August 13, 2009 at 1:21 pm
gah (8/11/2009)
Out of interest, how many authors republish their initial articles that address (and/or) correct the various areas raised in the subsequent discussion?
I certainly haven't. However, when I link someone to my articles on audit logs (for example), I usually mention that I consider the discussion to be "part of the article", or words to that effect.
Yes, I could republish with more data, but I don't think it would add any value, as compared to the value of the back-and-forth discussions that came up.
- Gus "GSquared", RSVP, OODA, MAP, NMVP, FAQ, SAT, SQL, DNA, RNA, UOI, IOU, AM, PM, AD, BC, BCE, USA, UN, CF, ROFL, LOL, ETC
Property of The Thread
"Nobody knows the age of the human race, but everyone agrees it's old enough to know better." - Anon
August 13, 2009 at 1:29 pm
Jeff Moden (8/11/2009)
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. 😉
I wouldn't mind a list of "these are people who often volunteer for article technical review", posted somewhere on the site. (My primary request for an addition to the site is still, "add a darn FAQ", but this one could certainly be put in somewhere.)
Yes, people need to do their own work. I've had articles published here, and have plans for more in the relatively near future, and it takes a lot of work to write them and to get them right. At the same time, a list of "potential volunteers", or a forum specifically on the subject of aspiring authors and their articles, would be useful.
Actually, I like the forum idea better. Could just post there things like, "I'm planning on writing an article on performance tuning SSIS packages. I'd like some technical review before I submit. Anyone available to help on that?" That would fit right in with the theme of the whole site, and doesn't require any sort of maintenance on the part of Steve, etc., as to who is available for what when.
Could also use that forum for things like, "I'm writing an article, and here's a paragraph of it. I know what I want to say, but it seems awkward to me, and I just can't get it right. Anyone have any suggestions?" I think that would have value.
So basically, I agree with Jeff, but I think a place to ask for help on articles would be a good idea, just like most of the site is a place to ask for help on SQL Server.
Edit: After reading more on this thread, I still like the idea of just adding an Authors forum to the list of forums would be easiest (no new features, just a new forum), and would accomplish the goal of making review possible. The idea of a specially built section of the site where anonymous review could be done is okay, but it seems like overkill to me.
- Gus "GSquared", RSVP, OODA, MAP, NMVP, FAQ, SAT, SQL, DNA, RNA, UOI, IOU, AM, PM, AD, BC, BCE, USA, UN, CF, ROFL, LOL, ETC
Property of The Thread
"Nobody knows the age of the human race, but everyone agrees it's old enough to know better." - Anon
August 13, 2009 at 1:53 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.
Yes.
Edit: No.
Edit: You're right.
Edit: No way, that idea sucks.
Edit: Yep.
Edit: Buy WoW gold from http://www.WeScamPeople.com
Edit: Ype. (Edits to this page locked by site operators.)
- Gus "GSquared", RSVP, OODA, MAP, NMVP, FAQ, SAT, SQL, DNA, RNA, UOI, IOU, AM, PM, AD, BC, BCE, USA, UN, CF, ROFL, LOL, ETC
Property of The Thread
"Nobody knows the age of the human race, but everyone agrees it's old enough to know better." - Anon
August 13, 2009 at 3:59 pm
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
Steve, there has been a lot of heathly debate on this thread, The unhealthy bit will be if there is so much comment that nothing actually happens as a result.
These two steps look as easy as pie to me. Do you plan to implement them?
Tim 🙂
.
August 13, 2009 at 4:17 pm
Jeff Moden (8/12/2009)
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.
I think thats a both a fair point and a cheap shot given who you are and your record here. I am also absolutely certain that my comments didn't upset you!
Tim
.
August 13, 2009 at 5:12 pm
GSquared (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.
Yes.
Edit: No.
Edit: You're right.
Edit: No way, that idea sucks.
Edit: Yep.
Edit: Buy WoW gold from http://www.WeScamPeople.com
Edit: Ype. (Edits to this page locked by site operators.)
I'm not sure if wiki is a good idea because:
Even though wiki is free open source, I think it is quite difficult to implement successfully so would take a lot of effort and probably significant cost for SQLServerCentral.
In its favour and in response to peoples worries about vandalism, editing and content disagreement:
There is an option to revert edits so damaged pages can be restored.
It would be possible to let only people who satisfy given criteria edt pages e.g. registered members, minimum membership time, minimum number of forum contributions etc... Articles can be locked when they have reached a certain standard.
There is an article discussion page on each article so the content can be reviewed.
Judging by the number of committed members who contribute to the forums I don't think the maintenance would be an issue.
A lot of people said wikipedia would never work for the same reasons people have listed above, but it has actually been very successful.
August 13, 2009 at 5:50 pm
Tim Walker (8/13/2009)
Jeff Moden (8/12/2009)
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.I think thats a both a fair point and a cheap shot given who you are and your record here. I am also absolutely certain that my comments didn't upset you!
Tim
Jeez, Tim... you served it up. I'm just playing back what you said with the observation that what you said is similar to how some of the mob behaved. It doesn't feel so good, does it? 😉 Now, can you keep those kind of comments to yourself so we can continue what started out to be a good conversation? Thanks.
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
August 13, 2009 at 6:40 pm
I sent this thread to the publishing team today with a request for comments. I spoke with someone today as well about some of the ideas.
The disclaimer is likely something we'll do, though I think it will take a week or so to a) find an easy way to slip this onto the site and b) find good wording. I don't think it's critical to get this done today, and I don't want to throw something up there without thinking about it.
As far as the forums, I'm not sure how easy this is to do, or how wide/narrow I'd want it. The thing that concerns me about this idea is that 5 people might end up shaping or forcing articles down a certain path. I try hard not to take away the author's voice, or stifle their creativity. The XML space saving article is a recent example. I disagree with the author, but I don't want to prevent him from writing the article. Instead I'd like to have the debate ensue, especially since I think the debate serves to better convince people of good (or bad) ideas than a written article.
The other problem with the forums is the workflow. An article typically has a 1-2 week window before I get to give feedback, and then depending on how the draft comes back, it might move out quicker into the Q.
Asking authors to address items in the article is an easier fix, but again it's a workflow issue, and somehow tracking the changes back to republish it.
I might experiment with wording where I "can require" an update before payment if there are issues raised in the article. Or perhaps I'll just make notes in the article referencing the discussion, or specific posts. I'd like to automate that, but maybe a manual process will work well. I'll have to experiment there.
Keep in mind that this isn't necessarily a critical fix item for us, and I have other items to worry about as well. It's not a lack of desire to change things, but a resource issue at times.
August 13, 2009 at 7:51 pm
Steve Jones - Editor (8/13/2009)
Instead I'd like to have the debate ensue, especially since I think the debate serves to better convince people of good (or bad) ideas than a written article.
Spot on and that's a part of the reason why I stay with this forum. I hate it when some "well reviewed" article on another web site is full of hooie and you can't post an opposing opinion unless you buy a magazine you don't want or they just don't allow it. I can't speak for the membership of this forum but judging by similar conversations about what to do with "bad" articles in the past, I believe you'll find that most of your very large membership agrees with you, as well.
If I may, there are another couple of things to consider here... I don't believe the likes of Grant Fritchey, Gail Shaw, Barry Young, Lynn Pettis, Jack Corbett, GSquared, Paul White, Bob Hovious, or the dozens of other very well informed heavy hitters would stick around if they thought there was a real problem with the "submit, THEN debate" format of this fine forum. The other thing to consider is that RedGate liked the format of this forum so much, they bought it! 😉 I also remember seeing an email that said the reason why they kept Steve on was because they liked the current format and felt that he would be the one to provide "continuance". The membership has more than tripled since that time to more than a million strong.
Like I said before, Barry's suggestion is probably the best if reviews are going to be done... but I still don't want to see reviews done.
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
August 13, 2009 at 8:04 pm
Steve Jones - Editor (8/13/2009)
...As far as the forums, I'm not sure how easy this is to do, or how wide/narrow I'd want it. The thing that concerns me about this idea is that 5 people might end up shaping or forcing articles down a certain path...
That's my first concern too, Steve. That's the biggest reason I suggested having you be the gatekeeper and final word on everything.
The other problem with the forums is the workflow.
This was actually my biggest concerns with my own suggestion. This stuff sounds like a simple and easy process when we propose it, but the reality is that *everything* takes time, and as we all know, time is money... But since it would fall on you anyway, I figured that I'd let you make that call. 🙂
[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 13, 2009 at 8:07 pm
Tim Walker (8/12/2009)
And you are right that 10% thought it was a great article and were put down
To be very clear, I never said that. What I said was...
I'd also like to make an important point... it wasn't 16 pages of poking just the author in the eye. Many others [font="Arial Black"]with the same misconceptions and misinformation as the author [/font]chimed in in authorative manners and they were lept upon by those who knew better.
Those 10% also needed to be corrected (or, as I said, "lept upon") because they posted information as bad as the article and they did so in an authoritative manner. The ones that knew that information was bad were quick to knock it down so that someone reading either the article or the discussion wouldn't think that it was somehow accurate information.
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
August 13, 2009 at 8:26 pm
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.
Those 10% also needed to be corrected (or, as I said, "lept upon") because they posted information as bad as the article and they did so in an authorative manner. The ones that knew that information was bad were quick to knock it down so that someone reading either the article or the discussion wouldn't think that it was somehow accurate information.
I remember one person questioning he said WHERE clause JOIN is depreciated it is not depreciated but it is obsolete per ANSI SQL 1999. SQL Server just executes it because RDBMS vendors let old features run because their customers paid to use their product. There WHERE clause is just a filter like the AND operator per the current JOIN clause definition. It is not depreciated but it is obsolete. I got that from Microsoft Text/NText is not depreciated replaced.
I am troubled by the lynch mob it kills desire and keeps people away.
Kind regards,
Gift Peddie
August 13, 2009 at 9:15 pm
Gift Peddie (8/13/2009)
I am troubled by the lynch mob it kills desire and keeps people away.
As usual, your timing is perfect... I agree that many simply refuse to participate in really heated post article discussions and even understand it. I'm glad they are the exception rather than the norm. Considering they are not the norm, my question to you is are the occasional heated discussions, like the one we're talking about, enough to keep you away from SQLServerCentral.com?
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
August 13, 2009 at 9:23 pm
Jeff Moden (8/13/2009)
...If I may, there are another couple of things to consider here... I don't believe the likes of Grant Fritchey, Gail Shaw, Barry Young, Lynn Pettis, Jack Corbett, GSquared, Paul White, Bob Hovious, or the dozens of other very well informed heavy hitters would stick around if they thought there was a real problem with the "submit, THEN debate" format of this fine forum. ..
I don't really think that it's fair to speak for the rest of us like this Jeff. For one thing, it would take a lot more than this to cause me to bail on SSC and Steve. And for another, the truth is that I DO feel that there are some problems with the process and even more with some of, and in the sum of, the responses that followed in the discussions of the aforementioned article.
But I have not said anything about my concerns with the process because I think that Steve and this site already gets a lot more criticism than they deserve, much of it unjustified criticism from the leading lights of other SQL sites, who's holier-than-thou attitude strikes me as more than just a little bit hypocritical, especially given the number of mistakes, gaffs, pablum, meaningless gossip, and just outright wrong stuff that come from their corner of the SQL community and even straight out of their own pie-holes. So I don't think adding my small personal critiques on to this would help in any way, because criticism is NOT always a good thing, sometimes it just makes things worse.
So I don't think that it's really fair to put words in our mouths just because we haven't actively jumped into the fray. I cannot speak for the others, but as for me, I support Steve and the site, regardless of what the process currently is or what they decide to do with it. I'm not going anywhere.
[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 13, 2009 at 9:47 pm
You've mistaken what I said but, looking back at it, I can see how. I put no words in your mouth or at least I didn't mean to... I said "I don't believe the...". It's an opinion of mine. I appologize for the confusion and the poor choice of words. However, you do support my belief in you and the good folks like you...
For one thing, it would take a lot more than this to cause me to bail on SSC and Steve.
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
Viewing 15 posts - 76 through 90 (of 102 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply