December 29, 2008 at 12:18 pm
If a new thread requires the user to select the version / edition and subject area, perhaps that would provoke enough thought that they would get it right - I suspect a lot of threads are posted under 2005 admin because that is first on the list. There is also an argument that if new threads were forced to have this information, there would be no need to post under a specific forum; it would be determined by the selections.
December 29, 2008 at 12:31 pm
Forget tagging purely for sub-topics. Tagging should be the ONLY way that threads and messages are posted. And tagging doesn't preclude a taxonomy -- if a new tag is created, then it would be properly classified within the taxonomy.
The forums themselves could be navigated both through tag clouds at a top-level unclassified manner and within tag clouds at each level of the taxonomy established.
The forums interface wouldn't change all that much except the addition of tag clouds above the list of recent threads and required tagging in new threads.
As others have stated, checkboxes for SQL Server versions must be a requirement for newly added threads (where at least one version is selected). In other words, the version would just be required tag(s) with slightly special handling (e.g., for version filtering).
December 29, 2008 at 1:00 pm
I do agree with the other Mr. Jones that this hard. And we have two basic issues as I see it.
1. Making it easy for people to post questions
2. Making it easy for people to answer questions.
These are somewhat diametrically opposed. For askers they need few choices, few options, and it needs to be easy since they have a problem already. We don't want to add another one.
For answers, they want it to be easy to answer questions and find those that need answers. They don't want double posts, and I think some of the frustration of getting 2000 questions in a 2005 forum as well as double posts is there.
The double posting thing we can try to handle in some code, not sure about the drop down. We are trying to be careful about touching the forum code too much since we want to be able to upgrade it as InstantASP releases some new versions. However we are trying to work with them to get some things fixed/enhanced.
Tagging is interesting, but tagging takes some work. I'm not sure how this would work, unless people that read it or answer can add tags and perhaps vote on the solutions.
I'm still debating about what to do here. I read lots of posts, as do many of you, and I think there are probably as many questions that could be answered for multiple versions as there are for version specifics. It's hard to know which is more important, but I see the value of both.
I do like the idea of bubbling up more information on the post page so that people can see what they should do and not do, perhaps add in the need to post the version.
Keep the comments coming, this is good to see.
Follow me on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/way0utwest
Forum Etiquette: How to post data/code on a forum to get the best help
My Blog: www.voiceofthedba.com
December 29, 2008 at 1:13 pm
GilaMonster (12/29/2008)
joshcsmith13 (12/29/2008)
I can't count the number of times I needed to post a T-SQL question, and couldn't decide if it should go in 2000 or 2005 to get the most visibility.Why visibility? The deciding factor should be what version of SQL you were writing the query for.
For example, let's say I need a little help getting the correct results from my Cube operator with a Group By. This is valid syntax in 2000, 2005 and 2008. I really don't want to pidgeon-hole my thread into one of those versions. I might be using 2000, but the same syntax will apply in 2005 or 2008 (I think?). Since nobody uses 2000 any more (right? :hehe: ), nobody will look in SQL2000 to see my post! (unless you're one of those "latest posts"). I love RBarry's checkbox, or the Tagging idea.
December 29, 2008 at 1:26 pm
Matt
You are right but it's a matter of displaying. The question need not be repeated. The FORUM column can have more than one entries.....or a new column can be added. There will be other issues like answers to the same post within other sub-forums but those too are manageable programmatically. It's a deeper shift here in terms of how information is presented. A post can be in multiple forums but can be displayed as a consolidated entity. Of course, that means a higher frequency of posts but works excellent for the person asking the Question. It's creating a homogenous view of an object no matter where you view it from.
The categorizations are good and there are some good suggestions on how to go about that. My concern was ways to best utilize the new taxonomy.
December 29, 2008 at 1:30 pm
sqlstuff (12/29/2008)
MattYou are right but it's a matter of displaying. The question need not be repeated. The FORUM column can have more than one entries.....or a new column can be added. There will be other issues like answers to the same post within other sub-forums but those too are manageable programmatically. It's a deeper shift here in terms of how information is presented. A post can be in multiple forums but can be displayed as a consolidated entity. Of course, that means a higher frequency of posts but works excellent for the person asking the Question. It's creating a homogenous view of an object no matter where you view it from.
The categorizations are good and there are some good suggestions on how to go about that. My concern was ways to best utilize the new taxonomy.
Agreed - just wanted to make sure we didn't get the "multiple display" as a side effect. Categorizing the posts could be great I think.
So Steve - you think you can whip all of this out by, say, next week? I mean, no rush....:cool:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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?
December 29, 2008 at 1:35 pm
joshcsmith13 (12/29/2008)
GilaMonster (12/29/2008)
joshcsmith13 (12/29/2008)
I can't count the number of times I needed to post a T-SQL question, and couldn't decide if it should go in 2000 or 2005 to get the most visibility.Why visibility? The deciding factor should be what version of SQL you were writing the query for.
For example, let's say I need a little help getting the correct results from my Cube operator with a Group By. This is valid syntax in 2000, 2005 and 2008. I really don't want to pidgeon-hole my thread into one of those versions. I might be using 2000, but the same syntax will apply in 2005 or 2008 (I think?). Since nobody uses 2000 any more (right? :hehe: ), nobody will look in SQL2000 to see my post! (unless you're one of those "latest posts"). I love RBarry's checkbox, or the Tagging idea.
I use the Active Threads (see just below Authors). This shows all currently active threads across all forums, therefore I would see your post above regarding the Cube operator regardless of what forum you posted it in (no need to double, triple, etc. post). The problem would be that if you posted in a 2005 or 2008 forum, and the code I wrote to help you solve your problem used 2005 or 2008 specific features, you would not be able to use that code on you 2000 server. What good is the help I try to provide if you can't use it? Some of the features can easily be rewritten to work in earlier versions, for instance a CTE can be converted to a derived table. Problem is that most OP's won't take the time to figure that out, which is why they complain about getting answers they can't use because of posting in the wrong forum and not specifying the version they are using.
December 29, 2008 at 1:47 pm
joshcsmith13 (12/29/2008)
For example, let's say I need a little help getting the correct results from my Cube operator with a Group By. This is valid syntax in 2000, 2005 and 2008.
It is valid in all three, but if you post that in the 2008 forum, I'd rewrite it to use Grouping Sets, because the Cube operator is deprecated, and because grouping sets are more powerful. You may not realise that when you post, but the person answering might.
Since nobody uses 2000 any more (right? :hehe: ), nobody will look in SQL2000 to see my post! (unless you're one of those "latest posts"). I love RBarry's checkbox, or the Tagging idea.
Lots of people still use SQL 2000. I'd guess many of the people who post here still use 2000 somewhere, even if it is out of support. Many people read all of the forums. Just look at the activity in the SQL 2000 forum, it's hardly deserted.
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
December 29, 2008 at 3:26 pm
Charles Kincaid (12/29/2008)
Thank good design in that you won't have to change a post URL. Any idea how many external links there are back into here? Whoosh!
Yes, I concur with Charles... separating the post identification from the forum structure is a beautiful thing. Good job SSC.
Now, because this is already a feature, why not build the interface so that each user can arrange the forums any way they like by profile, with a default profile for new joiners?
If I want to see all TSQL grouped in a clump, great.
If I want to see groupings by version and topic, great.
If I want to only see 2008 BI posts, sub-grouped by BI category, awesome.
We are only talking meta data here. Meta data should not be the GUI. It should be consumed by the GUI.
On all OP add selection criteria of version and general topic class. Version selection could include "Other".
On all previous OP default the meta data to the existing structure. Allow several trusted users to help clean up any remaining stack of unknowns or miscellaneous OP.
My 3 cents worth. I always strive to allow the USER to define the GUI, the MANAGER to define the reports, and the DBA the internal structure so that both the other two can be flexible. If you hard-can the GUI, it will always feel klunky. I don't often use the forums here. I used to be a heavy USENET poster, and chose my GUI by feature - allow me to sort new posts of subscribed groups almost any way I choose. Many posts would be redirected to other groups, wasting time and energy. Cross-posting often got out of hand. Take a lesson from those that tried to organize group structure there.... no one structure suits everyone at the same time. The days of BBS-style posting have long been antiquated.
December 29, 2008 at 4:29 pm
For what it's worth, I think that one exercise that we should all try is to seriously consider what good the forum Taxonomy/Structure truly does for each of us individually.
I know that as a frequent responder, I use it very little. Like Jeff and others, I most often use the "Recent Posts" options that just give me everything. However, over time I have found several uses for myself:
1- When responding to a question, I use the SQL Version of the forum to make sure that my answer is compatible with the OP's needs (hopefully). This is important for me because I have limited access to SQL 2000 anymore and I have to make a special effort to test against it now.
2- I skip over the questions in certain forums: I do not really know certain aspects of SQL Server all that well, so I do not bother to open those from my Active Threads list. This is a great time saver for me, so I would hate to lose it.
3- I subscribe to certain forums: I subscribe to the Service Broker and CLR fourms because I know that there are less question and only a handful of people like me who will answer those question. This way I make sure that I am notified of every post in them and none slip through the cracks on days when I cannot read or post.
And that's about all of the use that I get out of the Forums. Every once in a while I will walk through the Forums grid/tree, just looking for the latest posts that I might have missed, but that is rare.
[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]
December 29, 2008 at 4:31 pm
GilaMonster (12/29/2008)
Since nobody uses 2000 any more (right? :hehe: ), nobody will look in SQL2000 to see my post! (unless you're one of those "latest posts"). I love RBarry's checkbox, or the Tagging idea.
Lots of people still use SQL 2000. I'd guess many of the people who post here still use 2000 somewhere, even if it is out of support. Many people read all of the forums. Just look at the activity in the SQL 2000 forum, it's hardly deserted.
I use 2000 and 2005 on a daily basis. Production and development. I'd almost bet that I'm not the only one.
ATBCharles Kincaid
December 29, 2008 at 4:34 pm
The reason that I think that my exercise (above) may prove enlightening to us is that I suspect that different groups of people get something very different form the Forums organization.
For instance, I suspect that the "SQL Newbies" forum is a very good thing. Not for us "frequent responders", although it does allow me to tailor my replies somewhat, but rather because it may be seen as encouraging to new posters who find this site and its environment to be somewhat intimidating. I'll bet that many first timers see that as likely to be more "forgiving" of any mistakes they might make (or reveal to us).
[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]
December 29, 2008 at 5:18 pm
I don't mind Steve's suggestion. I like the idea of large areas that are generically named that span multiple versions and will continue to do so, it should even reduce admin time.
The tricky thing with forum categories is catering for people that think differently. For example, developers and DBAs all access sites like this for knowledge sharing, but a developer might see security as a development issue rather than an admin issue since he/she has to develop some code to work with SQL Server security. Having said that, this is probably not such a major issue, just something I thought worth mentioning.
As for use of versions, I would only add them to the leaf nodes of the category tree in cases where there are important differences between different versions of SQL Server.
December 29, 2008 at 5:43 pm
RBarryYoung (12/29/2008)
For what it's worth, I think that one exercise that we should all try is to seriously consider what good the forum Taxonomy/Structure truly does for each of us individually.I know that as a frequent responder, I use it very little. Like Jeff and others, I most often use the "Recent Posts" options that just give me everything. However, over time I have found several uses for myself:
1- When responding to a question, I use the SQL Version of the forum to make sure that my answer is compatible with the OP's needs (hopefully). This is important for me because I have limited access to SQL 2000 anymore and I have to make a special effort to test against it now.
2- I skip over the questions in certain forums: I do not really know certain aspects of SQL Server all that well, so I do not bother to open those from my Active Threads list. This is a great time saver for me, so I would hate to lose it.
3- I subscribe to certain forums: I subscribe to the Service Broker and CLR fourms because I know that there are less question and only a handful of people like me who will answer those question. This way I make sure that I am notified of every post in them and none slip through the cracks on days when I cannot read or post.
And that's about all of the use that I get out of the Forums. Every once in a while I will walk through the Forums grid/tree, just looking for the latest posts that I might have missed, but that is rare.
Hey Steve! Can you make it so that anyone that tries to post in the CLR forum get's electrocuted? 😛
--Jeff Moden
December 29, 2008 at 6:44 pm
I think that you could merge the CLR & .NET forums. The responders tend to be the same and most of the OP's are not really clear on the difference anyway.
[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]
Viewing 15 posts - 46 through 60 (of 99 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply