@MikaelEriksson thanks for letting me know. If I'm not around you can always use an other flag on one of their posts explaining what the user is doing.
(tr.im was a URL shortener that became quickly popular in 2008-09 time frame, then couldn't handle the load, needed more money, and went flat. Then they came back but they wiped out a bunch of stuff I guess - maybe users, maybe custom links only, not sure. Need to do more clean-up I suspect.)
Actually Community Server doesn't even have a way for me to search my own posts for tr.im - does anyone know how to make this Google search work? Currently it converts tr.im to trim.
site:sqlblog.com +"link:http://tr.im/"
It finds one (not a post of mine) but a bunch of false positives.
Disclaimer: I'm around intermediate with my t-sql knowledge, but this problem is beyond my scope of understanding.
Here is the big picture of my problem.
I'm trying to use an ORM with a table that doesn't have a defined schema at compile time. Columns can be added and removed from this table....
Would it be feasible/possible to call a table-function that calls a sproc that creates a temporary table, then read that table in the function and call that function in the view? — Smeegs35 secs ago
There are some ways they could do this - they could use OPENQUERY and a loopback linked server to join to the output of the stored procedure, or the stored procedure could populate a #temp table that could be joined against.
But still it's very tedious, cumbersome, error-prone, and not likely something this user should attempt.
A little over-reaction about a down-vote (wasn't me by the way).
You consider one down-vote "such a negative response" and it must mean your question is "incredibly stupid"? It's the Internet, and a down-vote is 2 measly Unicorn points on some web site. You got your answer, right? Stop dwelling on meaningless things you can't control anyway. — Aaron Bertrand22 secs ago
I'm getting really sick of finding folks arguing about votes, only to see that the bickering started with a comment of the form,
-1, because [some perfectly reasonable criticism]
As has been discussed many times, voting is anonymous for a reason; folks who give up that anonymity do so at th...
MULTIPLE SERVERS
MULTIPLE DATA SOURCES
DEstination -SINGLE SQL TABLE
PLS let me know which controls will be used & how to connect multiple servers and multiple data sources in SSIS?
Thanks & Regards
@bluefeet what kinds of arguments? so they just want people to leave comments that look like insults instead of explanations as to why they downvoted? sounds like a greater recipe for argument than what currently exists.
what do we expect from pond scum, though. the primordial soup that is SO
I think @HansPassant is on to an idea there. What if instead of blocking +1/-1 comments, you just randomly flipped the sign? — Bill the Lizard ♦Nov 19 at 19:10
It was ok. I'm in the lame duck session right now, but it's kind of nice to make a recommendation and forward the email on for someone else to have to deal with.
I am going with BlueGranite
it will be fun. Good people, work form home, a little travel.
I've already had 3 of them message me to say congrats and welcome and I don't even start until next wednesday
@swasheck As soon as you tell someone you downvoted them, the chances of your criticisms being taken constructively plummet. Some folks get very upset about downvotes. Not just new users either, and definitely not just on SO. Some of the worst examples of bad behavior I've observed anywhere on the network have started with a comment that states or implies "I downvoted you".
In fact I usually preface such criticisms with "Not my down vote, but..." even when I did down vote. Because the vengeful behavior can be far worse than not down-voting at all.
If an answer is wrong, dangerous, or just less useful than others... A downvote serves as a signal to other readers. Regardless of whether or not the author ever learns anything or bothers to correct it, that signal remains. The combined voting of informed readers is what allows multiple answers to work at all - without that, we're no better off than a site like Everything2
The main problem is that no matter what you say, if you say anything, you will be presumed to be the down-voter (or the cause of the down-votes). I up-voted your suggestion shog but I don't think it's the solution. If you're trying to remove vengeful behavior and keep the signal, I think there needs to be some type of anonymous comment. Perhaps requiring a certain rep, and maybe it needs to be peer vetted as well (also by members with a certain rep, but possibly lower).
@AaronBertrand oh, it's not a solution to anything; I'll write up my findings later today, but the tl;dr is that it helps the most for comments that were never going to be useful, and doesn't accomplish much at all for authors that were already mostly on the right track.
I've stopped caring about the vengeful behavior (gets all too predictable) but I'd bet that if you took an anonymous survey of 100 higher-rep SO users, I bet 75 or more would say they down-vote without commenting because the drama isn't worth it.
Folks spend time in pointless arguments that they could spend teaching/learning. Moderators spend time cleaning up comments and quieting arguments that they could spend doing almost anything else with much more long-term benefit. Mods and commenters spend time arguing about moderator actions... SE Team spends time defending moderators... It's all just a huge time-suck.
If people were able to identify in some way why the bad answer is a bad answer, without fear of retribution, a lot of those pointless arguments might disappear.
They almost always start with "Who down-voted, and why?" M.Ali was the worst for a while. We've drilled it into him to not care, and the quality of his answers has gone up, but there are still tons of users just like him.
The worst part is, there's no way to fix comments that won't make a huge number of people desperately unhappy. The +/-1 thing is just a tiny tip of the iceberg; relatively few people even do that on a regular basis, but look how upset they get when they can't! Imagine the uproar if we changed how comment moderation worked.
I know. Acknowledgement that they're not perfect is a good start. In the past I've brought some of these points up and the reaction on meta is basically "the current system is perfect, how dare you suggest changes, shut up and start liking it"
You may have noticed I've all but stopped even visiting meta. It's mostly a bunch of dick size contests.
I almost wonder if part of the solution is rationing comments. You get 1 for each post you write or vote you cast per day, and if you use 'em up you get no more until 0:00 UTC. Wanna get into a long argument over something? Great - better go vote or write some answers then, and see if you still feel it's that important.
Explaining why an answer is bad requires motivation. Right now there is none - it's all demotivational. Down-vote? Lose 1 rep. Comment? Become a target of retribution. Lose-lose.
I am converting an Oracle CLOB defined field to SQL Max defined field. My input Oracle CLOB defined field contains datat larger than 8000 bytes for example SSIS brings in a field with 85,000 characters but only converts 100 bytes. In the SSIS Data Flow Advanced Editor the OLE DB Source Output Ext...
Even up-votes on comments don't get you squat, a silly badge on measures in bulk. Not that daring to suggest that an answer might be inferior gets you a ton of up-votes on your comment either.
For all the whining about it, I honestly think folks are too prone to explaining votes right now. Subtle bug that'll go unnoticed if you don't say anything? Great! A poorly-formatted answer with no explanation? You probably don't need to bother; it's obvious to anyone who cares.
It's on meta where comments make the most sense - it is intended to be a discussion forum at least part of the time. Of course, look where that gets us: comment threads get down-right poisonous in a hurry, and a lot of folks don't care to even get involved.
it's the main reason why i avoid SO. i dont have a whole lot to contribute (relatively speaking), but there's honestly no incentive for me to go there and try to help someone. it's like a classroom full of kindergartners who smear poop on the walls and when you try to tell them that they shouldnt do that, the administration comes in and tells you to knock it off.
@swasheck gamification and caring are orthogonal at best: extrinsic vs intrinsic motivation. At worst, gamification actively reduces caring. You don't make someone care more about something by turning it into a game; they just start caring about the game instead.
TL;DR: Stack Exchange favors standard, fast, and complete answers at the expense of novel, creative, and excellent answers. This bias results directly from reputation ratings, badges and other extrinsic motivations, which form the core of the system and can not be removed. Therefor, the quality o...
@Shog9 i just dont understand why there's such retaliation and retribution toward people who dont care about points and do care about quality. whatever. your employer, toe the line.
and sorry if i'm being an asshole here. my sis-in-law is deteriorating from massive brain surgery and some internet f-stick cries about losing two points? gfy whiny asshats.
@swasheck Oh...now I'm sad. I'm sorry to hear that, while unfortunately not some form of magic or anything by any means, best wishes to everyone involved. :/
@TimStone that is a real problem. You will always have people who are too lazy to search, no matter how easy you make it. But searching is hard. I know the system and it is much easier for me to comment on a question than go find the duplicate.
Yeah, something is broken there @Iain - I've tried to figure out why, but not seeing it; need to enlist the help of the guy who wrote it. Will get back to you on that... — Shog9 ♦23 secs ago
@TimStone I once advocated a vote to open approach, where users below a certain rep had to have their question voted to actually go live. Heavily incentivize the queue to make it work fast, but that would eliminate a lot of the shit.
I've suspected this for a while, but it's blatantly obvious in certain tags on SF: the list should be common dup-targets based on tags; instead it's empty.
@Shog9 I seem to recall the sentiment toward it when I brought it up was far less positive. But going back to the search problems, I can't even find the discussion now.
@AaronBertrand I wonder how one would incentivize that properly. You'd need tags like "Harsh Justice" for those who reject questions as well as "pushover" for those who let everything in just so they get the 'cheevos
@billinkc but we already have that same thing in the review queue, and I don't know how often it really is a problem - for a terrible question to go live it would require multiple robo-reviewers converging. And if a bad post accidentally went live, ok, it's still subject to the same VtC options it has today.
@AaronBertrand oh, it's completely unworkable, but it's not crazy. The core idea is that we need a way to vet questions before they're thrown in front of everyone; we do need that, and that's do-able in some fashion.
Oh, the Triage badge. Only to those with good standing, 20k maybe. They get to review the new questions and after checking N, they get a shiny Platinum badge and then you can badge the actual disposition: treated versus turfed.
Having "ER" flashbacks now. An ex got me hooked on the show.
So the problem is, even the best algorithms have pretty hefty false positive/negative rates. Even those that don't get confused by folks who inexplicably write their code all in caps.
Yeah, right?... -_- . It's almost as bad as big name tech continuing to disregard known security exploits because the cost to fix them out weighs the cost of the fallout. Yet, here I am trying to do my part. — Cameron49 mins ago
@MaxVernon I guess that means the death of untold lives is less than EE licensing and/or increased disk capacity. Pity too, lives these days are just falling in price. In my day, a life would buy you a steak and kidney pie, a cup of coffee, a slice of cheesecake and a newsreel. With enough change left over to ride the trolley from Battery Park to the polo grounds. — billinkc46 secs ago
Please don't. You don't want replication. It's a data distribution technology: it's not suitable for HA. Just to name one of the many shortcomings of using replication for HA, you won't have automatic failover (which seems to be a requirement) and you'll need to code it yourself.
If you need HA,...
Disclaimer: I'm around intermediate with my t-sql knowledge, but this problem is beyond my scope of understanding.
Here is the big picture of my problem.
I'm trying to use an ORM with a table that doesn't have a defined schema at compile time. Columns can be added and removed from this table....
I'm getting really sick of finding folks arguing about votes, only to see that the bickering started with a comment of the form,
-1, because [some perfectly reasonable criticism]
As has been discussed many times, voting is anonymous for a reason; folks who give up that anonymity do so at th...
MULTIPLE SERVERS
MULTIPLE DATA SOURCES
DEstination -SINGLE SQL TABLE
PLS let me know which controls will be used & how to connect multiple servers and multiple data sources in SSIS?
Thanks & Regards
