August 12, 2009 at 7:18 am
Jeff Moden (8/12/2009)
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.
I was upset about it, it was a pretty lousy article. It was entirely appropriate that this was pointed out to the author. I'm not sure how you got the fact that I give the author 'credit' from what I wrote.
People (the author) get things wrong sometimes. It's perhaps not ideal (for the group) to ram it down their throat repeatedly.
Tim
.
August 12, 2009 at 9:12 am
The disclaimer is another idea that we can look at. I'm not sure quite how to word it, and my guess is that we'll have plenty of opinions about how it should look.
I think Jeff expressed my thoughts pretty well, maybe better than I did.
August 12, 2009 at 9:18 am
From all of this discussion, I think a common consensus is that there are many different styles of reviewing and all of them have their good points and bad points.
While I whole-heartedly support improving the system, I think a careful look needs to be one to make sure it doesn’t squash or impede the community that Steve (and Red-Gate since they own the site) are trying to create.
I have given this a lot of thought, noting what I like about SSC. Even though some people complain that threads get hijacked onto other subjects (a valid complaint at times), I don’t find that too annoying because sometimes those hijacks go places that are interesting and informative and sometimes are just plain amusing. I don't see something that makes me smile as a waste of my time. 🙂
Then there are the “bad” articles. While I can understand the frustration at seeing articles supporting bad practices, I side with Steve on the policy to air those bad practices and let them see the light of day (or Jeff’s pork chop thrower :-P) so that others who think those bad practices are great have an opportunity to see the error of their ways and learn a better way of doing things. That opportunity, I think, is worth the risk/annoyance of a bad article. I think it does more right than wrong.
How else is someone going to go “Wow! I totally agree with that! I want to post my support of it so others know what a great solution it is!” to then go into the discussion board and go “Whoa! Perhaps that wasn’t such a good idea after all. Now, what were the recommendations? How did they do it? Perhaps I should post to get some help with my solution that I just found out is a problem.”
If their supportive post is posted before others objections to it, well, they get subscribed to the thread when they post. Once notifications of new posts come their way, if they don’t go back and see what the new posts are, then they deserve what they get.
I’m new to SQL Server. I don’t know all the ins and outs of Execution Plans to tune my queries and I’m not entirely sure I can avoid RBAR queries and there have been times when I’ve been puzzled about why my INNER JOIN seems to be producing RBAR results. Because of my newness (newbie-ness?), I might come up with some of those bad practices on my own. After all, BoL says it can work this way and if it gives me the results I need, it works, right? Why fix it if it ain't broke? I might never know my solution was bad because it would never come up in an article that had gone through a technical review (volunteer or otherwise).
And before anyone says, "if it's a bad solution it will show anyway," lots of solutions work just fine until you start getting bigger, in otherwords, the solution that you thought was great isn't so great because it doesn't scale and the way to fix it do it does scale is in the discussion thread.
I am sure that our current experts can agree on one thing; there is an infinite way of doing things wrong. Because of that, you can’t write an article on “This is the way NOT to do it” that would be in any way brief. And even if you could, you still get situations where a cursor might be the only way to do the job necessary.
I put in my vote with not changing the current policy. I think the good that can come from the debunking of a bad article is more than worth the risk of publishing a bad article. A note to the reader to check out the discussion thread for the article is a good modification which I do agree with.
And like Jeff, I think the author should be given the opportunity to succeed or fail on their own accomplishments. Help them out when you can (by posting a meaningful post in the discussion thread), but it is ultimately their responsibility and holding their hands all the way does more harm than good.
Arthur C Clarke wrote a science fiction story that went through an editor which had flawed science in it. He got called on it by the science fiction community. Despite that, Clarke is considered to be one of the great, influential science fiction writers of our time. I can only conclude that he learned from his mistake and took greater care with his science when writing.
The only way to learn is to be given a chance. I’ll take the risk that goes with that chance. (Besides, how else is Jeff going to have any fun? :teasing::Whistling:)
ps: I wouldn't go with a disclaimer saying whether the article was reviewed or not. Some stuff that is reviewed might be bad and stuff that is not reviewed might be great. (see Jeff's comment about diamonds in the rough.) You might want to go with a disclaimer similar to the ones on movies, the one with "Some of the views of the author are not necessarily held by SSC... blah... blah... blah... Let the reader beware."
-- Kit
August 12, 2009 at 9:42 am
I'm not sure what jobs y'all have that allow writing these 1,000 word posts. I've spent more time on this board in the last couple of days than anytime in the past, and while entertaining, I do have real work that is not getting done while I am on here.
The point is, while I think there are a number of brilliant folks on here, I believe I represent the mainstream of us working stiffs and look to SSC as a place to go for reliable articles, often with an eye toward forwarding to junior team members. The cold reality is I cannot recommend that my team (who are also busy) forage through the discussion board to try to figure out what is wheat and what is chaff. In this economy we are running lean, and there is not time for such niceties. These folks need leadership, and they need it in a timely basis.
Please do something to indicate what is generally a good article and what may be dross, or controversial. I don't care how you do that, but the unfortunate truth is if I have to dig into the discussion board repeatedly to determine what's useful, I probably won't be back much if at all, and will miss out on much of the good articles (and discussion!) that the site publishes.
If I'm being critical, it's not a reflection on y'all, because I think many of you are brilliant. And now... my archive process awaits.
August 12, 2009 at 9:52 am
steve_melchert (8/12/2009)
I'm not sure what jobs y'all have that allow writing these 1,000 word posts.
Sorry for the long-windedness. For me, it's the slow season. In another month, I'm going to be slammed and continue to be slammed for the next six.
-- Kit
August 12, 2009 at 9:58 am
steve_melchert (8/12/2009)
I'm not sure what jobs y'all have that allow writing these 1,000 word posts. I've spent more time on this board in the last couple of days than anytime in the past, and while entertaining, I do have real work that is not getting done while I am on here.The point is, while I think there are a number of brilliant folks on here, I believe I represent the mainstream of us working stiffs and look to SSC as a place to go for reliable articles, often with an eye toward forwarding to junior team members. The cold reality is I cannot recommend that my team (who are also busy) forage through the discussion board to try to figure out what is wheat and what is chaff. In this economy we are running lean, and there is not time for such niceties. These folks need leadership, and they need it in a timely basis.
Please do something to indicate what is generally a good article and what may be dross, or controversial. I don't care how you do that, but the unfortunate truth is if I have to dig into the discussion board repeatedly to determine what's useful, I probably won't be back much if at all, and will miss out on much of the good articles (and discussion!) that the site publishes.
If I'm being critical, it's not a reflection on y'all, because I think many of you are brilliant. And now... my archive process awaits.
As I have told both my supervisor and members of my team, we need to stay current and keep our skills up. If this means spending time off hours, outside of work, doing research and such, then that is what you need to do. If this also means spending an hour or so reading the discussion thread of an article here on SSC, then that is what it means.
Each of us is responsible for what we know and how to apply that knowledge, and learning new and better ways to accomplish the tasks at hand.
August 12, 2009 at 10:05 am
Steve Jones - Editor (8/12/2009)
The disclaimer is another idea that we can look at. I'm not sure quite how to word it, and my guess is that we'll have plenty of opinions about how it should look.
It doesn't have to be anything special. How about:
"Please note that articles are the opinion of the author and are not endorsed by SQL Server Central. Readers should do further research before taking any actions recommended. The discussion thread on each article is often a good place to start."
.
August 12, 2009 at 10:16 am
Tim Walker (8/12/2009)
Steve Jones - Editor (8/12/2009)
The disclaimer is another idea that we can look at. I'm not sure quite how to word it, and my guess is that we'll have plenty of opinions about how it should look.It doesn't have to be anything special. How about:
"Please note that articles are the opinion of the author and are not endorsed by SQL Server Central. Readers should do further research before taking any actions recommended. The discussion thread on each article is often a good place to start."
Sounds like a good way for any author to start an article. Maybe I'll add that to the articles I am trying to work on, it will save Steve some work. Of course I'll modify it a bit.
August 12, 2009 at 11:06 am
steve_melchert (8/12/2009)
I'm not sure what jobs y'all have that allow writing these 1,000 word posts. I've spent more time on this board in the last couple of days than anytime in the past, and while entertaining, I do have real work that is not getting done while I am on here.The point is, while I think there are a number of brilliant folks on here, I believe I represent the mainstream of us working stiffs and look to SSC as a place to go for reliable articles, often with an eye toward forwarding to junior team members. The cold reality is I cannot recommend that my team (who are also busy) forage through the discussion board to try to figure out what is wheat and what is chaff. In this economy we are running lean, and there is not time for such niceties. These folks need leadership, and they need it in a timely basis.
Please do something to indicate what is generally a good article and what may be dross, or controversial. I don't care how you do that, but the unfortunate truth is if I have to dig into the discussion board repeatedly to determine what's useful, I probably won't be back much if at all, and will miss out on much of the good articles (and discussion!) that the site publishes.
If I'm being critical, it's not a reflection on y'all, because I think many of you are brilliant. And now... my archive process awaits.
I think (legitimate) comments like this are the main reason why something has to be done to let only good articles see the light.
I love this site and I learn something new every day, not only on the tech side. I recommend this site to anyone asking for a reliable place to look for tips & tricks, best practices etc. I would like to see it always on the top sites for SQL Server.
If badly wrong articles make it to the newsletter, the site reputation suffers. Some limitations to writers' "freedom of expression" maybe are the price to pay to keep the site reputation as excellent as it is today. It's up to Steve to choose.
A sort of "article vault" could be a good idea, even if it's not very clear to me who should take the article out of the vault.
A big positive/negative counter on top of the page is not bad, but this strongly depends on people's comments, that could never come.
I think there's no magic recipe, but something has to get done.
Edited bad spelling. (What about a "post vault"?):-)
-- Gianluca Sartori
August 12, 2009 at 11:38 am
Tim Walker (8/12/2009)
I'm not sure how you got the fact that I give the author 'credit' from what I wrote.
Perhaps expanding what I quoted previously...
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.
The author deserved no respect and did not make an effort, especially not a good faith effort. That and your objection to folks showing an underlying desprespect for the author led me to the conclusion that your were saying that the author deserved some form of credit for (as many say) "at least trying". If that was not your intention, then I appologize for mistaking your response.
I'd also like to make an important point... it wasn't 16 pages of poking just the author in the eye. Many others with the same misconceptions and misinformation as the author chimed in in authorative manners and they were lept upon by those who knew better.
I agree that it may put some people off from authoring on SSC. Hopefully it will be the ones who don't or won't do the necessary research for a technically accurate presentation in front of over a million people.
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
August 12, 2009 at 11:59 am
Jeff Moden (8/12/2009)
I'd also like to make an important point... it wasn't 16 pages of poking just the author in the eye. Many others with the same misconceptions and misinformation as the author chimed in in authorative manners and they were lept upon by those who knew better.
Not to get picky, Jeff, but the author of the article hasn't posted on the thread his article created. According to his profile, his last post on SSC was on 7/24/09.
Are you talking about the authors of various posts in the threads?
I just want to make sure I'm understanding which authors you're talking about. 😀
-- Kit
August 12, 2009 at 12:03 pm
Yes... I'm talking about some of the folks that posted to that thread.
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
August 12, 2009 at 2:06 pm
Steve:
I like the idea of volunteers reviewing the submissions, but I share some of the concerns others have mentioned also. But as I see it, ultimately, this your call and no matter what we do, good or bad, this all falls on you.
So how's this for an idea: setup a forum that only invited reviewers whom you select can access, and then post new submissions there as new threads, but with the authors name withheld during the review. The reviewers can reply to them, just as they would today after they are published, but no one except you and the reviewers could see these comments. Then you do whatever you want with the results: if you think that the submission is OK, even if some objected, then you publish it. If you think it needs more work based on the comments, then you (and not the reviewers) take that to the author. If there are major technical exceptions, then you decide whether and how to take that back to the writer. And if there are suggestions for improvement, you could take those to the author also.
And as far as I'm concerned, either the author or you should get the final credit. This keeps the reviewers anonymous to everyone but you and keeps the whole process off-stage and out of sight where it belongs. Even the Authors would not see this, thus avoiding the problem of authors feeling like they've been used as punching bag, or the converse problem of reviewers feeling intimidated by the reputation of the author. And if you've got a special event, article or author, then you decide if it goes into the review forum or not.
What do you think?
[font="Times New Roman"]-- RBarryYoung[/font], [font="Times New Roman"] (302)375-0451[/font] blog: MovingSQL.com, Twitter: @RBarryYoung[font="Arial Black"]
Proactive Performance Solutions, Inc. [/font][font="Verdana"] "Performance is our middle name."[/font]
August 12, 2009 at 2:11 pm
Barry,
That's actually a pretty good suggestion, though I'm not sure how easy that is to set up. I'll have to see if we can creatively try to set up a double blind kind of area for people and still have a workflow that works.
Managing the load is definitely part of the issue, and I fall down there at times. As an example, I had my Q cleared on Thur when I left for vacation. I came back Tue to 7 articles :w00t:
August 12, 2009 at 2:22 pm
Steve Jones - Editor (8/12/2009)
Barry,That's actually a pretty good suggestion, though I'm not sure how easy that is to set up. I'll have to see if we can creatively try to set up a double blind kind of area for people and still have a workflow that works.
Managing the load is definitely part of the issue, and I fall down there at times. As an example, I had my Q cleared on Thur when I left for vacation. I came back Tue to 7 articles :w00t:
Does that include the 2 I sent for you to republish on SSC, or had you already taken care of those? 😉
Viewing 15 posts - 31 through 45 (of 102 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply