August 12, 2009 at 2:23 pm
steve_melchert (8/12/2009)
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.
And therein lies the rub. You want to forward on information, but don't want to determine if it is accurate yourself. I'd argue that an article deserves a little time to read some comments. If the first 3 or 4 make it seem this is a good article, forward it on. Otherwise, drop it.
Or mark it as a case where you should not do something like this. We ran an article a few weeks ago from a developer that saw space savings with XML. However it was incorrectly calculated and put together. On the surface it made sense, and I'm sure many developers thing that way. However the discussion that followed likely is the more valuable lesson for developers. and THAT's what should have been forwarded on to others.
August 12, 2009 at 2:30 pm
Lynn Pettis (8/12/2009)
Does that include the 2 I sent for you to republish on SSC, or had you already taken care of those? 😉
Nope, nor does it include the 4 I have in email from other people.
August 12, 2009 at 2:33 pm
The reviewers wouldn't necessarily have to be anonymous in the forum itself, as long as no one else could get into the forum. All you should need is what we've talked about from time to time: a restricted access forum.
[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 2:45 pm
RBarryYoung (8/12/2009)
The reviewers wouldn't necessarily have to be anonymous in the forum itself, as long as no one else could get into the forum. All you should need is what we've talked about from time to time: a restricted access forum.
As long as the reviewers themselves are grown up enough to take their bitter medicine, should the other reviewers not like an article presented by one of the very people doing the revewing.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 12, 2009 at 2:51 pm
Steve Jones - Editor (8/12/2009)
Lynn Pettis (8/12/2009)
Does that include the 2 I sent for you to republish on SSC, or had you already taken care of those? 😉Nope, nor does it include the 4 I have in email from other people.
Well, looks like I have a new article on my plate, and not the one you asked if I wanted to write. I have one on programmatically configuring an FTP File Connection Manager. I spent several days trying to figure this one out. Hopefully I can put it together in a couple of weeks.
I'm sure others would be interested in learning about one way to accomplish this task.
August 12, 2009 at 3:03 pm
Steve as a discaimer (bold test added by poster)
"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 and then if appropriate test on a non production server/database "
Place the above just below the home page header
Welcome to SQLServerCentral.com
A Microsoft SQL Server community of 1,142,512 DBAs,developers and SQL Server users.
This way it applies to all authors, does not require editing or appending to any article, meaning less work for you.
August 12, 2009 at 4:19 pm
Thanks for you comments Jeff. I'm clear that you're robust in this area of personal responsibility for writings 😎 (you probably don't like these emoticons either but heh...)
Jeff Moden (8/12/2009)
The author deserved no respect and did not make an effort, especially not a good faith effort.
Jeff I'm finding myself defending an author who wrote an article that was at least 50% garbage. I formed that conclusion on my first reading! The article was the most inaccurate posted here for a while. When I say posted, I mean published by Steve Jones and then promoted as the top article of the day (as noted by previous posters)
But the author did not spend hours writing an article that turned out to be very poor for fun. Because it would be great to mislead people. Because it would be great to be slagged of by cleverer people. Because (as the lack of response from the author shows) it's really good fun to have a million people reading the comments and laughing at you.
Jeff Moden (8/12/2009)
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.
Yes you're right and I wasn't clear. The author does not deserve 'credit'. 80% of the comments were correcting inaccuracies in the original article. BUT 10% were kicking the guy who the bully pushed over in the playground. (And you are right that 10% thought it was a great article and were put down)
Why the bullying thing: Because I worry a little that some posters get sport from telling others thay are crap. And also that with >1M users a mob mentality can easily develop from an insignificant proportion of contributors
Jeff Moden (8/12/2009)
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.
I think I know my stuff and I might submit an article. But in my earlier comment you picked the one sentence you didn't like (out of quite a few) and built on it to make your point. Feels a bit like a game of egos sometimes rather than a genuine knowledge exchange.
Great that Steve says he'd like anyone to submit articles.
Sad that the post publication review process may disuade many from doing so for fear of humiliation
Tim
.
August 12, 2009 at 4:30 pm
Bitbucket, not a bad idea, though I think I might need this as a disclaimer at the bottom of articles as well.
August 12, 2009 at 4:55 pm
Steve Jones - Editor (8/12/2009)
steve_melchert (8/12/2009)
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.And therein lies the rub. You want to forward on information, but don't want to determine if it is accurate yourself. I'd argue that an article deserves a little time to read some comments. If the first 3 or 4 make it seem this is a good article, forward it on. Otherwise, drop it.
Steve you are a fantastic editorialist and I enjoy your work.
TODAY steve_melchert has the key point for 95% of the readers of this site. You have to decide (with RedGate) who you want to service. You have over a million subscribers now. Some of them have huge SQL Server implementations. So there is commercial value here.
You can either continue as a 'non-commercial' 'expert' site where people need to be selective about what they read and there is a panel of respected experts.
Or you can look to ensure what's on here is the gold standard from the superposters and other posters who approach the standards of Paul Randall, Kimberley Tripp, Simon Sabin, etc.
I (and I guess steve_melchert and many others) will use this site and recommend it to our staff to use if it offers accurate, timely advice.
Otherwise, we can read the many excellent books available!
Tim
.
August 12, 2009 at 5:08 pm
Tim Walker (8/12/2009)
Steve Jones - Editor (8/12/2009)
steve_melchert (8/12/2009)
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.And therein lies the rub. You want to forward on information, but don't want to determine if it is accurate yourself. I'd argue that an article deserves a little time to read some comments. If the first 3 or 4 make it seem this is a good article, forward it on. Otherwise, drop it.
Steve you are a fantastic editorialist and I enjoy your work.
TODAY steve_melchert has the key point for 95% of the readers of this site. You have to decide (with RedGate) who you want to service. You have over a million subscribers now. Some of them have huge SQL Server implementations. So there is commercial value here.
You can either continue as a 'non-commercial' 'expert' site where people need to be selective about what they read and there is a panel of respected experts.
Or you can look to ensure what's on here is the gold standard from the superposters and other posters who approach the standards of Paul Randall, Kimberley Tripp, Simon Sabin, etc.
I (and I guess steve_melchert and many others) will use this site and recommend it to our staff to use if it offers accurate, timely advice.
Otherwise, we can read the many excellent books available!
Tim
SSC is a great resource, but I have to say that leadership belongs in the workplace. I don't look for leadership for my team here, I have to supply that as the Senior DBA. If I find information here that is valuable for my team, I'll send it on. I recommend to my team to check this site as well, but it is still up to me show leadership and guidance to my team. To be another resource that they can use to verify information that they may read on the web, or in books, or from their own research.
August 12, 2009 at 5:48 pm
Tim Walker (8/12/2009)
But the author did not spend hours writing an article that turned out to be very poor for fun.
Correct... the author did not spend hours writing that article and it showed. 😉
Why the bullying thing: Because I worry a little that some posters get sport from telling others thay are crap. And also that with >1M users a mob mentality can easily develop from an insignificant proportion of contributors
I already explained that. It is the mob mentality... but the mob was right in this case.
But in my earlier comment you picked the one sentence you didn't like (out of quite a few) and built on it to make your point. Feels a bit like a game of egos sometimes rather than a genuine knowledge exchange.
Actually, it was the whole paragraph I didn't like and I quoted that afterwards, as well. I have no ego in this matter and it's certainly not a game. If you want to reduce this conversation to a "game of egos ... rather than a genuine knowledge exchange" simply by saying so, then you're doing the same thing the mob did to the author.
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
August 12, 2009 at 6:01 pm
Lynn Pettis (8/12/2009)
Steve Jones - Editor (8/12/2009)
Lynn Pettis (8/12/2009)
Does that include the 2 I sent for you to republish on SSC, or had you already taken care of those? 😉Nope, nor does it include the 4 I have in email from other people.
Well, looks like I have a new article on my plate, and not the one you asked if I wanted to write. I have one on programmatically configuring an FTP File Connection Manager. I spent several days trying to figure this one out. Hopefully I can put it together in a couple of weeks.
I'm sure others would be interested in learning about one way to accomplish this task.
Very cool. I remember your original post asking a question on that. Way to go, Lynn! 🙂
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
August 12, 2009 at 6:56 pm
RBarryYoung (8/12/2009)
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?
I agree with Steve on this one... outstanding idea since the double blind concept removes (IMHO) virtually every objection that has been made thus far... heh... even mine (well, except for one). It could also take a little of the load off of Steve. Capital idea that hits the middle ground, Barry.
Steve, if you go for this idea, it would be a huge help and maybe even spur on the reviews if an email were automatically sent to your selected/volunteer reviewers that a new pending article has been made available for comment.
Despite my remaining objection, I can see where some commercial value to the parent company could come about and the SSC site could be held in higher regard than it already is. It may even help Steve's career although I don't believe he needs any help there… he's earned all the stripes he's wearing on his own.
So what's my remaining objection?
As trivial as it may seem to some, it's still a form of wet nursing in that it doesn't give the individual the opportunity to do the one thing that every one should be given the opportunity to do especially in the IT world... fail or succeed on their own merits and research. Up to now, SSC has been one of the very rare public places where you can do that. With that in mind, I actually hope Steve doesn't go for the idea even though it is much more palatable than previous similar ideas.
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
August 13, 2009 at 2:30 am
Publishing an article gives kudos to the author, and can be used during a job interview or such to spruik oneself. Given the size – and prestige – that SSC now has, I think it’s necessary that a minimum level of quality is maintained. SSC is not a social networking site where people can say whatever, but rather a commercial vehicle for Red Gate. It’s great that anyone can submit anything here, but it’s self defeating if people stop coming because the content is questionable.
There’s been a few interesting comments since my last post which I’ll address below:
“Authors may be put off by a review process and the community will miss out on a potential gem” – I’m sorry, but this makes my jaw drop. Authors might be put off by reviewers who can offer advice to improve the article, but are NOT put off by 1,142,512 anybodies who can say whatever?
“Authors who are experts with really good articles may be put off by a review process” – getting reviewed (and also edited) is part of publishing, and is hardly a new or unknown concept being pioneered by SSC. And an author with a good enough article may want to be paid for it, rather than give it up as a freebie.
“You need to keep your skills up to date” – true, but which is better: spending 2+ hours reading an article and discussion at Site A that is 50% garbage and the other 50% requires further research to validate its content, or 15 minutes at Site B where the article can be relied upon to be at least 80% accurate and would not need excessive cross verification? I’ve recommended SSC to just about anyone I’ve meet with a career in SQL Server, especially my own Juniors, but I’m mindful of the fact that people have to do overtime and family stuff in those non-office hours, so time is at a premium.
“Well educated authors and officially published books also have garbage” – other people use cursors, so therefore we all should? It’s not a reason not to review.
“People should be given the opportunity to fail” – not on my production servers they don’t. They can have an isolated dev server to get their stuff together, and then we can consider releasing it into the wider world. A Pending Articles/Review page is just a form of development where we can be sure things are right before we push it out and directly affect 1,142,512 people.
All that aside, I think SSC is now large enough to require a standard. Where that is without affecting the community nature is up to Steve/Red Gate to determine. It might be advantageous to move the rating system off the article page and onto the last comments page so that raters can make an ‘informed choice’ (as last I looked the article in question had 4 stars.)
S.
August 13, 2009 at 3:49 am
RBarryYoung (8/12/2009)
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.What do you think?
I like. Discrete and private.
Gail Shaw
Microsoft Certified Master: SQL Server, MVP, M.Sc (Comp Sci)
SQL In The Wild: Discussions on DB performance with occasional diversions into recoverability
Viewing 15 posts - 46 through 60 (of 102 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply