 😀
June 25, 2008 at 2:41 pm
Points are awarded back.
Apologies for the delay. I was on vacation and this was one thing that no one else knows how to do (yet).
The run through of the question appeared to be correct, but I think I, like the author, was watching the date fields only and not the text fields. No excuse, but mistakes happen.
Also, the single quotes are sometimes a result of the #$%$@#@ editor used. It changes proper SQL single quotes to grammatically correct ones that don't work in QA. Please ignore those.
June 25, 2008 at 10:40 pm
Cheers to Steve.........:)
I believe u are not going to deduct points for posting here 😉
Viewing 15 posts - 121 through 135 (of 138 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply