Morning

Morning

m

Morning

anyone know offhand if the links to individual chat messages benefit at all from the hashtag + message id prepended a the end?

seems like stripping the hash + num doesn't hurt anything and if i can make my links shorter then.... 🤷‍♂️

@PeterVandivier related - i love using 5 dollar words incorrectly

I don't think it will change anything

does it onebox though?

apparently

@Jacksaystrytopanswers.xyz hi Jack :), yep it was me

Anyone knows a mod at SQLServerCentral.com?

I wrote a simple script time ago, but now it seems someone else has took the property. sqlservercentral.com/scripts/…

@McNets Not trying to say anything, just would like to point out that the other person originally submitted their post a few days before you (2014-04-30 vs 2014-05-04). It might be tricky to prove your ownership because of that

@AndriyM jmagnet is @McNets

@AndriyM Try to follow the link on: Comments posted to this topic are about the item List all the fields of a table with its properties + PK

@TomV-TeamMonica Yes, that's what I thought too. Jmagnet's post is from May 4, 2014, ilemberg's is said to be from 2014-05-23 but first published 2014-04-30

Well, I've sent a mail to the webmaster.

@McNets It says, "Page not found", for me

@AndriyM Exactly

@McNets I'm not sure I understand what that means. Do you mean it was an even older post/topic?

@AndriyM yes

Personally I wouldn't waste much time on a script I posted somewhere 6 years ago

Hi janis.l.murphy
I've modified the script as you suggested.
Thanks for your work.
May 26, 2014 at 3:11 am

May, 26

@TomV-TeamMonica yep

That's still later than 2014-04-30 though

@AndriyM yes

whatever

I was trying to post an answer here.

Personally I believe you, just saying it might be tricky to prove because of the dates. But maybe the linked thread will help

strange, those comments are linked at the bottom of this page as well sqlservercentral.com/scripts/…

Could be related to the fact the link in McNets's post is broken. Maybe something happened and some part of the content was lost, and when they tried restoring references they didn't manage restore everything correctly. They might even be aware of that and ready to accept ownership claims. Pure speculation, of course, but it's possible.

@MaxVernon I've seen your comments, thank you

cool

thanks, by the way. my original answer was, well, dumb.

classic example of over thinking it, I suppose.

Not dumb. Overthought, maybe. Very straightforward and clear, though (to me anyway). The kind where taking a fresh look at it helps you to see quickly what can be improved without thinking too long what it's about in the first place.

yah, true.