August 11, 2009 at 2:39 pm
I'd have to agree: unless you plan on radically changing the nature of the community, it would be difficult to introduce a panel of reviewers. I think the extra filter would take away the great things you learn from the discussions. At best a list of people perhaps to ASK, but even then - I think that would become a burden for those people.
As to posting articles, I think the authors have to come to the party EXPECTING a rough ride. Not that the comments are all that brutal, but it seem you never really can tell when a topic might take a serious left turn. Even if you DO have some good advice to impart, imparting it to such a high caliber of folks is bound to generate some amount of pushback. Challenging each other on the suppositions held is precisely why you see better content here than most places.
And to be fair - even at our worse, I don't think we hold a candle to the snakepits like MS forums, etc.... We don't eat our young, we just browbeat them (with porkchops or other such artifacts) until they do better...:)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your lack of planning does not constitute an emergency on my part...unless you're my manager...or a director and above...or a really loud-spoken end-user..All right - what was my emergency again?
August 11, 2009 at 3:21 pm
Steve Jones - Editor (8/11/2009)
What I would be happy to do is publish a list of "reviewers" on the writer's page and allow authors the ability to private message people that might be interested in reviewing something. Or maybe create a separate forum for authors to request some review.
This sounds like a good idea to me.
I'm slightly concerned that this will result in a few reviewers somewhat dictating what should be published and how it should be worded. I feel it's a valid concern, especially as new authors might feel overwhelmed by someone that disagrees with them, and might not be correct in their disagreement.
It is certainly a valid concern, but if it is voluntary someone worried about that could abstain or take the reviewers comments and then ignore them.
(edited because I got the quote tag wrong originally.)
---
Timothy A Wiseman
SQL Blog: http://timothyawiseman.wordpress.com/
August 11, 2009 at 3:33 pm
timothyawiseman (8/11/2009)
Steve Jones - Editor (8/11/2009)
What I would be happy to do is publish a list of "reviewers" on the writer's page and allow authors the ability to private message people that might be interested in reviewing something. Or maybe create a separate forum for authors to request some review.This sounds like a good idea to me.
I'm slightly concerned that this will result in a few reviewers somewhat dictating what should be published and how it should be worded. I feel it's a valid concern, especially as new authors might feel overwhelmed by someone that disagrees with them, and might not be correct in their disagreement.
It is certainly a valid concern, but if it is voluntary someone worried about that could abstain or take the reviewers comments and then ignore them.
If its voluntary, what's the point? Does Steve then have to ask if the article was reviewed and if so by whom or put a disclaimer on the article saying it hasn't been reviewed?
Seems like a lot of extra work for little value in the end. People need to realize not everything on the web is accurate.
August 11, 2009 at 3:42 pm
timothyawiseman (8/11/2009)
Steve Jones - Editor (8/11/2009)
What I would be happy to do is publish a list of "reviewers" on the writer's page and allow authors the ability to private message people that might be interested in reviewing something. Or maybe create a separate forum for authors to request some review.This sounds like a good idea to me.
At the risk of offending... not only "No", but HELL NO! No reviews. Matt said that people should come here EXPECTING a rough ride. I'd like to flip that around a bit. People should come here PREPARED. That means they should do their own research and find their own bloody reviewers. They should also buy a program to do their own spell checking. If they're from an ESL county, then they need to learn some better grammar before posting on this mostly English-speaking-format forum or get their own help. I would never attempt to submit an article in "broken German" for example... I'd get someone to help me accurately translate it.
Like I said, just like on the job, communications are important. I'll also add that I'm not in the baby-sitting business and I don't think Steve should be either. If someone is dumb enough to come in with their pants around their ankles, they deserve to get their butt kicked in front of a million other people. We've all made that mistake... it's part of the rite of becoming a DBA and an author.
Steve... I don't have enough time as it is... if you do end up publishing a reviewers list, please leave me off of it. 😉
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
August 11, 2009 at 5:40 pm
“Caveat Emptor”
I am sure that there are many people in this forum who have, without question, accepted advice from the printed page, an article on the web or that of a trusted colleague...only to find that it wasn’t quite what was expected.
This is called “Experience”....the “DBA School of Hard Knocks.” ...”Life”...whatever you wish to call it, we will all fall foul of it at sometime.....personally on more than one occasion....:rolleyes:
Over a period of time we build a list of “trusted sources” that we review for answers to our questions...and based on the results we continue to rank these sources accordingly.
I do not believe that this, or any other site, can deliver a definitive answer to the multitude of questions seeking solutions....”it all depends”.
If there is somewhere that can provide me with "Pearls of Wisdom" that will unequivocally provide a resolution to my question and will be agreed by all contributors, that the response given is "correct"...please point me in the right direction.
From a personal perspective, I would not ask for any change to the editorial policy, but I would like to know whether the article in question had been edited (and reposted) following a forum peer review.
Out of interest, how many authors republish their initial articles that address (and/or) correct the various areas raised in the subsequent discussion?
________________________________________________________________
you can lead a user to data....but you cannot make them think
and remember....every day is a school day
August 11, 2009 at 7:11 pm
I have formerly worked as an articles editor at http://www.strangehorizons.com and so should offer my comment for this thread. Strange Horizons is a volunteer run online publication that published both fiction and non-fiction, though not “technical articles” as does SQL Server Central.
Having read through the many comments on this topic, both in this thread and the thread that spawned it, it is clear there are two camps: those that feel the current arrangements are fine where anybody gets published regardless of merit, and those that are dissatisfied with that arrangement. My own position is somewhat grey. Although I support authors beginning their publishing career somewhere, they do need valid feedback for both their writing style and the content of their articles. SSC is not a forum for teaching people how to write, neither is it a forum for public humiliation. As a forum for imparting knowledge of SQL Server it does this very well (as I know from many years of membership) and this is what it should focus on. Given the number of members and its prominence in the web there should be an expectation that what it publishes as articles are of a decent standard.
At Strange Horizons we received many “Author Interviews” of varying quality. Some would include uninsightful questions such as “When did you write your first book?” while others were more thought provoking. As a donation based publication we needed to keep readers interested to remain viable. SSC on the other hand is owned by Red Gate and as such is a commercial publication, even if based on a community model. For this reason its articles should be of a suitable quality, else the reputation may suffer. I like SSC and would hate to see a growing incidence of “SSC used to be good but now it’s...” Having read an article yesterday with it 160-odd comments largely panning the article and SSC’s editorial standards, well that’s a couple of hours of my life I won’t get back. And to expect less experienced people to wade through that much commentary for a couple of nuggets of insight is not sensible.
I think that review is necessary. Some articles should not see the light of day, some have already been done and don’t need doing again, and some are great. My thoughts on a workable solution would be to have a “Pending Articles” page or similar, where volunteer reviewers could post comments. Those could be the basis of feedback to the author to improve the article, or for rejection. This I think is much what Steve has suggested, but it needn’t be authoritative. Ultimately this is a community based forum and the discussion pages are useful reading, but at least we could raise the bar so that discussion pages aren’t mandatory reading.
S.
August 11, 2009 at 7:36 pm
Fal (8/11/2009)
... some have already been done and don’t need doing again, ...S.
I have to disagree with this statement. Just because a topic has already been covered in an article is no reason to deny someone else the opportunity to also write about the same topic. The author may present the information differently, or at a different level of understanding. The author could even come to a totally different conclusion in their article based on their own experience. If Steve used the adage that "Oh, that topic has already been covered," then my first article published on SSC would not have seen the light of day, as you put, since the topic had already been covered.
August 11, 2009 at 7:48 pm
Lynn Pettis (8/11/2009)
... Just because a topic has already been covered in an article is no reason to deny someone else the opportunity to also write about the same topic. The author may present the information differently, or at a different level of understanding. The author could even come to a totally different conclusion in their article based on their own experience. If Steve used the adage that "Oh, that topic has already been covered," then my first article published on SSC would not have seen the light of day, as you put, since the topic had already been covered.
That is perfectly true. And that's why you review, so that you can determine if an article is simply a rehash or offers something new. It's also not a reason for the article "not to see the light of day" - those are articles that should not see the light of day, whereas a previously covered article can be published elsewhere.
S.
August 11, 2009 at 9:04 pm
Interesting points, and it's good to hear what someone else has done.
Part of what has driven SSC is the discussions and debates. Those create the community, and the sense of belonging. I don't want to impinge on those, especially as many of the articles that a few people have bashed as technically inaccurate have generated great discussions.
Could those come about from a pending articles section? Possibly. It would depend on people wanting to contribute to the betterment of a piece of work. I actually like this idea, and I'll debate it a bit to see what level of work would be required.
I think that we put out fairly good content for the most part. Things slip by, and sometimes it's a mistake (I've published the wrong version), sometime it's just a lack of editing. I don't necessarily publish every article that comes my way, and many of them go through a few drafts. It's a tough balance to strike between trying to help an author write a piece, and writing it for them. My concern over allowing a few volunteers to do this (and I believe it would be a few, likely < 10, that would put out a lot of comments for authors). I worry that they would overwhelm someone that has legitimate points and shape the article as they would like it to be written.
August 11, 2009 at 9:09 pm
In terms of deciding what should be published, I'm concerned someone writing about transaction logs might get shut down. Volunteers would say (for example) that Gail has covered the subject and someone else shouldn't do it.
However each author speaks with a different voice, and they reach people that others don't. They sometimes tell a story that strikes a chord with a reader that a more technical presentation doesn't.
We have 5 (or more) articles on how to move a database on this site. They have all received different readers and comments from different people. I think it's great that we have a variety of ways to explain this process, all separate from how this is covered in BOL. I'd hate to have that variety stifled.
I do turn away some articles that are overviews of topics as I think we can have too many of those, but for many other, more focused articles, I like to see them published.
August 11, 2009 at 10:06 pm
Fal (8/11/2009)
My thoughts on a workable solution would be to have a “Pending Articles” page or similar, where volunteer reviewers could post comments. Those could be the basis of feedback to the author to improve the article, or for rejection. This I think is much what Steve has suggested, but it needn’t be authoritative. Ultimately this is a community based forum and the discussion pages are useful reading, but at least we could raise the bar so that discussion pages aren’t mandatory reading.
I missed where Steve may have said that, but the idea of a limited access "Pending Articles" page may have merit. No one would necessarily be assigned to do a review. Instead, it would be more of a "pre-discussion" by the folks that SSC and Steve have come to trust.
Even with my "Give them the opportunity to fail so they can learn to succeed" attitude, I could possibly buy into that especially if the author weren't privy to the page and especially because it supports my attitude about authors without negating the possibility of review. Rather than wet nursing a potential author, a synthesis of the discussion would be forwarded to the author. At no time should portions of the article be rewritten or even spell checked by the reviewing group. Also, the group would have to be careful to provide only feedback on the article, not research on the article. The author must ultimately do his/her own research or it's simply not fair to give that author credit for the article.
Still, I'm torn. Who would correct some of the "great" authors like Ben-Gan or Celko even though they're not always right either? (Sidebar: You know some of us would but we'd be a minority. :-P) Worse than that, some of the "great" authors are pompous and arrogant to the max and would simply not submit to such a thing. They would rather withdraw their article and despite their arrogance, they do occasionally have something good to say that readers would miss out on. And please don't say that published authors would be exempt. They make terrible mistakes just like the rest of us.
Hmmmm… there are also “timid” and “lurking edge” authors who may have a great revelation to share. If they knew of such prescreening, they may balk at the opportunity to publish their work for the rest of the world to enjoy, spelling errors and all. Yes, I agree that the discussions that followed the article that spawned this thread could send even the most seasoned of authors running for the hills, but that's the chance that every author must take especially if they come as "unprepared" and incorrect as the author in question did.
Heh… on that note… Nah... I have to take it back... even with supposed technical reviews, many of the "better" books and magazines both on paper and on the internet are still full of hooie and performance inhibited code. Pre-reviewing articles on SSC is still a bad idea in that it still wouldn't prevent all of the bum dope and may chase away a potential diamond in the rough even more so than post article discussions. Let the post article discussions be the judge and give people the opportunity to be judged on their own merits whether those discussions result in accolades and recognition or public humiliation. In short, I'm opposed to any form of technical review and/or technical censorship. So far as I'm concerned, the articles on this forum are no different than the forum threads except that no question was asked before an answer was given. Let them stand on their own or not as do the answers in the forums.
BUT, that's just the opinion of one member out of more than a million members on SSC... It's not my shop. It's Steve's and I'll always try to support his decisions because, unlike many authors we seen on this and other forums, the man comes prepared.
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
August 11, 2009 at 10:14 pm
Steve Jones - Editor (8/11/2009)
In terms of deciding what should be published, I'm concerned someone writing about transaction logs might get shut down. Volunteers would say (for example) that Gail has covered the subject and someone else shouldn't do it.However each author speaks with a different voice, and they reach people that others don't. They sometimes tell a story that strikes a chord with a reader that a more technical presentation doesn't.
We have 5 (or more) articles on how to move a database on this site. They have all received different readers and comments from different people. I think it's great that we have a variety of ways to explain this process, all separate from how this is covered in BOL. I'd hate to have that variety stifled.
I do turn away some articles that are overviews of topics as I think we can have too many of those, but for many other, more focused articles, I like to see them published.
Ah... see what I mean? The man comes prepared. Steve posted while I was typing and, if I may say so, more correctly expressed what my feelings about this are than I did.
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
August 12, 2009 at 2:02 am
As I mentioned in the previous thread I think the key point is to be clear what the status of any given article is in broad terms - opinion, editorial, or factual.
A lot of the time this is obvious, in the forums questions are being asked, opinions are being expressed, the reader needs to decide what they agree with and who knows what they are talking about.
The editorial sections are invariably entertaining, well written and sometimes controversial sparking further debate. The reader might agree with the points made or not. That's great too.
The problem is definitely with the articles. I think there is a strong implication to the reader that the articles are at some level endorsed by SSC. Indeed on the email I get ever day it authors are billed as 'Fred Bloggs from SQLServerCentral.com'. I guess this implies some level of reviewing though again I think the average reader probably doesn't get as far as considering how the process might work.
The simplest solution as some others have previously posted is to make this crystal clear with a disclaimer at the beginning of each article. Nothing else about the policy then needs to change.
I also like the idea of highlighting where there has been a lot of debate about an article. Even better would be if the posters could indicate whether a post agreed of disagreed with the article. You could then display that at the top of the article too (E.g. 50 comments, 80% positive).
Anything that makes reviewing easier, particulary a resource for first time contributors, would also be useful.
Finally what I didn't like about the other thread was an underlying disrespect for the author from some posters. Presumably the article was submitted in good faith and after some effort to write it. Some of the debate was a bit close to a lynch mob to me, and I suspect it may put some people who might have been considering contributing off doing so.
Tim
Edit: Typo
.
August 12, 2009 at 6:38 am
Tim Walker (8/12/2009)
...was submitted in good faith and after some effort to write it...
I didn't see much of either in that article. I can understand why people were so upset about it. Let's stop giving so much credit to an author who did little or no respectable research and give credit to the audience who spotted that flaw.
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
August 12, 2009 at 7:15 am
Still, I'm torn. Who would correct some of the "great" authors like Ben-Gan or Celko even though they're not always right either? (Sidebar: You know some of us would but we'd be a minority. ) Worse than that, some of the "great" authors are pompous and arrogant to the max and would simply not submit to such a thing.
People do it took me two seconds to see the Ben Gan book with the 19 pages errata was not written for SQL Server 2005 people reported it and Microsoft corrected it very quickly, I still tell people not to buy it. My comment was Oops someone forgot to tell the writers the product changed. The good thing about it is Microsoft changes docs, publishes errata, changes a lot of things if the complain is valid.
Kind regards,
Gift Peddie
Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 102 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply