SQLServerCentral / Editorials / SQLServerCentral.com / Editor in Chief / Latest Posts

RE: Editor in Chief

Brian Lockwood — Tue, 28 Nov 2006 08:17:00 GMT

Tim,

it seems like you have seen more of these practices in your career than most have. You know this stuff goes on, I know it goes on - but the vast majority of this community doesn't. And in my opinion it's important that people are allowed to make informed decisions about whether to support this site or not based on real information - not platitudes and "talking points" from the RG marketing dept that cut against what experienced business people know as the truth. This conversation (and in fact you've articulated even worse example than I have) goes a long way to accomplish this. Thanks for your follow-up.

RE: Editor in Chief

Tim OPry — Tue, 28 Nov 2006 07:41:00 GMT

Your last post shows good positive action. I was not intoning for you to 'shut-up' politely or otherwise, simply stating that what I viewed as repetitive ranting was not productive. The actions you are now taking (perhaps were already long in the works) are something different and which I prefer to see - I do wish you luck in the enterprise and will watch it with interest. Being a so-called serial-entrepreneur myself, I much prefer competitive action vs the verbal ranting.

One last point and I will retire from this thread as I do try to contribute to a thread vs simply add to the tirade- Your mention of anti-competitive clauses, is unfortunately, nothing new. In the 90s I worked at one of the original programming add-on tools vendors and the tactics used by some vendors, magazines, distributors and retailers was an eye-opening experience to me. Some were just irritating - a few unethical (to me) and one or two I would have thought borderline illegal, including suing a competitor to simply drain their resources, or the so-called 'co-marketing dollars' (kickbacks) to the distribution chain for simply 'touching' your product. Business can be ugly, hence my earlier comment about the 'high-road'.

Best of luckNon illigitamus carborundum

RE: Editor in Chief

Brian Lockwood — Tue, 28 Nov 2006 07:15:00 GMT

some "new" content

http://www.apexsql.com/lockwood/2006/11/theres-gold-in-them-thar-hills.html

http://www.apexsql.com/lockwood/2006/11/red-gate-says-sqlservercentral-served.html

http://www.apexsql.com/lockwood/2006/11/out-foxed.html

http://www.apexsql.com/lockwood/2006/11/response-to-red-gates-shill-factor.html

http://www.apexsql.com/lockwood/2006/11/red-gate-will-soon-start-reviewing.html

coming soon ...

I will post soon "building the next SQLServerCentral from scratch - right this time - technical and ethical foundations of a web based community."

I will soon start to aggregate a list of people wanting to participate/lead in this project along with a suggested list of corporate "supporters" who'd be lined up to bankroll it with advertising spending.

I will post "Rules of Site Governance" that Jude O'Kelly is working on for SQL-Server-Performance t0 provide full disclosure so people will *know* how his site is run. It will form a "blue print" for other sites to emulate (something that should be required for any site calling itself a "community") - and also one the new owners of SSC could belatedly write up to help address some concerns.

I will post specific requirements for how this site should be run to address the majority of concerns expressed by SQLWildBill and others, including everyone who has written me. RG can of course ignore it (as they've done everything else I've said) but at their own peril.

I will post scan of part of my sql-server-performance contract proving the existance of anti-competive clauses used by RG (no other company in this industry does this - if they do they steer clear of my company as I've never seen it). This should address some doubt about my claims to this regard.

One interesting side effect of this - advertisers are tripping over themselves to tell me they don't allow the aforementioned anti-competitive practices (bogus exclusivity clauses etc). Obviously they have caught wind of this story (and want my excess ad dollars!) I'm meeting with the Editor of SD Times next week to review this story (if you don't get this publication you should check it out - it's kind of like a technical newspaper) Exposing this practice alone is a tangible accomplishment from this fracas.

RE: Editor in Chief

sushila — Mon, 27 Nov 2006 17:33:00 GMT

Most all members on this site are here to learn about SQl Server and related issues than to compare products and reviews - the ratio between the two is disproportionate enough that I have never focused on it until now - the-SALE-announcement and its aftermath.I still believe that those who didn't read the sale announcement haven't followed the unfolding drama and have no inkling about what's going on - all this being said I am a little puzzled by Phil Factor's blog - is the gist of it the fact that he who holds the pursestrings dictates the contents ?! If so, then Brian has been right to launch his tirade !! Also that bit about how he thought that an "advertising-free site would be a popular ambition" - surely not when the advertising is so focused and aimed at a virtually captive target-audience - I certainly didn't see any ads trying to sell anything irrelevant and impertinent in all the months that I've been on SSC or anyone complain about the advertising (until the corner peel ads).So far the people most affected seem to be the advertisers - for us, the hoi polloi - I have a couple of comments from some of the other members...Remi said that ultimately this site has been created as much by us - the long-standing members - as they have by Steve, Andy & Brian. So if the RG takeover affects us in any way we'll just move on (as SQLBill says) till we find our next niche. But we'll have to wait and see - as another post points out - obviously now that RG has vested interests in this site it must be for some monetary gain - and if they are going to remove all advertising from the site then it leaves them with very few avenues..It'll be interesting to see if people actually leave this site because of this...I still remember an exodus when this site published Sean McCown's article on "how to mess up an interview" and all the fanatically devout vanished in a huff...ps:Tip for Apex-Brian for what it's worth - you've been shouting long and hard - your point's been made (many times over) and we've all now got our collective ears to the ground and our eyes peeled to see what RG is going to do - you get to come back and say "I told you so" when all your fears are realized - no one's ever said that Life's fair...hopefully your rabble rousing is actually going to result in some +ves for you other than just spreading awareness...

RE: Editor in Chief

Brian Lockwood — Mon, 27 Nov 2006 14:50:00 GMT

just an FYI .... all this beefing reminded me of 50 cent.

we've upgraded this offer recently to a full version (all 9 tools) of ApexSQL Universal Studio (we used to limit to 3 tools only)

http://www.apexsql.com/blog/2006/01/hate-it-or-love-it-free-tools-for-sql.htm

(the offer is free versions of all of our tools - no strings)

so if there are any SQL MVPs in the house (or SQL VIPs - I have to use a little discretion here - but 500+ posts would put you in good standing) - gimme a shout out and we'll hook u up

Don't say Brian Lockwood never did nothin' for ya.

Peace out.

RE: Editor in Chief

Brian Lockwood — Mon, 27 Nov 2006 12:36:00 GMT

Tim,

"Your opinion/viewpoint as a competitor is biased" yes, agreed

"and the tone of your arguments smack of dislike for RG for some past 'sins' to you." I plead guilty!

you make some other statements that I don't really argue with nor are really pertinent to this issue. but I'm not waving a flag - but I bristle at anyone saying politely or otherwise that I should essentially "shut up". If you are tired of the rhetoric then stop reading, posting etc. My "rhetoric" created this thread you are posting on.

But there is information on this deal that needs to get out - your emphatic resistance to this notwithstanding. You might not want to hear it, like it, like me etc That's not my problem right now.

My tissue/issue is that false pretenses of this deal (SQLBill says I'm repetitive but this is a good example of why). After all this people are still asking what my tissue is. RG can do whatever they want - have I ever said anything differently? But just be open and honest about it. Don't say they are buying the site to "improve it". If you buy this - great. But a lot of people want to hear the real story.

Also I think the idea of a community degenerating into a bunch vendor owned websites is just a plain bad idea. The Militia analogy i think is good (i.e. Iraq). If you have something better let me know and I'll start using it.

If someone wants to step into a leadership role on this issue they can have it. But it needs to be an active not a passive mode. "let's wait and see" or "hope for the best" doesn't cut it for me. I've waited and seen for a long time - I'm not doing it anymore.

RE: Editor in Chief

Brian Lockwood — Mon, 27 Nov 2006 12:21:00 GMT

SQLBill,

I hear you and you are right. One problem is try to respond to everything (which begets redundency) vs leading with "new" information. If you follow my blog I posted an article today on the $ left on the table (for a new site). which is a new twist. I have some more.

but I think in fairness there is a decent body of information I've put out here that a lot of people never knew (because they've told me!). I'd rather risk being repetitive than having a community ignorant of some things. but I'm cognizant of the overkill factor to frequent posters/readers.

I have some other new stuff to post including some good essays on some solutions (I will post links soon). My goal isn't to beat anyone over the head - and in some cases I begin to bore myself as well!

To BK - Hooo Rah! Queen of Battle Baby

RE: Editor in Chief

Tim OPry — Mon, 27 Nov 2006 12:21:00 GMT

Brian,

Just what is 'the issue' (your issue)? Why shouldn't RG be allowed to run this site- their asset, any way they wish? Same as you, me, Steve and any other business person. You don't like it- take your business elsewhere. Your opinion/viewpoint as a competitor is biased - and the tone of your arguments smack of dislike for RG for some past 'sins' to you. As for you not being told the site was up for sale, they had no obligation to do so. If you were interested in purchasing it and did not, that is your responsibility, not theirs. If you had expressed an interest and they chose not to contact you for a counter offer, then that is their choice as well. Calling it a 'back-room deal' is unfair to all parties concerned and is what further colors your opinion to others.

I'm not sure why the interjection of military metaphors (competing militias) - quite a bit of an exaggeration of the situation from my point of view. Regardless, I do not wish this to denigrate further. My point was simply to let you know that (IMO) there was a potential downside to this vehement stand you were taking in a matter which you have no input or control. (meaning the sale and running of this site). I've tilted at my share of windmills, never ended well...

For the record, I have no affiliation with RG, SSC or anyone in this community, just someone that has grown tired of the rhetoric. (and its not required for anyone to serve in the military to express their opinion, but I have done that as well and can compare family military pedigrees more extensive than most - all of which doesn't mean squat in this context, so please don't wave the flag as an excuse).

RE: Editor in Chief

SQLBill — Mon, 27 Nov 2006 12:09:00 GMT

Brian,Thanks for your response. I think you either misunderstood me or I didn't make myself clear. Let's try again.1. We can't change anything. We can't. Steve, et al. sold the site. It was their site, it's their choice. Period.2. You make claims. Okay, as I said they may or may not be true, I can't prove it either way. Your claims are: the new owner will shut you out to their own benefit and you were not offered a chance to buy the site. Okay. Like with RedGate, I give you the benefit of the doubt.My problem, issue, whatever, is that you aren't adding anything NEW. Every post you make says the same thing over and over....when someone is beating me over the head with the same gripes everytime, I start to get annoyed.Why not provide solutions? The sale happened. Steve, et al didn't have to offer it to you or me or anyone else. They didn't have to get anyone's approval. Alright, you feel it will hurt your business. Unfortunately, this is business. WalMart builds stores wherever they can and undersell the local markets. People protest. Sometimes the community does better with the WalMart, sometimes they don't. Solutions are what are needed, not the same comments over and over.What I'm trying to say is: the deal is done. We all need to see what happens from here on. And if we don't like it, find or start another site.You've done an excellent job of letting us know some of the problems that might occur with RedGate's ownership. Let's see what really occurs.-SQLBill

RE: Editor in Chief

K. Brian Kelley — Mon, 27 Nov 2006 12:05:00 GMT

I call it expressing my opinion that I earned carrying an M-16 for 6 years.

See, Brian, that's where you went down the wrong path... M-16 or the stick of an F-16.... Okay, okay, just kidding, my eye sight disqualified me from being a pilot as well as Combat Control (which is what I wanted to do), so I appreciate what this means. Some of my closest friends are infantry or Airborne or Rangers. Me, I'll also be a "Chair Force leg" to them.

On a more serious note, the truth is that when competition is stifled, often innovation is impaired. And usually the folks who suffer the most are consumers. In the SQL Tools arena that is us. So even if we aren't specifically buying particular tools, the fact that better tools are coming to market causes improvements like SSMS and the like as well as each vendor looking to improve/upgrade the products they do sell. So this is something we all need to be aware of.

RE: Editor in Chief

Brian Lockwood — Mon, 27 Nov 2006 12:05:00 GMT

SQLBill,

as for your comments below - these are excellent

"What is needed now, and what Steve has asked for, is our thoughts, fears, and constructive comments about the sale. He now knows that:1. we are concerned that RedGate will use our email addresses to spam us2. we are concerned that there might be censorship of non-RedGate products or if RedGate products are mentioned negatively3. we are concerned that the only advertising will be RedGate's4. we think they have done a great job with this site and while we are sorry they sold it, we also acknowledge it was their right and congratulate them for it."

I didn't want to diminish the value of your "good cop" comments with my "bad cop" personna. but i think a combination of intelligent reflection and "fire and brimstone" is required to move corporate entities. they don't move on their own.

RE: Editor in Chief

Brian Lockwood — Mon, 27 Nov 2006 11:43:00 GMT

SQLBill,

see my previous reply on "sour grapes". I gotta add this to my FAQ

for comment about the sale - S, B & A could have sold it to Saddam Hussein - you are right. Nothing could be done. End of story. that's not my beef

for me offering to buy the site - like many of the backroom deals associated with RG I wasn't privy to the "back channel" in this case. I worked thru the regular SSC sales guy who apparently forgot to offer to sell the site to me (I've got a call in!). I could elaborate more on the closed bidding process RG secures for itself but I'd risk another sour grapes comment And it's probably incidental anyway.

You make some statements that I claim this, claim that - fair enough. I will post proof shortly in the form of my contract that specifies I can't compete with RG (should be clear enough). Note: DB Ghost "claimed" the same thing on a previous thread.

But you are a bit too fatalistic in terms of "we can't change anything". You can change everything. All you have to do is speak up - but singling out people commenting on this important issue for critisism doesn't really inspire a lot of others to forcefully advocate (which is really needed to effect change on the items you have mentioned). I've talked to a lot of people who just want to keep their heads down, stay out of the crossfire. They know RG is in tight with MSFT (launch partner etc) and now has significant (or total) controlling interests in two major sql sites! Some people consider that threatening and don't want to risk personal blow back. or payback long after this has died down.

If some don't want to advocate forcefully (or even care). that's fine. that's their right too. But unless I'm stating something factually incorrect - whether you like my tone (sour grapes) or not, isn't really important, and distracts from the major issues you, yourself, are trying to get accross here. Let's not throw water on the spark of free speech that is trying to ignite here. Do you really think if I shut up RG will just fully address these action items?

The only reason this thread even exists is because I started blogging about it and then Steve editorialized about it.

People can recline while RG opines - or they can speak out. I've chosen the latter.

RE: Editor in Chief

Brian Lockwood — Mon, 27 Nov 2006 11:25:00 GMT

Tim,

"If what they (RG) are doing is so offensive to you, start a competing site." While I appreciate the business advice, I don't appreciate a sql community split up into competing militias each with a private agenda of pushing their own product. If you do - my advice is to sit tight.

Nor do I appreciate the lack of disclosure and false pretenses of this deal. You call it "sour grapes" - I call it expressing my opinion that I earned carrying an M-16 for 6 years. I've had a few people flame me but for each person telling me to "shut up" politely, or not, I've got 20 thanking me for letting them know. In fact many people have found out about this sale from me.

I've kept my mouth shut for RG and watched this stuff for years. this so called "high road" resulted in a sql community totally uniformed about what really goes on. This time I spoke up. If talking up on this issue is the "low road" - let's hope this is the road most traveled going forward.

RE: Editor in Chief

Bob Hoffman-209065 — Mon, 27 Nov 2006 11:13:00 GMT

If Redgate wants to stand out, then let the site continue without interference and blocking of the their competitors advertising. Let them read the forum uncensored and learn what the community is saying and then provide product to match. This is a great opportunity for them to expand their sales if they handle it correctly and without overt pressure. Besides, I tend to ignore the ads until I need something. However, I may not know I need it until I learn about it in the forum and then I will remember those ads.

As far as competitors advertising goes, if they don't want others, they could just raise the rates until the competition doesn't want to pay. Then they can say its open to all, they just choose not to advertise here.

Of course this community would quickly see through that and at some point, a new "Steve and friends" will set up a new community elsewhere and start the process all over again and Redgate will be left behind wondering what happened.

And our beloved Steve will last be seen driving down the road in his latest new sports car with Brian and Andy in the back seat (holding on for dear life), dollar bills flying out the back and laughing all the way. Enjoy the ride guys, nothing lasts forever except for God's word.

RE: Editor in Chief

SQLBill — Mon, 27 Nov 2006 09:52:00 GMT

Brian,You might be right, you might be wrong. But as others have said, you are beginning to sound like 'sour grapes'. We have all posted our concerns and added our 'we will give RedGate a chance and see what they do with the site'. Unlike you, we realize we have no control over this site and never did. Steve, et al, owned the site and could do whatever they wanted with it - this included selling it, which they chose to do. Over the years, they listened to our comments/suggestions about this site. Sometimes they used our advice, sometimes they didn't. They have now chosen to sell THEIR site. They could have just sold it and said 'There you go, it's a done deal - live with it'. Instead they have asked us for our thoughts on the sale. They have listened and responded, but the sale still goes on. That is their choice. Did you ever offer to buy the site from them? Did you ever let them know you would be interested if they decided to sell the site? I guess you are like most of us - we like the site as long as someone else is running it (preferably the way we want it run). Now someone else owns it and none of us are sure how it will be run. RedGate could run it fairly to all and leave it as an independent site, or they could use it solely to their benefit. We, the members, will vote on the sale by either staying with the site or going elsewhere.Right now, we all know you really hate the fact that you won't be able to advertise here and that you are afraid that only RedGate will advertise here. We know you claim you don't get fair advertising on other sites and that you base what will happen here on what happened elsewhere. You might be right. But let's wait and see. We CAN'T change anything. We didn't own the site and we didn't offer to buy it if it was offered for sale. What is needed now, and what Steve has asked for, is our thoughts, fears, and constructive comments about the sale. He now knows that:1. we are concerned that RedGate will use our email addresses to spam us2. we are concerned that there might be censorship of non-RedGate products or if RedGate products are mentioned negatively3. we are concerned that the only advertising will be RedGate's4. we think they have done a great job with this site and while we are sorry they sold it, we also acknowledge it was their right and congratulate them for it.Lastly, I have made my thoughts known and will wait to see what happens with the site. Then I will make my vote. If I don't like the direction it is going - I will leave. If I continue to like the site - I will stay.-SQLBill

RE: Editor in Chief

Tim OPry — Mon, 27 Nov 2006 09:24:00 GMT

Brian,

From my perspective, your rebuttals are taking on the tone of 'sour grapes'. While it is understandable for the users of this site to be interested in the details, this is a business transaction. Steve et al, owned this site; Redgate purchased it - and can do whatever they wish. Should they do something that someone does not like, they have the option to stop using this resource and opt out of future emails. The amount of disclosure already provided on this transaction far exceeds the openness of any private transaction that I can recall.

If what they (RG) are doing is so offensive to you, start a competing site. I'm afraid that you stand to do yourself more harm than good if you continue on this course. Yes, I know you have the 'right' to post your opinions, as do I - but, it IMO the 'high road' sells much better.

Just my .02 .

RE: Editor in Chief

Brian Lockwood — Mon, 27 Nov 2006 08:58:00 GMT

I can confirm that sqlservercentral never *censored* my advertising on this site (unlike on sql-server-performance where I am restricted from running ads that compete with RG SQL Compare tools). so in this sense SSC *was* a free and open marketplace.

I had some issues with reviews in terms of who got first in line (always RG) and also the bidding process on SSC for ads was closed (for example the bottom banners were never offered). RG worked with one guy for sales (a SSC "principal" - not Steve). The rest of us got stuck with Kevin (just bustin' ya bro. much love. much love )

In terms of RG cancelling ads, all ads etc - let's be clear. They indicate they will cancel all *banners* but intend on continuing to run newsletter ads ... but of course ONLYRG newsletter ads. So some people might not pick up the nuance of "cancelling all ads" means banners only. RG purchased this site for the member list - as confirmed on "Database underground" and their own postings. They apparently plan on leveraging this investment to the fullest. How exactly they plan to do this in addition to just continuing newsletter ads we don't know - because there has been no clear and complete statement from RG ... still. do they plan to sell the list, use it for spam, use our profile info. we don't know. should we be told - yeah, I think so. a lot of other people do too.

RE: Editor in Chief

Charles Kincaid — Mon, 27 Nov 2006 08:28:00 GMT

Steve,

You said, "We have allowed vendors to 'suppress' the review." I remember reading an issue of PC Mag that had a terrible review of a product with a full page ad for that same product on the facing page.

Then there is that old quote about not being able to stand the heat in the kitchen. Surpressing bad news did not work in old Soviet Union and it, in fact, never works. When the word gets out, and it will, that a bad review was surpressed it will be an even blacker mark that the review could ever be.

RE: Editor in Chief

Steve Jones - SSC Editor — Mon, 27 Nov 2006 07:54:00 GMT

Loren,Great questions and I have no idea. We haven't gotten into the "review" process and I haven't heard of any censorship of the forums. AFAIK, I'm the only one administering this site right now, and I haven't done any.There also hasn't been any censorship of advertising. Ads still come from the various vendors to me and I load them. I only require a change when there is a technical problem (size, format, etc.), not because of content and no one at Red Gate has asked me to change ads. I'm not sure where the rumors about advertising being changed have come from, but it's not something I'd be willing to do.My understanding of the ad removal in 2007 is that all ads, including Red Gate ones, will be removed. If that changes, it will be new to me as well as you.On the reviews, just so we're clear. We've never "censored" or let an advertiser change reviews. We've contracted with authors to write one and then we give the advertiser the opportunity to review it. If they see something technically wrong or incorrectly written, they can let me know and I'll work with the author. If the author agrees to the change (maybe they did something wrong), we'll change it. We do also allow vendors to comment on the reviews, and if you check out some of them (http://www.sqlservercentral.com/columnists/dpoole/sqlexaminerreview.asp), you'll see comments in another color.We have allowed vendors to "suppress" the review. They still pay for it, so we can pay the author, but there have been a few bad reviews and we've agreed not to publish them. I know that sounds bad, and maybe it is, but we (used) to have to balance their needs with ours and yours. It's a legitimate argument that the reviewer might have a skewed viewpoint or not use the product the way it's intended. I know I've run into that and I can understand them not wanting bad press for a reason that may not be valid. Or not wanting it out there when the author refuses to change something. Or because there are enough bugs that they want to go back to development and make changes. We've never wanted to ruin someone's business.I'm not sure if that policy will continue or how reviews will change. I have a few outstanding requests out there and need to email authors to see if anyone's interested. One's a Red Gate product, but I have 2-3 others that are not.And if you want to write a review.... , email me (sjones@).

RE: Editor in Chief

Loren Moore — Mon, 27 Nov 2006 06:58:00 GMT

Steve,

I have to ask how much censoring will take place about Red Gates products when there are problems. Also, when a competitor has a better product or a competing product out before Red Gate will they censor their advertising? My opinion is to be truly independent, Red Gate or any other software provider, owner, or operator should not be allowed to restrict advertising or content as long as it is not offensive.

Loren Moore

RE: Editor in Chief

K. Brian Kelley — Sun, 26 Nov 2006 18:44:00 GMT

No fair! Since we've been talking about conspiracies, I sense a Steve conspiracy!

RE: Editor in Chief

Steve Jones - SSC Editor — Sun, 26 Nov 2006 18:24:00 GMT

Aw, thanks, Steve

RE: Editor in Chief

BeerBeerBeer — Sun, 26 Nov 2006 15:07:00 GMT

From afar and in an environment where we don't need to rely on vendor tools (at least not yet), I use this site to ask questions about HOW to do things - and to answers questions when I think I know. So long as that continues, people like myself probably won't have an issue.

Adevertising? What advertising. It must be a personal trait but I have paid no attention to any advertising. Probably becasue I'm not looking specifically for anything. Perhaps that is a little narrow minded but from my point of view, I'll pay attention to the ads when I need something. Then, Google is my friend.

As for editorials, I like to see the stuff that Steve comments on and writes about. Often it is very thought provoking and you are also allowed to draw your own conclusions. So long as that continues to happen I won't feel like this site has degraded in any way.

RE: Editor in Chief

Brian Lockwood — Sun, 26 Nov 2006 12:54:00 GMT

this is a great question

"A last parting question re: the advertising - if RedGate is justifiably confident that their products are superior to most, if not all, competitors would it not make commercial sense to take the money from ApexSQL, Idera etc and let them advertise anyway? Seems to me your competitors would be funding your acquisition of the site. "

This is a great question (and you will wait a loooooooong time to get a great answer). If Red-Gate products are so great why spend so much efforts suppressing the ability of other vendors to communicate with / give information out to customers? For example, I can't advertise my Diff tools on sql-server-performance because of an anti-competitive clause RG had SSP put in my contract. and now i won't be able to advertise here at all. or Idera, or Quest of SQLAccessories etc Red-Gate's new business model seems to be to prevent customers from even finding vendors - a heck of a lot cheaper than hiring 10 more developers to improve your software!

Why not let vendors continue to advertise at least in SSC newsletter where RG says it will continue to advertise (if "annoying" banners were such a problem)? I would continue to advertise if given the chance. But my contract was cancelled and I was simply notified.

The to this question answer is clear from the actions taken - when you find it harder and harder to compete on the merits of your software you can either invest in improving your products to become more competive, buy your competition ... or prevent people from hearing about your competition. RG has taken the latter route and their moves don't speak well for their own confidence in their products to compete directly, in an open and fair marketplace. So they have worked to close the market. Some people keep saying this is a new event, "give them the benefit of the doubt" When in fact, this is just the latest in a series of moves they have made (including silencing competition on sql-server-performance) going back several years all forming a very disturbing pattern.

How does this benefit the community?

RE: Editor in Chief

Steve Jones - SSC Editor — Sun, 26 Nov 2006 09:42:00 GMT

Thanks again for the comments. Rest assured everyone is looking these over and they will be considered before anything is changed.The email list is now in fact Red Gate's and thanks for pointing that out. I'd forgotten we had that listed. The terms of service should still be in effect and the marketing group at Red Gate (separate from publishing), shouldn't get their hands on this list.

RE: Editor in Chief

Robert Davis — Sat, 25 Nov 2006 10:45:00 GMT

My first thoughts when I read this was that it was a really great thing for those of you that built this site. You've seen your hard work turn into some real cash at alast.

It wasn't until later that day that I started wondering what changes would be in store. I must admit that my primary concern was the possibility that Red Gate would turn the SSC member list into their own personal contact/SPAM list. This is sort of the reason I stopped visiting SWUG (I signed up for one of their webcasts on SQL Server security, and it turned out to be a 1/2 hour advertisement for one of their advertisers. And to make things worse, I had to tell the vendor three times to stop calling me before they finally stopped).

RE: Editor in Chief

Grant Fritchey — Sat, 25 Nov 2006 05:58:00 GMT

I occured to me that I have at least one anecdotal story that may point to how the editorial policy may be applied. I wrote an article for Simple Talk on how we did some extensive stress testing on three different database designs. We extensively used Quest Benchmark Factory for the tests. I detailed all this in the article. They published it all without comment (well, except for cleaning up my grammar). What's more, they wanted me to write another one. At no point was there even a suggestion to remove the references to Quest.

I fully grant this is one instance out of possibly thousands, but I think it might be indicative of their intent.

RE: Editor in Chief

stevefromOZ — Fri, 24 Nov 2006 23:38:00 GMT

Ever since hearing the announcement of the sale, the business analyst side of me has been asking 'why'? I can see that the sale gives (very justified) dues to Steve, Brian and Andy but what does it give RedGate? In the light of the 'no advertising' statements (and Steve has mentioned *meaning all advertising, including RedGate's*) I am left thinking the purchase was made primarily for a very focused list of email addresses (and any other information that was provided in the 'personal' section of your profile). Let's face it, conversion of even a very small percentage of the 100k++ members would provide some return on investment.

I guess I'm a little interested to know how the Privacy Policy comes in to play, especially with respect to the 'We do not sell, rent or share any customer information' section. Another Privacy section on the site reads ' We do not under any circumstance give your email address to vendors to email you'. What happens when 'we' in this sentence is actually now referring to a vendor? Does this mean that RedGate does not own and has not bought the database of 100k+ email addresses of people that could be reasonably identified as 'interested' in SQL Server and/or supporting tools? Surely the entire DB of users was included in the transaction? I'm assuming the sale of the site as a whole would mean that the email addresses weren't sold per se more that they formed part of the goodwill of the site, however if I was at RedGate I would be reviewing the terms of use for the site and making modifications where necessary.

Since meeting Brian in 03 I've been a big fan of SSC.com (to the point of leaving other forums as they wouldn't let me post direct links back to here for the correct answers) and will continue to be until such time as the commercial interests of RedGate impact my involvement here (if they ever do). I'd like to send a personal thanks to Brian, Steve and Andy for their hard work in building such a great site and congratulations on seeing some return for this work. A last parting question re: the advertising - if RedGate is justifiably confident that their products are superior to most, if not all, competitors would it not make commercial sense to take the money from ApexSQL, Idera etc and let them advertise anyway? Seems to me your competitors would be funding your acquisition of the site.

RE: Editor in Chief

Wiztech Russ — Fri, 24 Nov 2006 18:35:00 GMT

I would just congratulate the guys who have created and maintained this site, for finally being justly rewarded for their amazing efforts.As to all the bleating about Red Gate ruining the site by turning it into an advertising forum for themselves, that would have to be a fairly stupid and shortsighted move. This site has survived because it successfully and admirably fulfilled an enormous need in the SQL community. As soon as it stops fulfilling that need I, like many others, will cancel my subscription "Voting with my feet".So I would suggest to all those screeching indignantly - get on with your life, the deal has been done. If you don't like what Red Gate does then take a leaf out of Steve's book and at the same time stick it to Red gate by Building your own successful SQL site!!SQLcentralServer.com rules

RE: Editor in Chief

Steve Jones - SSC Editor — Fri, 24 Nov 2006 17:31:00 GMT

Thanks and you'll still be able to express opinions. I think having a vendor section in the forums is a good idea and I'll work on getting something setup for discussions.As far as changing the site to reflect Red Gate's ownership. I've changed some of the copyrights on the ASP side, but the source code is under control (code behinds, etc), and in a confused state. We didn't have the best system and I'm working to get a developer at Red Gate up to speed so we can get a few bugs fixed.Not sure about the logo, I'd hate to see that changed, but I'll try to get some text up on the "About Us" section that reflects the change as well.Just to be clear, as far as I know, advertising, meaning all advertising include Red Gate's, will be removed Dec 31, or maybe Jan 2 or 3, depending on how I feel . There won't just be Red Gate ads here. Same for the newsletter, though I'm not sure how I'll rework that.Also I handle ALL advertising, including which ads run. I get them from the vendors and then load them. I have not changed ANY ads as a result of this sale. Not pulled any, not applied any "standards" or anything other type of censorship.

RE: Editor in Chief

SQLBill — Fri, 24 Nov 2006 16:07:00 GMT

Steve,Just keep up the fine work you've been doing so far. It's up to RedGate to prove that this site will remain independent. One thing I have noticed is that now that RedGate owns this site, there isn't anything on the site saying so (besides a couple of threads). The logo should be changed to reflect RedGate's ownership. Why? Because right now it makes them look more sneaky and trying to hide their ownership. People coming to this site have a right to know that it is owned by RedGate and not by the original SQLServerCentral group.-SQLBill

RE: Editor in Chief

K. Brian Kelley — Fri, 24 Nov 2006 15:07:00 GMT

I used to think the same thing, but learned that this isn't always the case. Sometimes, if we look at a tool and we like it, we can tell our management about it. If you press the case hard enough and show where the tool can be (or is) useful, you'd be surprised at how much of an impact you can make, especially if you introduce a tool to others and they start using it.

And that's partially the point of folks who are advertising on SQL Server Central. If you see the name of the tool, it'll stick with you, even if it is subconcious. But if you don't see the name at all, then they have little chance to make an impact, because companies don't tend to do elaborate source selections for a programming tool.

Case in point... one of the developers saw the PromptSQL review I did (this was before it was bought by Red Gate and renamed SQLPrompt). He shared it with the other developers where he worked and they ended up all grabbing some copies of it. He was a new employee at the company where he worked (I don't work with him) but it didn't take his management very long to agree with him. We saw the same thing where I work with DBGhost. A DBA, who has moved on to a new city and bigger and better things, introduced DBGhost in and it's a tool our DBAs now use. He first saw it as an ad on SSC.

RE: Editor in Chief

Loner — Fri, 24 Nov 2006 12:54:00 GMT

I am just a SQL Server developer. I have no power to choose products for my company so even I go to SQL Server Central everyday, I totally ignore the advertisements (sorry, Apexsql, Red Gate...). I think the majority of the community is in the same boat. I use this website to post questions and I read the article for improving my SQL server knowledge. I sometimes answer the question of the day. Lately I started writing articles.

Some of the articles or discussion people complained about microsoft products or some other products. One of the thread in this forum sometime ago was 'Tools you need', people posted different tools they used.

Steve, I wonder once RedGate in control, could you still write some thread liked that when people praised other tools they used liked DBGhost, SQLDelta. Also what if someone writes an article and complains about Red Gate products, will you post it? I remembered in one of my article or one of my my post, I said Ab Initio was just an expensive toy.

Do we still have the freedome to express our opinion?

Can we post any questions or answer any post without anyone censor it? One time my former DBA David Benoit posted a DBA job and I wrote a post to say how bad the department and the company was. He called you to delete my post but you refused. I was happy about that because in some other website, my post would be deleted. Would this still be the same in the future?

My 2 cents.

RE: Editor in Chief

Brian Lockwood — Fri, 24 Nov 2006 09:17:00 GMT

Steve,

First - I appreciate the openness (and the link!). Steve and I have gone a few rounds in the past 5 years but in the last 6 mos. SSC and ApexSQL (Steve, Kevin and myself) really seemed to be in a good groove and 2007 was looking to be a good year of collaboration. I haven't always agreed with Steve but we managed to hash things out and I felt he was at least advocating for his site - not another vendor. Our biggest incident was my complaining about Red-Gate several years ago on reviews. We got thru it although it left an indelible impression on me as to the influence Red-Gate was trying to wield on the site. To SSC's credit they managed to stiff arm Red-Gate on the majority of these attempts - most notable was the offer to pay the site to displace competive ads. This was courageous since I know SSC wasn't rolling in green at the time and could have used the windfall - it would have been real easy to take this deal and outside of SSC, Red-Gate, myself and a few other vendors no one would have known. Not sure who was involved in the decision, what the vote was etc - but the end result was that they erred on the side of ethics. Those are actions, not words - and they mean a lot.

As a side note - my biggest thrill on this site was the occaisonal time when Steve stuck it to Microsoft (i.e. why upgrade to SQL 2005?). I think I sent him congratulatory emails each time! So Steve has an estabilished pedigree of independence.

But now - it's a different world. I'm going to try and keep Steve out of my gunsights as he's not the protagonist here. And I hope he doesn't get caught up in the cross fire. My advice bro - the same as they told me in the Army "keep your head down until the Boom Boom stops".

Having said that, I wanted to comment on some things Steve said

As to your comment "As it turned out, everyone was great and willing to give Red Gate the benefit of the doubt that they had no ulterior motive. " I'm not sure about your study group but Sean McCown says almost exactly the opposite from his stint at PASS

"Red-Gate says they intend to keep it as a community site and grow it as much as they can. However, they also plan to use the membership list. I didn't ask for what purpose, because why would I? We all know they're talking about marketing. And I suppose that's their right because they bought the site, but I know they're going to lose a lot of users over it. People don't want to be cold called by anyone. Without exception, everyone I talked to said that they're worried about how things will change with a vendor in charge. "

Feedback to me is running very strongly against - so I guess it might be who you hang with or what people want to tell you directly. I would say skeptism is growing - now that we know Red-Gate plans to continue to run their newsletter ads (despite removing competitors) and also plans to review their own and competitor tools. I would re-survey these people and ask them again what they think with this addition news/context. It seems the honeymoon is ending for a lot of people.

As for this comment

"We are planning to pull advertising, at least most of the ones on the site and most of the ones in the newsletter. I'm not sure if that's a good idea because I think it's important for you to be able to find and learn about third party tools and it's important for vendors to be able to inform you of their new products."

Well, what Red-Gate has indicated is that the most of ads they plan to pull are competitor ads. And the most of the ads they plan to keep are their own! Funny how it worked out that way.

Tony Davis on Simple-Talk

"Buying SSC was a business decision and Red Gate is looking to make a return on that investment. It's true that, in the SSC newsletter, you will no longer see competitor advertising but will continue to see Red Gate tools. How big of a downside that is will be for the community to decide."

Ahhh - pretty big I would imagine unless of course you are Red-Gate. Even Steve here is publicly expressing his concern that it might not be a good idea. Add his voice to the growing chorus of public and private murmoring about this and I think we're seeing some movement of perspectives on this issue.

anyway - I was gonna give up on this a couple days ago (as I have a real job, kids etc!) but I started getting a lot of calls and emails of support telling me to keep fighting and thanking me for lending a voice to the "resistance". If I'm going to live in North Carolina I guess I gotta have Tar on my Heels. So until I'm totally satisfied (and we're getting farther away from this than closer with recent Red-Gate announcements) I'm going to continue to pound away on this issue. If you feel strongly about independent media as I do - help spread the word.

RE: Editor in Chief

Steve Jones - SSC Editor — Fri, 24 Nov 2006 08:52:00 GMT

Thanks for the comments and I definitely have some things to think about.I'd like to see more reviews, but they're tough to do. The only way I can be sure they're not being "gamed" by the vendor (paying an author to say something, writing themselves as a psuedonym, etc.) is to do them myself. However then I get into the place where I'm not sure I'm completely qualified to review all products. I don't have a heavily stressed environment, for example, so for my purposes, all the backup products would probably test well. However in a 4TB environment, they might not. Or I might not like the way a particular product does a job and it would show in my review, but then I might not be using it well and unnecessarily "trash" the product.I've given reviews a lot of thought over the years and that's one reason I don't write them. Right or wrong (probably wrong), people seemt to give my words more weight than they deserve. I don't want to negatively impact sales for someone with an ill-written word.Some of the other comments are great and I'll see about taking some of these into account. I do think advertising plays a good part in the community, if nothing else if gives you awareness. I'm still working on a plan to suggest to Red Gate for next year on this.

RE: Editor in Chief

Max-146500 — Fri, 24 Nov 2006 07:49:00 GMT

I agree with your comments Karma, just as buying a car, the responsibility is your own.

Without getting philosophical though, a lot of our reality is constructed for us and even if one has the confidence to decide that something is not as it should be; what is that founded on and what can be done to change it?

Advertising (and in this case the potential for the corrosion of impartiality) aims to skewer our perspective on things. Not all re advertising is bad, of course. I have no animosity to those in advertising; they're only trying to succeed in their industry. Before one makes clear the responsibility of a consumer though one should make clear the responsibility of the supplier, in an ideal world that is.

RG have put in a half-harted effort to assure us of their intentions but they have no responsibility to make clear all of them and in particular enter into a contract with us as to what exactly they intend to do with our contact details and contributions (intellectual property we submitted under the auspices of SSC).

In these and other respects a lot of people feel disappointed in SSC - it's not just about independence and impartiality. RG have bought SSC (and not as minority investor) and they will do with it as they please.

Still I wish to use the site and hope none of my somewhat-paranoid-delusions materialise.

RE: Editor in Chief

Wayne-153714 — Fri, 24 Nov 2006 07:09:00 GMT

I don't really care about adverts - I usually just ignore them and focus on the content.What I do care about is the articles people post, and whether this will be censored. For example, I found a nice tool from Quest on which I have been planning to write a review article. Will I be allowed to publish this article?If it is published (assuming of course it is of a high enough standard), and receives the same publicity it would in the past, then I am satisfied Red-Gate has allowed editorial freedom.Until then, I will keep my options open and give the team the benefit of the doubt. Don't cry wolf...

RE: Editor in Chief

Tim OPry — Fri, 24 Nov 2006 07:09:00 GMT

Interesting thread and kudos for posting the reference to Brian's and Phil's blogs. Phil's points on the reality of editorial freedom is right on point - I have experienced this first hand as a vendor/advertiser and have had it work both for and against me.

The level of your independence is yet to be determined - regardless of the reality, the perception of the community - will be the reality, and that will vary by individual and as time and circumstance dictate. As long as I derive value (and sometimes entertainment) from this resource, I will be a regular visitor.

One area that you may consider (that I have not found elsewhere) is a compendium of available products from any source along with any reviews (direct and linked) that might be available. Any vendor could post product information within reasonable guidelines and anyone could link reviews and write feedback on them. Ideally the products are categorized and searchable within this area - something 'Wiki-like' that allows the vendors the maintain the basic product info and others to submit user experience, questions, feedback, etc. If something like this already exists, I would appreciate a link to it.

Currently, I do the usual Google search of certain keywords, check a few known sites to find products that have features I need then begin looking for independent reviews. If the vendor has an online support forum that is always one of my first stops. Still, finding and evaluating products is very time consuming - anything that can serve as repository would be a valuable resource to the community.

Best wishes for the holidays and continued success with this site.

RE: Editor in Chief

Karma-343206 — Fri, 24 Nov 2006 06:20:00 GMT

As a new comer to this site I didn't feel it was necessary to make any comment either way on the issue of the sale or the possible ramifications to editorial independence. However one thought struck me at the time and I thought it might be worth raising. As a new user of SQL Server I did extensive research into the product before deciding that this was the right one for me. I read articles and books, talked to friends, colleagues and acquaintances and generally did my homework; I’m a thorough type of person and probably no different to 99.9% of people in the IT industry when it comes to looking for solutions to business needs. Advertising does sway our choices evidenced by the fact that companies are willing to spend money on it. However, if we are doing our jobs properly we should make informed choices and that behooves us to look at more than one source for our information. If people fail to make the correct decisions when they buy a product that supports their business requirements then they and their business are at a disadvantage, a disadvantage that others will be more than happy to exploit.

In a free market there will always be an outlet for advertising £'s. If Red Gate were to close the doors on competitors advertising or remove editorial independence it would only be a matter of time before an outlet was found for that money and copy. The fate of many a Goliath is to be slain by a David of his own making.

RE: Editor in Chief

Grant Fritchey — Fri, 24 Nov 2006 05:45:00 GMT

As to how independent should you be, how independent can you be. I'm not talking about Red Gate, I'm talking about Microsoft. Personally, where Microsoft leads, I follow. Not because I've got some faith in the company, its leadership or their products, but because they've, indirectly, paid me a lot of money over the years. So, I critique them but I follow along behind them none the less.

I suspect you'll be as independent as you can be. Some may see that as comprimised and others will be more realistic. I guess the occasional critical comment or review of Red Gate will probably be enough to demonstrate that editorial policy is not slanted their way. At some point, certainly not currently, they'll come out with some totally boneheaded product which will richly deserve a fierce beating about the face & neck. Don't hold back. I don't think much more can be asked of you.