August 13, 2009 at 4:07 am
Jeff Moden (8/12/2009)
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.
Not really. It's not as if we're writing the article for them, just pointing out where their research has been inadequate or where they've drawn incorrect conclusions. It's still the writer's responsibility to do all the work. They just get the option to fail less publicly than before
If, as Steve has said a few times, SSC is a first step to getting published elsewhere, people need to become accustomed to tech reviews and feedback (positive or negative) as they will encounter those just about anywhere else that they try to get things published.
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
August 13, 2009 at 7:19 am
GilaMonster (8/13/2009)
Jeff Moden (8/12/2009)
RBarryYoung (8/12/2009)
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.Not really. It's not as if we're writing the article for them, just pointing out where their research has been inadequate or where they've drawn incorrect conclusions. It's still the writer's responsibility to do all the work. They just get the option to fail less publicly than before
If, as Steve has said a few times, SSC is a first step to getting published elsewhere, people need to become accustomed to tech reviews and feedback (positive or negative) as they will encounter those just about anywhere else that they try to get things published.
I just had an amusing thought when I read the last sentence, that people will need to get accustomed to tech reviews and feedback, both positive and negative.
I remember reading something about one person said of Basic Training. Part of the reason to make Basic Training so rough is so that when the graduate goes out onto the real battlefield, the person goes... "This is real battle? phhht... the enemy ain't got nuttin' on our Sarge!" And therefore what he encounters on the battlefield won't be new and unusual and get him killed.
I can just imagine some SQL author going, "Reviewers? Ha! I've posted on the SSC boards and survived it! Ain't nuttin' no one else has to even match their reviews!"
An amusing thought with little relevence, but still... amusing.
-- Kit
August 13, 2009 at 7:29 am
If the the site implemented Wiki, users could go in and correct any errors on the articles?
That way the site could host a set of excellent, up to date, well maintained articles.
August 13, 2009 at 7:43 am
jacroberts (8/13/2009)
If the the site implemented Wiki, users could go in and correct any errors on the articles?That way the site could host a set of excellent, up to date, well maintained articles.
I don't like this idea. Implementing Wiki is lowering the level of responsibility of the posters.
I think of somebody saying: "ok, let's post whatever bul...hit comes to my mind and leave the others correct my errors".
I don't think anybody here takes Wikipedia as a completely reliable source of information.
-- Gianluca Sartori
August 13, 2009 at 7:54 am
Plus who decides what's right? The last editor? What happens if someone comes along a couple months after an article's been published and edits garbage in. It may go unnoticed for a while.
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
August 13, 2009 at 7:56 am
I'm not big on Wikis either, and I'm concerned about ending up settling battles between people that argue back and forth on a topic.
Wiki sounds good until people start to argue about it, or as we've seen on Wikipedia, people entering false information as vandalism, or to promote something. Wikipedia has a good army of people that clean up, but there can be inaccuracies at any point.
Perhaps more we'd ask authors to revise their article after the first week to address comments and then we'd pay them.
August 13, 2009 at 8:06 am
Steve Jones - Editor (8/13/2009)
Perhaps more we'd ask authors to revise their article after the first week to address comments and then we'd pay them.
Practical steps that are easy to implement seem best to me.
The one you suggest here coupled with a disclaimer of some sort will improve things a lot for very little effort.
Tim
.
August 13, 2009 at 8:49 am
Tim Walker (8/13/2009)
Steve Jones - Editor (8/13/2009)
Perhaps more we'd ask authors to revise their article after the first week to address comments and then we'd pay them.Practical steps that are easy to implement seem best to me.
The one you suggest here coupled with a disclaimer of some sort will improve things a lot for very little effort.
Tim
I agree with both of you... and I would add, don't headline it in the newsletter as a "Featured Article" until after that "first week" revision has taken place. "Featuring" raw articles blemishes reputation - some here don't seem to want to face that fact, but that's how the "95%" of us see it, and I imagine Redgate's Marketing exec might agree. Props are due the editor and others for rising above the level of "geek community" to that of "respected authority". You'd do well to continue that progression.
1. One-week revision.
2. Disclaimer.
3. One-week revision as a *prerequisite* to being a "Featured Article".
August 13, 2009 at 9:58 am
steve_melchert (8/13/2009)
... some here don't seem to want to face that fact, but that's how the "95%" of us see it,
I'm sorry, but I have to take exceptioon to this particular statement. May I ask how you represent "95%" of us?
August 13, 2009 at 10:35 am
I think I'd agree with Lynn. most people I talk to at conferences don't see problems with getting articles that are controversial, or might not apply in many cases. They understand that mistakes get made, and the only complaints I typically here are from people that think they are "experts" or want to be sure everything is done a certain way. Those complaints are ones I can count on my fingers (toes excluded) over the 8 years I've been doing this.
The "Featured Article" doesn't imply it's the best of the best. It's just the article that we are putting first, as opposed to the links to other sites, blogs, etc. I think you're reading a bit much into it.
However you do have some good points about raising the level of quality. We would like to do that, but it's a balance with also getting a wide variety of ideas.
August 13, 2009 at 10:51 am
GilaMonster (8/13/2009)
Plus who decides what's right? The last editor? What happens if someone comes along a couple months after an article's been published and edits garbage in. It may go unnoticed for a while.
There's a good example out there (wikipedea). It seems to have done ok.
August 13, 2009 at 10:52 am
Steve Jones - Editor (8/13/2009)
The "Featured Article" doesn't imply it's the best of the best. It's just the article that we are putting first, as opposed to the links to other sites, blogs, etc. I think you're reading a bit much into it.
Generally I think we agree. Thanks for the clarification on "Featured". I'll take that into account from now on. (Lynn, the 95% was a quote from someone else on this board. His opinion, not mine.)
August 13, 2009 at 10:57 am
steve_melchert (8/13/2009)
Steve Jones - Editor (8/13/2009)
The "Featured Article" doesn't imply it's the best of the best. It's just the article that we are putting first, as opposed to the links to other sites, blogs, etc. I think you're reading a bit much into it.Generally I think we agree. Thanks for the clarification on "Featured". I'll take that into account from now on. (Lynn, the 95% was a quote from someone else on this board. His opinion, not mine.)
Only problem, with no reference to the other post it looks like yours. I'll have to search all the posts to find the other reference to "95%" of us.
August 13, 2009 at 12:22 pm
jacroberts (8/13/2009)
GilaMonster (8/13/2009)
Plus who decides what's right? The last editor? What happens if someone comes along a couple months after an article's been published and edits garbage in. It may go unnoticed for a while.There's a good example out there (wikipedea). It seems to have done ok.
It's done OK, but there are still cases of malicious editing, one-upmanship, vandalism, etc, etc. Wikipedia's not considered an authoritative source of information by many (including universities)
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
August 13, 2009 at 12:25 pm
GilaMonster (8/13/2009)
jacroberts (8/13/2009)
GilaMonster (8/13/2009)
Plus who decides what's right? The last editor? What happens if someone comes along a couple months after an article's been published and edits garbage in. It may go unnoticed for a while.There's a good example out there (wikipedea). It seems to have done ok.
It's done OK, but there are still cases of malicious editing, one-upmanship, vandalism, etc, etc. Wikipedia's not considered an authoritative source of information by many (including universities)
True, but I have found other sources of authoratative information from some of the references on Wikipedia. It does serve as an okay source to start your research.
Viewing 15 posts - 61 through 75 (of 102 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply