InstantForum.NET v2.9.0SQLServerCentralhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/notifications@sqlservercentral.comMon, 20 May 2013 16:34:57 GMT20http://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic886047-1658-1.aspxI still think everything on SSC is all Steve's fault. :-DTue, 30 Mar 2010 08:03:51 GMTPaul Whitehttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic886047-1658-1.aspxJust a thought. This could be a catch-22. If you answered just "The submitter of the question" and then came to the discussion when you saw that you answered "wrong" and made your point in the discussion, you have just made the answer that included "Those who attempt an answer" to be the "right" answer.SteveThu, 25 Mar 2010 09:09:55 GMTsteve blockhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic886047-1658-1.aspxI fell into the trap that others who answered this question did, in that it did not say "check all that apply" and only check the submitter box.As having previously submitted a good question, I had made the mistake of including the "book" answer plus three other answer's off the top of head in which one of them was supposed to be close but wrong. Instead, the close response turned out to be an alternate correct answer of which I failed to closely look at the way I worded it. Consequently, the community thus chastised me severely.Therefore I clearly can see how your correct responses are the right ones, but it truly should have said "check all that apply!"Mon, 22 Mar 2010 20:32:48 GMTRon Kuncehttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic886047-1658-1.aspxPersonally, I got it correct - WAG.My feelings are:[b]When I submit [/b]a question, it is my responsibility to ensure that the question is phrased in such a manner that the point of the question is understood. It is my responsibility to ensure the supporting documentation reflects that as well. [i](Personally, I think that if the only place you are looking for the answer is BOL, then you have a very limited basis for your reading enjoyment.)[/i][b]When I answer[/b] the question, it is my responsibility to pass on any additional knowledge I may have aquired in helping the person who posted the question understand why they may be wrong. It is not to bully them or everyone else to seeing it my way. Frequently, I learn something more myself.[b]IMHO, Steve Jones job[/b] is simply to review the question to make sure that it is formated properly. I do not believe it to be his responsibility to make sure that the poster is correct. They should be the subject expert in their question.Otherwise, we could add Microsoft for their problems in BOL or the writer of any material used, the editor of said material, the publisher of said material, etc. Now it is everyone elses fault, and I bear no responsibility and my world is perfect - except when I want to utilize some of this faulty documentation and then I am on here throwing a fit because all of these other people are wrong.Just my rantings - but it seems to happen so often lately.Mon, 22 Mar 2010 09:00:57 GMTsjimmohttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic886047-1658-1.aspx[quote][b]Anirban Paul (3/22/2010)[/b][hr]Hey guys this is a great community but anybody thought who made this community "GREAT"? Is it Steve or Jeff Moden or GilaMonster or Paul white or Grumpy DBA or Rufio[/quote]I got mentioned!!!! :w00t:Mon, 22 Mar 2010 08:06:21 GMTPaul Whitehttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic886047-1658-1.aspx[quote][b]george sibbald (3/19/2010)[/b][hr]I don't think I am giving away the farm if I say that if the answer boxes are square there is more than one correct answer, a radio button means only one correct answer.[/quote]Proof!I say proof that Microsoft is very much responsible for the accuracy of these answers... And as for that nameless panel of individuals that chose that "check box" to be square rather than triangular or some other unspecified shape... Hang your heads guys: you have been outed... responsibility wise. I propose in fact that all 5 answers are correct. Furthermore I propose that there is a 6th possible option, as long as you consider that the statement "Those who attempt an answer" contributes to the accuracy of the answer. By the same logic then surely those who didn't "contribute" contribute in their own special way? Because is it not true that a fully accurate answer should acknowledge the existence of answers that have not been attempted that could have contributed to the full picture?I'm not being pedantic here am I?Mon, 22 Mar 2010 06:57:50 GMTBen Leightonhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic886047-1658-1.aspx[quote]Hi I joined the party late. Sorry for that. First the question was great. Secondly who is "RESPONSIBLE" to correct this question. WE ALL OF US RESPONSIBLE? [/quote]I have a slightly different take - I said all the answers are correct - but I agree definitely with the statement above from Paul.Mon, 22 Mar 2010 04:38:10 GMTJamie Longstreet-481950http://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic886047-1658-1.aspxHi I joined the party late. Sorry for that. First the question was great. Secondly who is "RESPONSIBLE" to correct this question. WE ALL OF US RESPONSIBLE? Hey guys this is a great community but anybody thought who made this community "GREAT"? Is it Steve or Jeff Moden or GilaMonster or Paul white or Grumpy DBA or Rufio (Sorry for others for not mentioning your names :-P)? No it is all of us. We all are responsible. In a community one can make a mistake but others will immediately rectify him. This makes a community great. I found if a question is 'wrong' we all jump into it to find out the error, we Gooooooogle it and we all learn MORE than a correct question. Mistakes only makes us perfect. I would suggest atleast 1 wrong question (Every Friday - to get R&D time more) every week to make us learn more. :-) We will later issue a HOTFIX (Like Microsoft) for these BUG questions. I will suggest Steve to provide points (As incentive) to the user who will prove a question is wrong (With prove documents). Mon, 22 Mar 2010 04:33:21 GMTAnipaulhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic886047-1658-1.aspxMy answer to the qustion was "the writer of the question", but i agree that the reader also have a responibility.I think it was a Good question, and i thank everone for their guts to publish questions, because they are judged very Hard sometimes.Håkan WintherSQL service Nordic ABSun, 21 Mar 2010 09:57:43 GMThakan.wintherhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic886047-1658-1.aspxMS is responsible for creating adequate documentation so the person answering the question can answer the question accuratelyThe panel I threw in because it seems all the other answers are correct and sometimes these questions contain what I call "the basic truths" where the question has answers that are all correct.I don't know how to get back to the answers that were in the original question but here is my guess at what the other three were...Steve can give us credit if he thinks it a good call, so he answers to the accuracy and is thus ultimately responsible for the accuracy of the answers.The person who submits the original question - well, of course, that person is responsible for accuracy.AND FINALLY-we who read and answer the question, through our due diligence are definitely responsible and thus, the existence of this forum... So, yes, I think all are correct (outside of the Panel... I am just guessing that these answers don't appear on the site without some sort of review prior to them showing up here).Sun, 21 Mar 2010 08:14:36 GMTJamie Longstreet-481950http://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic886047-1658-1.aspx[quote][b]petertrast (3/20/2010)[/b][hr]And that is the reason that this forum is the only reason I visit every day. Lively, well-informed discussion is worth much more than the "points" we get for answering the question right. I have learned ten times more here in my first few weeks than I have in all other SQL forums in the last two years. I only wish it had not taken so long to find this site and start taking advantage of the learning opportunities...[/quote]Welcome to the community.Sat, 20 Mar 2010 09:36:40 GMTSQLRNNRhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic886047-1658-1.aspx[quote][b]CirquedeSQLeil (3/20/2010)[/b][hr][quote][b]Paul White NZ (3/19/2010)[/b][hr][quote][b]CirquedeSQLeil (3/19/2010)[/b][hr][quote]I'll award back points later for everyone on this one since it's not really a fair question, but thanks for all the comments.[/quote]That would be nice and all - not sure it is necessary.[/quote]Agreed. It is only one point after all. Well worth sacrificing that for the quality of the discussion.[/quote]And I think that any that were truly interested in the topic contributed quite nicely to the discussion and thus earned well more points than the point from the question alone.[/quote]And that is the reason that this forum is the only reason I visit every day. Lively, well-informed discussion is worth much more than the "points" we get for answering the question right. I have learned ten times more here in my first few weeks than I have in all other SQL forums in the last two years. I only wish it had not taken so long to find this site and start taking advantage of the learning opportunities...Sat, 20 Mar 2010 08:42:27 GMTPeter Trasthttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic886047-1658-1.aspx[quote][b]Paul White NZ (3/19/2010)[/b][hr][quote][b]CirquedeSQLeil (3/19/2010)[/b][hr][quote]I'll award back points later for everyone on this one since it's not really a fair question, but thanks for all the comments.[/quote]That would be nice and all - not sure it is necessary.[/quote]Agreed. It is only one point after all. Well worth sacrificing that for the quality of the discussion.[/quote]And I think that any that were truly interested in the topic contributed quite nicely to the discussion and thus earned well more points than the point from the question alone.Sat, 20 Mar 2010 00:05:45 GMTSQLRNNRhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic886047-1658-1.aspx[quote][b]CirquedeSQLeil (3/19/2010)[/b][hr][quote]I'll award back points later for everyone on this one since it's not really a fair question, but thanks for all the comments.[/quote]That would be nice and all - not sure it is necessary.[/quote]Agreed. It is only one point after all. Well worth sacrificing that for the quality of the discussion.Fri, 19 Mar 2010 21:38:00 GMTPaul Whitehttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic886047-1658-1.aspxI think it's a great question.Not because I've got it right (I didn't). But it started a discussion on what we think about the QotD responsibilities in general. Instead of just starting a thread, where we "just" would have added our opinion we now have something to "fight for": ONE POINT :-DThat actually add some more enthusiasm, I'd say.I don't think Steve could be held responsible, since the question refers to another person.I just reviewed the TermsofUse:[quote]1.3 We accept no obligation to monitor the use of the Site.[/quote]I would read into it, that Steve cannot be blamed, since he's representing the site owners.[quote]3.2 If you contribute to the Site, you must take all reasonable care to ensure that your contributions are:(a) accurate in all material respects and not misleading;[/quote]My interpretation would be that the submitter is responsible. If MS is quoted, it's quoted by the submitter, leading to the above rule to be applied again.To be fair: it's really hard to fulfill rule 3.2.a each and every time. But that's the point where the community needs to play its role: if the question a/o answers are misleading or provable wrong, we need to make others aware of it. I don't think that it is required for spelling and grammar as long as it is "readable" (my ESL status might strongly influence that opinion though...)Just keep one thing in mind: it's not all about points. I participate in QotD to see if I come to the same conclusion as the submitter and if this is supported by the community. Nothing more. But nothing less either.Fri, 19 Mar 2010 15:57:40 GMTLutzMhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic886047-1658-1.aspx[quote][b]john.arnott (3/19/2010)[/b][hr][quote][b]Tom.Thomson (3/19/2010)[/b][hr] That a quarter of the respondents do date think that the person who supplies the question and answer has no responsability for correctness is, frankly, appalling. [/quote]To be fair, please consider that apparently some people who answered earlier today didn't realize that they could choose multiple answers. With that assumption, it would be reasonable to place utlimate responsibility for QOD answer correctness on the site (Steve or the mythical review panel). Steve has since updated the text to add the instruction "select all that apply."[/quote]For the sake of argument's sake :-DEven a "select all that apply" does not require that there be more than one answer. It is one of those things used by test makers to ensure you are paying attention. In college and on certification exams - it was frequently seen to mean "only one answer."Fri, 19 Mar 2010 15:44:03 GMTSQLRNNRhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic886047-1658-1.aspx[quote][b]Tom.Thomson (3/19/2010)[/b][hr] That a quarter of the respondents do date think that the person who supplies the question and answer has no responsability for correctness is, frankly, appalling. [/quote]To be fair, please consider that apparently some people who answered earlier today didn't realize that they could choose multiple answers. With that assumption, it would be reasonable to place utlimate responsibility for QOD answer correctness on the site (Steve or the mythical review panel). Steve has since updated the text to add the instruction "select all that apply."Fri, 19 Mar 2010 15:17:58 GMTjohn.arnotthttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic886047-1658-1.aspx[quote][b]brdudley (3/19/2010)[/b][hr]I'm sensing a loophole if we all just cooperate. Since, by the answer, we have been granted responsibility for the correctness of the answer, we ought to all agree that the question is based more on opinion and really a seed question for discussion. As such, all responses given are correct and points should be rewarded to everyone.[/quote]People should be aware that they get points for posting in the forums too: so if you answer a question, find that your answer is (claimed to be) wrong, and join the discussion and put your case you get points. I see no reason to award points to people who get the (claimed to be) wrong answer but don't join the discussion, which is what you appear to be suggesting.Anyone who has been around looking at QOTD discussions, reading Steve's editorials, and participating in this community of people with an interest in SQLServer for any length of time should have got this one right. It's all about providing a learning resource consisting of articles (by experts and by non-experts), a fun quizz (QOTD), and lots of discussion forums - and the quizz would not be a learning resource if it did not successfully drive forum activity, ie if members of the community did not participate in the discussions and air their disagreements with answers, and their clarifications, and their queries about why the right answer is right. So the community members who see a question and its answer and have something useful to say about it do have a responsability, as members of the community, to say it. That a quarter of the respondents do date think that the person who supplies the question and answer has no responsability for correctness is, frankly, appalling. I think it's clear that there is no panel of experts. It's also clear that completely vetting all questions, answers and explanations and getting rid of all errors before publication would be an extremely large task and would not contribute much (if anything it might actually have a negative effect, since any presumption that the answers possessed eminent authority leave no room for discussion) to the usefulness of QOTD. And MS is not a member of the SQL Server users community (although some individual MS employees may be) and has no responsability for anything here (but I wish it would make BOL even more useful than it already is by better indexing, fixing the odd error, and better cross-referencing: why on earth doesn't the alter database set documentaion either tell us about all the restricions on its use with Model or include a link to the description of Model where they all are and remove the partial data from the alter database page, for example).Fri, 19 Mar 2010 14:59:24 GMTL' Eomot Inverséhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic886047-1658-1.aspx[quote][b]Steve Jones - Editor (3/19/2010)[/b][hr]A great discussion, and I'll weigh in here on this question and topic. First, I disagree with John in that I think I bear some responsibility for the questions and answers. I do try to check them for accuracy, and sometimes I fail. There are times that I look at code instead of running it, and if it appears to be OK, I have let it go. I am trying to be better about verifying the code shown....[/quote]Thank you for your workFri, 19 Mar 2010 14:34:56 GMThonza.mfhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic886047-1658-1.aspx[quote][b]petertrast (3/19/2010)[/b][hr]Well said. If anyone besides the submitter is responsible, it would be BOL (Microsoft indirectly) and the forum moderator (sorry Steve :-D). The person answering can only bring value to the discussion, but how can we make sure the answer is right? :blink: unless you mean that we contribute to getting the answer changed... so maybe the question should ask from highest to lowest who has the most responsibility to ensure answer correctness.1. Submitter2. BOL? Microsoft (IF the question comes out of BOL material)3a. Steve, after he reviews the responses by3b. The answerers4. Bill Gates (just because I wanted to put his name in the forum even if he is no longer CEO and just the chairman) ;-)[/quote]I'm sorry Steve Jones my last QotD said unusable for SSC and I have it deleted. It was for Humour section and I'm too lazy to write it again.One of the answers was similar to your 4th. :-DFri, 19 Mar 2010 14:30:12 GMThonza.mfhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic886047-1658-1.aspxLOL I lost another point. :-)I enjoy QOD and think it is a good learning tool. The idea of points makes it competitive and sometimes taken too seriously IMO.Fri, 19 Mar 2010 13:44:43 GMTkevin.l.williamshttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic886047-1658-1.aspx[quote][b]Steve Jones - Editor (3/19/2010)[/b][hr]Actually, I think users are ultimately responsible for ensuring the code is correct. We write it, but they must verify that what we wrote does WHAT THEY need. Not what we think they need.This is an interesting point, and when we started this QOD thing (it was Brian's idea), I would have agreed with you. However the frame of reference and perspective can vary widely. The way the author (or I) look at a question often isn't what others see. The idea of of the QOD is a learning tool, not a testing or reference tool. So I tend to agree with John that the people answering bear a little responsibility for reviewing the question/answers and pointing out potential or possible flaws.[/quote]I too believe that we consumers are ultimately responsible for the correctness of the QotD. Based on that, Those of us who included Steve Jones as part of today's answer should be awarded a point, because MOST of us think that you too have some responsibility. Doesn't that make it correct.:-)I wasn't going to include the Steve Jones checkbox, but remembered several times when you have taken responsibility for not having checked it closer.I look forward to the QotD. Nice work, and many thanks to you, and all contributors.Fri, 19 Mar 2010 13:08:49 GMTTom Garthhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic886047-1658-1.aspx[quote][b]Kingston Dhasian (3/18/2010)[/b][hr]I doubt if anybody is going to get this right. 20 attempts so far and nobody has got it till now. ...[/quote]That's ironic. Although in this case, I think the low correct answer rate it not due to a bad question or answer per se, but rather that there is some subjectivity in deciding the complete set of who should be responsible. Most people, for example, probably picked "submitter of the question" as a choice, but got the other ones wrong. And so on.- webrunnerFri, 19 Mar 2010 13:07:03 GMTwebrunnerhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic886047-1658-1.aspx[quote][b]john.arnott (3/19/2010)[/b][hr]I don't know that I should be embarrassed by having "missed" my own question, though. [/quote]Now I don't feel so bad:cool:[quote]The point of it was to point out the primary reason for SSC having this feature and the primary use that people should make of it. It's a learning tool. It's a starting point for discussions that share knowledge and insights on topics that may not arise in the forums where nearly all threads center on a particular difficulty that the originator has experienced. And a secondary goal of this QOD has certainly been acheived; it triggered a lot of discussion about shared responsibilty. [/quote]Well put.Fri, 19 Mar 2010 12:33:24 GMTSQLRNNRhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic886047-1658-1.aspx[quote][b]Steve Jones - Editor (3/19/2010)[/b][hr]A great discussion, and I'll weigh in here on this question and topic. First, I disagree with John in that I think I bear some responsibility for the questions and answers. I do try to check them for accuracy, and sometimes I fail. There are times that I look at code instead of running it, and if it appears to be OK, I have let it go. I am trying to be better about verifying the code shown.............I'll award back points later for everyone on this one since it's not really a fair question, but thanks for all the comments.[/quote]First, I will admit that this morning I'd either changed my mind since submitting the question, or forgotten the reasons for designating certain answers as "correct", and so included "Steve Jones" as one of three check marks (the other two, of course, being the submitter and the SSC community who participate). I don't know that I should be embarrassed by having "missed" my own question, though. The point of it was to point out the primary reason for SSC having this feature and the primary use that people should make of it. It's a learning tool. It's a starting point for discussions that share knowledge and insights on topics that may not arise in the forums where nearly all threads center on a particular difficulty that the originator has experienced. And a secondary goal of this QOD has certainly been acheived; it triggered a lot of discussion about shared responsibilty. Finally, I'll accept that although I personally don't seek QOD points for the "bragging rights" touted in the SSC daily newsletter, there are some folks who value their scores, whether for a personal sense of accomplishment or as a public indication of their breadth of expertise. But even if one does value those points, I would hope that they hold them secondary to the primary goal of increased knowledge and understanding.Fri, 19 Mar 2010 12:27:44 GMTjohn.arnotthttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic886047-1658-1.aspx[quote][b]Steve Jones - Editor (3/19/2010)[/b][hr]I hope you enjoy the QOD, and use it for learning and fun, not as a test, or for a reference. [/quote]Yes we do and very much appreciate the time you put into it. The discussions are informative and usually entertaining. Some of us take it much too seriously. Thanks.Fri, 19 Mar 2010 11:22:00 GMTCliff Joneshttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic886047-1658-1.aspxThe responsibility of QOD submitter is OK and it should be like that. But why readers? Readers should be responsible for a healthy discussion and not for answers in QOD.May be I am thinking too hard or absolutely not.May be Steve is not 100% responsible, but some one from SSC should get some responsibility to put a wrong answer.Fri, 19 Mar 2010 11:18:09 GMTSanjayAttrayhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic886047-1658-1.aspx[quote][b]Steve Jones - Editor (3/19/2010)[/b][hr]This is a learning tool, and I could see that Microsoft bears some blame here since we try to use BOL as a reference. To that extent, I might place some responsibility on them, especially when we use BOL for questions and it's wrong.[/quote]I agree with this statement to the end that MS should provide accurate information.[quote]I hope you enjoy the QOD, and use it for learning and fun, not as a test, or for a reference. We do try to correct things over time, and award back points for bad questions. I'll also sometimes put "right answer", "wrong answer" in place for bad questions.[/quote]I enjoy the QOD (unless I errantly click). I do find it to be a useful learning tool. I also appreciate the effort you put in to making it a good exercise for us.[quote]I'll award back points later for everyone on this one since it's not really a fair question, but thanks for all the comments.[/quote]That would be nice and all - not sure it is necessary.Fri, 19 Mar 2010 11:13:20 GMTSQLRNNRhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic886047-1658-1.aspxIt's an interesting question, to be sure, but the discussion is always the best part. That's where I learn the most.Fri, 19 Mar 2010 11:06:47 GMTKevinC.http://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic886047-1658-1.aspxA great discussion, and I'll weigh in here on this question and topic. First, I disagree with John in that I think I bear some responsibility for the questions and answers. I do try to check them for accuracy, and sometimes I fail. There are times that I look at code instead of running it, and if it appears to be OK, I have let it go. I am trying to be better about verifying the code shown.Second, this is an interesting discussion. I responded to a comment earlier that I do see the people taking the question as part of those responsible for the accuracy. We view things from a different point of view, and if something seems wrong, I'd hope that you spend a few seconds dropping a note about why you think it's wrong. Not a complaint in that "this is horrible", but a comment that "I think that if I did x, the answer y would be right (or wrong)."This is a learning tool, and I could see that Microsoft bears some blame here since we try to use BOL as a reference. To that extent, I might place some responsibility on them, especially when we use BOL for questions and it's wrong.I hope you enjoy the QOD, and use it for learning and fun, not as a test, or for a reference. We do try to correct things over time, and award back points for bad questions. I'll also sometimes put "right answer", "wrong answer" in place for bad questions.I'll award back points later for everyone on this one since it's not really a fair question, but thanks for all the comments.Fri, 19 Mar 2010 11:02:08 GMTSteve Jones - SSC Editorhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic886047-1658-1.aspx[quote][b]Jan Sorenson (3/19/2010)[/b][hr]...however I did not realize that the correct answer needed to be two choices, actually one could make a case on each choice being correct. ...[/quote]Great point. I forgot to add in the "select all that apply" to this. My fault, but based on your post, it's corrected.Fri, 19 Mar 2010 10:57:26 GMTSteve Jones - SSC Editorhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic886047-1658-1.aspx[quote][b]dcawvive (3/19/2010)[/b][hr]The submitter is responsible. It is NOT MY RESPONSIBILITY to review their work. How lazy and weasely is that. Try telling your users it's their job to make sure your code is correct. [/quote]Actually, I think users are ultimately responsible for ensuring the code is correct. We write it, but they must verify that what we wrote does WHAT THEY need. Not what we think they need.This is an interesting point, and when we started this QOD thing (it was Brian's idea), I would have agreed with you. However the frame of reference and perspective can vary widely. The way the author (or I) look at a question often isn't what others see. The idea of of the QOD is a learning tool, not a testing or reference tool. So I tend to agree with John that the people answering bear a little responsibility for reviewing the question/answers and pointing out potential or possible flaws.Fri, 19 Mar 2010 10:55:53 GMTSteve Jones - SSC Editorhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic886047-1658-1.aspx[quote][b]CirquedeSQLeil (3/19/2010)[/b][hr][quote][b]Paul White NZ (3/19/2010)[/b][hr][quote][b]CirquedeSQLeil (3/19/2010)[/b][hr]I actually disagree with the correct answer.[/quote]Me too, but it's not terribly important. There could have been another option..."it depends".For the record, I ticked Steve, the question writer, and Microsoft.[/quote]I think it depends would have been a good choice.I chose just the Question Writer (see previous post about tick boxes - they don't always require multiple answers).[/quote]not for MS maybe but on SSC not so sureFri, 19 Mar 2010 10:51:50 GMTgeorge sibbaldhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic886047-1658-1.aspxI'd have thought some thought of verification would make sense.Fri, 19 Mar 2010 10:45:13 GMTpaul s-306273http://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic886047-1658-1.aspx[quote][b]Paul White NZ (3/19/2010)[/b][hr][quote][b]CirquedeSQLeil (3/19/2010)[/b][hr]I actually disagree with the correct answer.[/quote]Me too, but it's not terribly important. There could have been another option..."it depends".For the record, I ticked Steve, the question writer, and Microsoft.[/quote]I think it depends would have been a good choice.I chose just the Question Writer (see previous post about tick boxes - they don't always require multiple answers).Fri, 19 Mar 2010 10:40:33 GMTSQLRNNRhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic886047-1658-1.aspxI liked this question. But the answers are subjective. I answered; the person posing the question, the person answering the question, and I had hoped there was some form of review process. I could not convince myself to hold Steve or Microsoft accountable for the accuracy of the answer of a question. First, this is a bonus to this site and has provided a lot of extra learning opportunity for me. But it is not why I come to this site. Second, I am sure Steve as an individual has many other priorities with running this site. Third, Microsoft had nothing to do with designing the questions and answers. While the BOL is usually my first stop to try to answer these questions, the questions are not always obvious in their language and may require me to interpret what I am reading and how it applies to the question.I think it would be great to have a voluntary peer review of questions and answers. Not only to validate the question and answer, but to ensure clear wording as to the intent and the value of the question. Regardless, I do like the whole question of the day concept.Fri, 19 Mar 2010 10:28:57 GMTMike B in AKhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic886047-1658-1.aspx[quote][b]sknox (3/19/2010)[/b][hr]I have to disagree with this answer on principle...[/quote]Lighten up, dude! :laugh:Fri, 19 Mar 2010 10:15:44 GMTPaul Whitehttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic886047-1658-1.aspx[quote][b]brdudley (3/19/2010)[/b][hr]I'm sensing a loophole if we all just cooperate. Since, by the answer, we have been granted responsibility for the correctness of the answer, we ought to all agree that the question is based more on opinion and really a seed question for discussion. As such, all responses given are correct and points should be rewarded to everyone.[/quote]You made me LOL in the cube farm and now everyone is staring...:w00t:Fri, 19 Mar 2010 10:14:09 GMTPeter Trasthttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic886047-1658-1.aspx[quote]As I see it, the person who composes a QOD is responsible for giving a full effort towards the accuracy of the answers and explanation. The general community of SSC users is responsible for finding errors or ambiguities and sharing that knowledge in the question's discussion thread. [/quote]I have to disagree with this answer on principle. With responsibility comes right, and vice versa. In other words, If I have the responsibility to ensure the accuracy of an answer, I should have the right to set or change that answer; else my responsibility is one I can never fulfil and becomes nothing more than a burden.The only people who have the rights to set or change an answer to a QotD are the original submitter and the Site Editor (Steve Jones). Consequently, the full responsibility for the answer given with the question lies in their hands.We do have the right, and responsibility, to join in the discussion when we find an answer that we believe to be inaccuate, and to petition the Site Editor to update the question with an accurate answer, as I am doing now. But without the ability to correct the answer as it appears, we cannot be held responsible for the accuracy of that answer.Consider: If I submit a QotD with an incorrect answer, and you prove that my answer is wrong in the ensuing discussion, but Mr. Jones is unwilling or unable to update the answer*, any visitor can still get the wrong impression from the answer, as we cannot ensure that said visitor will read the discussion. But this question's submitter would still hold [b]you[/b] responsible for my incorrect answer even though you had done everything within your power to change it.*Unlikely in the event that you did in fact prove me wrong, I know -- but still possible.Fri, 19 Mar 2010 10:13:02 GMTsknoxhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic886047-1658-1.aspx[quote][b]CirquedeSQLeil (3/19/2010)[/b][hr]I actually disagree with the correct answer.[/quote]Me too, but it's not terribly important. There could have been another option..."it depends".For the record, I ticked Steve, the question writer, and Microsoft.Fri, 19 Mar 2010 10:12:56 GMTPaul White