InstantForum.NET v4.1.4SQLServerCentralhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/notifications@sqlservercentral.comFri, 19 Mar 2010 03:59:07 GMT20http://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic626227-263-1.aspxHere are some additional sections (revised):-Upgrade (to latest release)-Data Access Layer (LINQ, ADO.NET, ODBC, JDBC, RBAR marshalling)-Conversion (to/from non-Microsoft SQL Server DBMS)-Schema Design (logical & physical)-SQL questions & solutions-XML storage and access-3rd Party Tools (other than SQL Server's own tools)Performance Tuning can be broken down into:-System & Network Configuration & Tuning-DBMS Parameter Tuning-Datafile Placement Tuning-Storage Array Tuning-Physical Schema Tuning, Indexes, Index Views & Denormallization-Application SQL & Query Plan Tuning-Data Access Layer Tuning (connection pool, marshalling)The danger in breaking down performance tuning in this way is that individuals may focus on only one way of tuning (sub-topic) to the exclusion of all other methods. Mon, 05 Jan 2009 13:53:45 GMTSteven.Wrighthttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic626227-263-1.aspxWhile I'm not a terribly active poster/responder I also use Gmail for this functionality and I'd have to agree it works really well.-Luke.Mon, 05 Jan 2009 13:13:35 GMTLuke Lhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic626227-263-1.aspxGmail handles these really nicely for me.I have a label defined for them, so they are all off in their own "folder". And gmail automatically collects multiple notifications for the same thread into one "group" message for me so I only have to read once, link to the thread once, and then delete it once. NICE.This way, when I am online I get near immediate (delay is a minute or two) notification of new replies, so I can read & respond right away. But if I am working or otherwise unable to track things, it neatly pulls them together so that instead of 230 reply notices to one of the "commentary" threads, I just get one grouped message with a count of "(230)" attached to it. Makes it really easy to catch up later on.Really NICE.I encourage you frequent responders (and lurkers) to try it.Mon, 05 Jan 2009 13:03:44 GMTRBarryYounghttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic626227-263-1.aspxIt would be 24, or maybe not. Depends on the activity in your forums. I go hours without any replies sometimes, but then I'll be like Charles and get 40 when I go run for 20 minutes.Richer options are definitely something I'd like to see as well.Mon, 05 Jan 2009 11:30:32 GMTSteve Jones - Editorhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic626227-263-1.aspx[quote][b]Ninja's_RGR'us (1/5/2009)[/b][hr][quote][b]Steve Jones - Editor (1/5/2009)[/b][hr]I've logged a note. Personally I think I'd like an hourly email rather than 20-30 a day.[/quote]Doesn't that make 24 e-mails a day anyways? :w00t:[/quote]As opposed to the 11 that I got during the local noon hour on last Monday from this one thread alone.One email per hour that said, "You have new posts in the following thread(s): " with the the thread title, number of new posts, and a link to the first unread. Just 24 of those in a day would speed up my reading and handling the [b]onslaught[/b] of replies a good thread, like this one, brings. ;)Mon, 05 Jan 2009 11:17:19 GMTCharles Kincaidhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic626227-263-1.aspx[quote][b]Steve Jones - Editor (1/5/2009)[/b][hr]I've logged a note. Personally I think I'd like an hourly email rather than 20-30 a day.[/quote]Doesn't that make 24 e-mails a day anyways? :w00t:Mon, 05 Jan 2009 11:02:10 GMTNinja's_RGR'ushttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic626227-263-1.aspxI'd like to see richer notification options. If instant forums hasnt changed much you can handle the queuing via a trigger and implement your own queue/notification process and stay pretty abstracted.Mon, 05 Jan 2009 10:39:11 GMTAndy Warrenhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic626227-263-1.aspxI've logged a note. Personally I think I'd like an hourly email rather than 20-30 a day.Mon, 05 Jan 2009 10:14:50 GMTSteve Jones - Editorhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic626227-263-1.aspxFWIW, I am very happy with how notifications work now.Sun, 04 Jan 2009 19:40:58 GMTRBarryYounghttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic626227-263-1.aspxOh, and we've talked about notifications. It's a bit tricky to do this since the system on which it's based doesn't have a lot of room for changes. I would like to see these go out once and hour or so and a list of all items in there. Really RSS does this if you subscribe to threads, but that can be a lot of subscriptions and it's a pain to manage.I'll add that one to the list.Sun, 04 Jan 2009 17:26:09 GMTSteve Jones - Editorhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic626227-263-1.aspxActive Threads used to be one way we found low-reply items. The other was a job that ran once a day and "reposted" a note to threads with no replies that we'll take another look. That might be a job I need to institute again and have it kick those items back into Active Threads.I do like the view of stuff with no replies. Not sure if you can search for those, but I'll look around and see.The problem with GUI changes is that we then have to rewrite a lot of forum code to make things work. The basics of the forums don't allow a lot of changes, but I'm trying to get someone to talk with InstantForums on a regular basis about stuff like this.Sun, 04 Jan 2009 17:24:32 GMTSteve Jones - Editorhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic626227-263-1.aspxI'll be the third vote for having a page for posts with 0 replies. When there is nothing I want to answer in Active Threads I go through the forums sorting by number of replies ascending and answer the 0's and 1's if I have any clue or just to ask a question. This puts them in the Active Threads list and many times they get other responses because of that.Sat, 03 Jan 2009 10:05:00 GMTJack Corbetthttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic626227-263-1.aspxHey, I really like that idea, Dugi!Sat, 03 Jan 2009 09:35:55 GMTRBarryYounghttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic626227-263-1.aspxLong discussion here... just another one thing here is that it would be better to have one link to collect the threads with zero reply! Thnx!:w00t:Sat, 03 Jan 2009 01:04:41 GMTDugihttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic626227-263-1.aspxThis might be a completely different subject but I'd like to ask whether it is possible to change the way the notifications are done. I cannot always check my e-mail all the time and when after a day I do then my mailbox is full of notifications on one subject. Now, I know I can ask not to be notified but I don't quite want to do that. When a thread gets a lot of posts like this one, then there is a lot of notifications. What about an extra option to get one notification per day per thread?Fri, 02 Jan 2009 13:14:48 GMTManie Versterhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic626227-263-1.aspxIf changes are in the offing, could we have an option to get all the RSS feeds under a group as well as the ones for each forum?Fri, 02 Jan 2009 10:16:16 GMTNicholas Cainhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic626227-263-1.aspxAre you glad there is so much feed back on this topic?!!Fri, 02 Jan 2009 10:15:47 GMTDPhillips-731960http://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic626227-263-1.aspx[quote][b]Steve Jones - Editor (1/2/2009)[/b][hr]Yikes, you're giving me more forums!I like the Challenges. We have a "contests" one, but I'll rename it to Challenges/Contests.I'm not sure how much work is involved in anything other than renaming/combining forums. And we have other, higher priority items.[/quote]I was wondering how you would receive those extra forum suggestions... heh!But, like my original suggestion, why limit? Tag it, flag it, meta-data-size it, and let GUI be user driven! :w00t: You can still keep the original "preferred" structure to the site, and still allow a user flexible customization of grouping and sorting the browsing experience.Fri, 02 Jan 2009 10:14:26 GMTDPhillips-731960http://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic626227-263-1.aspxYikes, you're giving me more forums!I like the Challenges. We have a "contests" one, but I'll rename it to Challenges/Contests.I'm not sure how much work is involved in anything other than renaming/combining forums. And we have other, higher priority items.Fri, 02 Jan 2009 10:07:09 GMTSteve Jones - Editorhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic626227-263-1.aspxHere are some additional sections:-Upgrade (to latest release)-Data Access Layer (LINQ, ADO.NET, ODBC, JDBC, marshalling)-Conversion (to/from non-SQL Server DBMS)-Schema DesignPerformance Tuning can be broken down into:-System & Network Configuration & Tuning-DBMS Parameter Tuning-Datafile Placement Tuning-Storage Array Tuning-Physical Schema Tuning, Indexes, Index Views & Denormallization-Application SQL & Query Plan Tuning-Data Access Layer Tuning (connection pool, marshalling)The danger in breaking down performance tuning in this way is that individuals may focus on only one way of tuning (sub-topic) to the exclusion of all other methods.Fri, 02 Jan 2009 08:00:50 GMTSteven.Wrighthttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic626227-263-1.aspx[quote][b]Manie Verster (1/2/2009)[/b][hr][quote][b]RBarryYoung (1/1/2009)[/b][hr]I can't imagine why? "Challenge" doesn't imply that anyone is going to reply anytime soon.Maybe "Puzzles & Challenges"?[/quote]Sounds like a good idea. I just think that it must be as challenging as possible and people must really do some research before they answer and maybe be asked to tell us how they came to that answer and not just give an answer. What do think about that?[/quote]I don't think that's a bad idea, but isn't that sort of what the articles are supposed to be? I know that's largely how I work them. Two or three paragraphs is a post, 4-6 paragraphs goes to the blog, >6 goes to Steve.However, I do agree with Jeff, marking it as Challenge or even Puzzle, is likely to bring in those favorite posts of everyone, "I need an answer immediately." Maybe call it "Testing Results" or "Testing the Engine" or "Testing a Hypothesis" or something along those lines.Thinking about it some more, I also agree with GSquared, the Performance Tuning and TSQL forums could be combined. You're likely to see a bunch of posts about indexes mixed in with the TSQL though.Fri, 02 Jan 2009 05:43:38 GMTGrant Fritcheyhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic626227-263-1.aspx[quote][b]RBarryYoung (1/1/2009)[/b][hr]I can't imagine why? "Challenge" doesn't imply that anyone is going to reply anytime soon.Maybe "Puzzles & Challenges"?[/quote]Sounds like a good idea. I just think that it must be as challenging as possible and people must really do some research before they answer and maybe be asked to tell us how they came to that answer and not just give an answer. What do think about that?Fri, 02 Jan 2009 01:15:32 GMTManie Versterhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic626227-263-1.aspxThat reminds me, I really do think that we should have "sticky" posts for the Forums. (moderator-only, obviously) In my experience, it has been really helpful for keeping the ground rules & FAQs for a forum.Thu, 01 Jan 2009 12:13:06 GMTRBarryYounghttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic626227-263-1.aspxI can't imagine why? "Challenge" doesn't imply that anyone is going to reply anytime soon.Maybe "Puzzles & Challenges"?Thu, 01 Jan 2009 12:09:22 GMTRBarryYounghttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic626227-263-1.aspxI think everyone would abuse a "Challenges" forum... might as well label it the "Urgent" forum. :DThu, 01 Jan 2009 12:00:49 GMTJeff Modenhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic626227-263-1.aspxYou know, as long as we are on the subject: One thing that I would really like to see is a "Challenges" forum. Someplace were one of us could post a challenge or problem like "What's the fastest way to do a GROUP BY JOIN".It may not get a lot of threads, but it would probably get a ton of posts per thread, and would serve as convenient way to go back and find clever ways to implement certain tasks.Wed, 31 Dec 2008 14:42:52 GMTRBarryYounghttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic626227-263-1.aspx[quote]I like the idea of compressing the forums down and having either a checkbox or dropdown list on the Thread Header / Title that asks for a version. This way people don't have to think about adding the version into the actual verbage of the post.Sort of like:SUBJECT: ____________ VERSION: (Dropdown List)DESCRIPTION: _____________MESSAGE: Then the forum code could prepend the version to the title. Example, "Insert Error - Duplicate Key" might be someone's title and then the version would be SQL 2000. So in the forum, you'd see "SQL 2000: Insert Error - Duplicate Key". That way people could search on the SQL 2000 or SQL 2005, etc. threads within the forums. [/quote]I like this idea because it should make cleaning up the forums so much easier. Too many drill downs is going to make it a bit hairy in the forums and when the version is forced then when someone selects the wrong version it is their own fault. This was my first idea the moment I read the article.Wed, 31 Dec 2008 13:38:11 GMTManie Versterhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic626227-263-1.aspxI like the idea of consolidating forums. I think keeping 2005 and 2008 together would work just fine.I would, however, simplify the number of subjects within those. Performance Tuning and T-SQL are (more often than not) both applicable for the same questions. I've spent a lot of time in both of those helping people rewrite queries. If the performance tuning is more about indexes and hints and so on, and T-SQL is more about what various functions do and so on, then it would make sense. But the majority of the questions I see in both areas are "my proc doesn't do what I need to, how do I fix it?", whether that need is speed or results.On the point of a "newbies" forum, I kind of like it. A person is a newbie as long as they consider themselves one. I have to admit, I'm a bit more forgiving of simple errors in that forum than I would be in other ones, and I spend more time explaining each step of my answers in there. (Not that I've posted enough recently, but when I do, I do handle that forum slightly differently.) In the "regular" forums, I might say, "you can handle that with scope_identity", while in the newbies forum, I'll actually write sample code with comments, on the assumption that the person asking the original question may have no slightest clue how to use scope_identity.But I do think that clearing up the forum topics might help with cross-posting. I'd put everything regarding writing procs/scripts/views/functions, designing tables, creating constraints, figuring out indexes, etc., in one, and split up administration into sub-sections (data corruption, backups, security, et al). SSIS, third-party tools, CLR, Reporting Services, etc., could be separate too. But I'd definitely go with one forum for all design and coding issues except CLR. All the places where we always have to ask for the DDL before we can answer the questions.Wed, 31 Dec 2008 13:25:05 GMTGSquaredhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic626227-263-1.aspxActually, I like the adjustable display idea too.But it does seem like an awful lot of code to rewrite in order to get it working to begin with.Wed, 31 Dec 2008 12:51:27 GMTBrandie Tarvinhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic626227-263-1.aspxI think dphillips has an interesting idea. The meta data is there, why does it drive the display for everyone.That's a fairly major change, and one that I'm not sure we can do now, but I'll debate it a bit and see if we can open a dialog with the InstantASP people.Wed, 31 Dec 2008 12:22:21 GMTSteve Jones - Editorhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic626227-263-1.aspxI think that organizing by version and function is the best way to approach this, however I think that the submission process is where the most benefit will be had.Instead of having someone post to a particular forum provide a page for new items.On that page you can have drop downs for SQL version, type of question or issue (for example backups, administration, t-sql programming), etc...Force the user to fill in certain of those values, and based upon those answers post to the appropriate forum. This will help keep things clean, prevent cross postings, and can guide folks to the best place to get answers. This would be especially useful for newbies, who could easily get confused by the setup.Wed, 31 Dec 2008 10:18:51 GMTNicholas Cainhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic626227-263-1.aspxI definitely think that organizing by function instead of version makes a lot more sense. Much of the information is generic for many versions, so why duplicate it on several forums? To satisfy those who want the version information, how about a line of check boxes along the bottom with one check box per version (plus 'any version') and the same arrangement on the search dialog. That would satisfy all parties I think.Wed, 31 Dec 2008 02:06:20 GMTJohn Muirhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic626227-263-1.aspx[quote][b]Grant Fritchey (12/30/2008)[/b][hr]It may be clunky, but there is a lot of clarity of information by seperating it into discrete buckets (even though the buckets are a bit abused by some of the posters).[/quote]Not bashing the buckets, just the flexibility. Of course we need "buckets". The buckets just don't have to be the same layout for everyone. Store the meta data (bucketizing info) with the OP and allow the end user to modify a default view of the forums to suit needs. Why lock the GUI to one tree?Tue, 30 Dec 2008 13:32:53 GMTDPhillips-731960http://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic626227-263-1.aspxIt may be clunky, but there is a lot of clarity of information by seperating it into discrete buckets (even though the buckets are a bit abused by some of the posters).Tue, 30 Dec 2008 12:51:35 GMTGrant Fritcheyhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic626227-263-1.aspx[quote][b]Peter Schott (12/30/2008)[/b][hr]Sounds an awful lot like MS' USENET group structure.[/quote]Which is why the whole BBS style forums feel clunky to me. We've only made access to the web faster, but the forum format as a whole is outdated. This is meta data, and should not rule the structure of OPs.Tue, 30 Dec 2008 12:05:37 GMTDPhillips-731960http://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic626227-263-1.aspxSounds an awful lot like MS' USENET group structure. I personally like the simplicity, but you may want to consider keeping some way of specifying a version or versions. One of the earlier posters suggested a version dropdown that would be required - maybe even set at the profile level so people don't have to remember it once it's been set. I kind of like the simplicity myself and a lot of SQL questions tend not to be too version specific. However, there are definitely times that the version matters quite a bit so we need a way to discern that and/or filter it.Tue, 30 Dec 2008 07:46:31 GMTPeter Schotthttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic626227-263-1.aspxI typically Use the Active threads or Recent Posts lists when I'm looking for questions to answer.If I have a question to post, I attempt to scroll through the forums list looking for the appropriate forum, however at times, I find it difficult to find the correct one. Lately I've had a number of questions about SSRS as I'm trying to get a good hold of how it all works, but do I post in 2005|BI, or SSRS|Development or SSRS|Adminsitration or just the General SSRS Forum sometimes it all sort of blends together depending on what I'm trying to accomplish.Tue, 30 Dec 2008 07:23:14 GMTLuke Lhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic626227-263-1.aspxDepending on how busy I am, I do one of two things.I either pick posts from the daily newsletter to respond to or I go into the forums directly (especially if I'm posting my own question to that forum) and look for posts I can answer that have less than 2 or 3 replies.I honestly have never looked at the Active Threads list. And there are days where I just open up the Forums page (I have it bookmarked) and browse through it as a whole. So, for me, the consolidation with versions prepended would be easier. Tue, 30 Dec 2008 06:42:38 GMTBrandie Tarvinhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic626227-263-1.aspx[quote][b]RBarryYoung (12/29/2008)[/b][hr]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.[/quote]I generally work off of only subscribed forums. I put the RSS feeds into Outlook and I gather the posts from there. I have to go & look to see if the existing taxonomy has changed every so often in case theres a different forum I want to participate in. I'd probably have to change that approach based on what we've been discussing so far.Tue, 30 Dec 2008 05:44:52 GMTGrant Fritcheyhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic626227-263-1.aspxHello,As others have stated, it is important to know which version the Original Poster is referring to. If different versions will be dealt with within the same forum, then the previously mentioned idea of a drop down list would be a big help, especially if it defaults to the currently most popular version. At least, if the Original Poster does not select the relevant option, then they only have themselves to blame if the answers are not appropriate for their version.Regards,John MarshMon, 29 Dec 2008 19:25:33 GMTJohn H Marsh