April 5, 2003 at 12:00 am
Comments posted to this topic are about the content posted at http://www.sqlservercentral.com/columnists/sjones/whatsinareview.asp
April 14, 2003 at 6:02 am
Crikey, you've cut some work out for yourself Steve. However, I think you have covered all bases with regard to what I'd personally like to know about a product before using/purchasing it. The only thing I'd also like to see on there is which versions of SQL Server it works with, without including that in any sort of rating calculation. We're in a relatively calm period with regard to SQL Server versions at the moment, but as the 64-bit Edition ramps up with the availability of 64-bit hardware, and Yukon goes retail in the next 6-12 months, it would be useful to know which versions of SQL Server a product is compatible with.
Only one minor gripe, which vendors might feel uptight about and might mislead a casual visitor to the site : When an item is rated a zero, I think it would be better to represent that as a '-' or as 'not applicable' (rather than n/a, as I'm never too sure if that means not applicable or not available). Although for your own internal overall rating calculation I agree it's the correct thing to do, a quick scan of the review to someone not in the know might lead them to draw the conclusion that the product's very poor in that area if they see it rated zero, unless they happen to read the rating key.
Finally (!), how about an overall rating % derived from the category scores, and a vendor URL in the contact details?
Edited by - jonreade on 04/14/2003 06:35:41 AM
Jon
April 14, 2003 at 8:17 am
Steve,
What's going to be our policy about who can submit reviews?
Andy
April 14, 2003 at 9:46 am
I know it's a lot of work, but I was trying to trade more work for a known format, which hoepfully would make it easier.
Good points about rating as a 0. I think we should designate not applicable v not available so one is aware. The versioning is tough since we can only go on what the vendor states. I wouldn't be likely to test across multiple versions.
As far as who submits, I'd be willing to look over reviews from any reader as long as they met our format and we had some disclosure about who the person was. In other words, I wouldn't think a vendor should submit a "review". Rather, they should send a "tour" or white paper to us. I think we would probably not accept reviews from hotmail, yahoo, etc. emails since they can be misleading. A known corporate address probably would be required.
Steve Jones
April 14, 2003 at 10:36 am
This looks to be a very well thought out initial proposal and at first read I cannot see much missing in what I would like to see in a product review.
I particularly liked the Environment section and also First Impressions, which I think is really important, because difficult to install software, or badly explained instructions will cause me to back out of an installation and not bother continuing (or even immediately unistall the product!). I very much liked the guidelines for each of the sections, and you have covered a lot of important considerations here, which at a glance, will allow us users as potentional customers to gain a very good impression of the product as a whole.
Two small things I would like to see added to this are whether a demo version of the product is available (and a link to the web site where I can download it); and also whether the product is a commercial application or an app someone has written in their back bedroom.
April 14, 2003 at 10:41 am
To follow up on that - as far as what the community expects, how do we determine (or do we) that someone is qualified to do the review? For example, Im not strong in OLAP, so does it make sense for me to do a review of an OLAP tool?
Also, maybe it makes sense to try to shoot for multiple reviews of a product, try to get a couple different opinions?
Andy
April 14, 2003 at 11:13 am
I'm hoping this isn't a double posting...but I got an error page with my first try....
Steve,
I would also want to know how long it takes them to upgrade their product when it depends on/or supports another product.
For example: Product X uses a SQL Server database. They currently only support SQL Server 7.0. That's great, but SQL Server 2000 has been out for a while and a lot of people are using it. SQL Server Yukon, .NET, whatever is 'almost' out on the streets. For a product that only supports the use of SQL Server 7.0 that's poor upgrading.
I just went through this recently at my job. A vendor was trying to sell us a product to support what we use. My management had 'completely reviewed their white-papers and on-line information' and set up a demo/talk. Within 5 minutes, I found they do not support our current product (which is one version from being non-supported). They do not support MSSQL Server 2000. AND they feel that expecting them to support something any earlier than two years after the product is available is outrageous. This company wanted us to go back in time on the versions of software we were using to non-supported (by the original vendor) versions. It's kinda like someone saying, 'buy our product but you have to revert to MS Windows 95 to use it'.
-SQLBill
April 14, 2003 at 2:11 pm
No double post, and let me tackle the comments in reverse.
Bill, I tend to agree on the versions supported, but as I mentioned we'd just gon on what the vendor said. I would expect that all reviews would be on the current version that is RTM AND include the latest service packs, which at this time with SQL 2000, SP3. I think if you are reviewing you can only cover a certain amount of detail and I wouldn't want reviews from someone that does not have their systems setup at a supported level. I know SP2 and 1 are supported, but if you've ever called PSS, they almost insist you up to the latest version to ensure all fixes are in.
As far as Andy's comments. I think a reviewer needs to post a detailed bio, so we know what they do and what they have done. If I looked at an OLAP tool, I'd have to disclose that I don't work very much with that technology, so I'm possibly not providing a good review. Not sure we can set "standards" other then disclosure by the reviewer.
rachelc - agree we should include demos and links for the products. As far as the size of the company, I think we'd have to treat "companies" the same. Hard to tell if it's 3 guys working at home at night or 50 full time these days.
Steve Jones
Viewing 8 posts - 1 through 7 (of 7 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply