Re: A proper FAQ - Wish fulfillment

Hi Howard,

Comments embedded.

"Howard J. Rogers" <howardjr2000_at_yahoo.com.au> wrote in message news:pan.2003.03.09.23.43.37.951766_at_yahoo.com.au...
> I've wished we had a "proper" FAQ for a long time. Here's my contribution
> as a start. Further contributions welcomed (we can do it by email if you
> wish).
>
> 1. No-one who posts here knows your precise setup, or can guess it from
> the aether. So Please: EVERY post you make here should include the
> following minimum information:
>
> a) Operating System (eg, Win98, WinXP, Red Hat Linux 8, Solaris 2.6,
> whatever)
> b) Oracle Version (As detailed as possible: 8i will do, but 8.1.7.4 would
> be better)
> c) Hardware details (Pentium III, Pentium IV, 2GB hard drive, 200GB hard
> drive etc)

Agreed. Also any error message that may be applicable, execution plans if a SQL tuning issue, etc.

>
> 2. Before you even think of posting here, you should check out other
> sources of information, because the answer you are looking for might well
> be adequately described in these other places. Of particular relevance:
>
> a) http://tahiti.oracle.com -official Oracle documentation for every
> current supported version of Oracle
> b) www.google.com (Groups) - an archive of every post ever made to this
> newsgroup, including answers for common problems
> c) www.jlcomp.demon.co.uk
> (The Co-operative Users FAQ) - a huge list of common questions (with the
> answers) as supplied by regulars to this newsgroup
> (d) http://technet.oracle.com - a rich source of varied information,
> including downloads of every current version of Oracle, for free, for
> every platform. You have to be a member, but membership is free, instantly
> granted, and they don't send spam.

I would also add that the full Oracle doco set is also available above for all versions from 7.3.4 and many questions can be quickly answered or verified here.

>
> 3. Phrase your post's title appropriately. "HELP" doesn't cut it. It's too
> vague, and forces people to read the content before being able to
> determine a reply. "Sever Process with Process ID 287548 is running in an
> infinite loop trying to update a table which comprises 38 extents of 2MB
> each on locally managed tablespace which is 6GB in size, made up of 3 2GB
> files on Solaris" is probably a bit stupid too: concision is king.
>
> 4. Don't include every line of a post when you reply. It's good for the "I
> am the top volume poster" award, but not for the rest of us. Please don't
> top-post either (ie, stick your reply right at the top of the original
> post). If you do, your reply has little relevance to the original post and
> its context. Intersperse your reply throughout the original, quoting only
> those parts that you wish to reply to.

I think there are pros and cons to top/bottom posting. On the negative side to bottom posting, having to scroll down stuff you've already read is a right pain. Also, here we are encourging people to search google archives and again, it's a right pain having to clink on the extra link to see the whole posting as you haven't yet reached the "new bit" that initially displayed.

>
> 5. "RTFM" is not a helpful reply.

Especially if you're not French (or Flemish) ...

>
> 6. "RTFM" is a perfectly expected response to people who post here before
> having made the effort to consult the other sources of help mentioned at
> (2) above.

Although a link or pointer is a better response.

>
> 7. The Pentium IV bug only applies to 8i. Not 8.0, nor 9i.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

>
> 8. Try to keep the personal information to a minimum. The fact that you
> enjoy has-been music from the 70's age of glam-rock is of little
> consequence. It tells us nothing about your problem, and provides little
> in the way of useful solutions. Data density is what we're after. The
> *pub* is the place for reminiscing. It's also the place for discussing the
> pro's and con's of malt whisk(e)y varieties. But not here.

I get the strangest feeling that this is somehow directed at me ...

A few points.

1. Some musicians from the 70's Glam period still make very relevant music today !!
2. Considering I get most of the flack for bringing up the subject of Mr Bowie, a quick search through the archives will reveal that I'm often not the one who actually brings up the subject and when I occasionally do, it's not exactly from a reminiscing in a pub sort of way. SELECT * FROM bowie_table would hardly constitute the most revetting of discussions. I consider such "finger pointing" a tad unfair ....
3. I actually think it quite nice when a poster, particularly a regular one, reveals a bit of their personality and enables one to get to know the real "them". I personally enjoy reading some of the idle banter that sometimes occurs (be it Monty Python, malt whiskeys, sail boats, woman's underwear etc.) and confirms that it's real people that communicate here, not soulless, technical nobodies ....

>
> 9. An answer that consists of only questions isn't an answer.

True, but it might help to provide or prompt for some necessary information (such as in point 1). Communication doesn't necessarily constitute a question, followed by an accurate response. There may be the need for a few interations.

>
> 10. An answer that consists of half-remembered commands from three
> versions ago without testing it on a current version isn't an answer.

But it might be.

The issue I have here is that as a group, I think we can be unnecessarily hard and harsh on those posters whom make mistakes. It can be quite intimidating posting a response (or indeed a question) and can require a bit of courage on the part of someone to do so. If someone has a go and takes the trouble to contribute (even if based on half remembered commands from 3 years ago) then I say "good on you" !! If you happen to be wrong, or inaccurate or offer an incomplete answer, then a polite correction is all that is required for the post to still be a positive contribution. Because their misunderstanding is probably already somebodies else's misunderstanding and a clarification could help many, including importantly the poster who made the mistake.

We should be encouraging rather than discouraging contributions ....

>
> 11. Test posts don't belong here. (Try alt.test instead)

Amen

>
> 12. Every post gets archived. What you see here today gets read again in 5
> years' time (especially if newbies follow step (2) above). So blatant
> untruths are not just going to confuse a single user.

True, but many blatent untruths are often widely held beliefs and if the complete thread can clarify these points up, then documenting, discussing and addressing these issues is not necessarily a bad thing. Most people don't *intentionally* post blatent untruths. When they do arise, if they could be responded to in a positive manner that can avoid or reduce any possible embarressments and bruised egos so that the poster of the error feels their posts was still a positive experience, then all well and good I say ...

Errors, mistakes, inaccuracies, untruths (which we all make) are not necessarily a "bad thing" and I would have thought discussing and resolving them was what this NG is all about.

>
> 13. If "curmudgeonly" is your middle name, try and live up to it somewhere
> else.
>
> 14. The good guys (in alphabetical order) are Steve Adams, Norman Dunbar,
> Jonathan Lewis, Thomas Kyte, Nuno Suto. What they say carries weight. It
> doesn't mean they don't make mistakes, though. Despite occasional rumours,
> they are actually human.

OK, I have a bit of an issue with this, although I agree all mentioned are/were excellent contributors who have a brilliant understanding of Oracle. Singling out individuals is a bit of a dangerous affair, especially if addressed as "good guys (in alphabetical order)". I totally agree that your "good guys" deserve much thanks and credit, but I can think of many others who also deserve like recognition, although I won't mention names for making the same mistake. It also strongly suggests that anyone else (unless your surname starts after an "S") is not a good guy and has an unsavoury taste of elitism to it (although I'm sure that was not your intention). It also "suggests" that other contributions are not as valued or accurate or worthwhile. It also "suggests" that Oracle can only really be understood and mastered by elite beings and that to be a good guy listed in alphabetical order is not something that a newbie to Oracle is likely ever to reach.

As I said, I'm sure it was not your intention but it's these implied suggestions (which are of course all bollocks) that make's me have issues with this point.

>
> 15. DBAs aren't universally male. So there are good gals too.

Thank God ...

>
> 16. Oracle databases cannot be compared with DB2 ones, SQL Server ones or
> any other ones. They are not better or worse: just not comparable.
> So please don't try. Flame wars inspired by such posts should be dampened
> down by the judicious application of the principle: 'don't feed the
trolls'.

What I would honestly like to be more aware of are the "weaknesses" that Oracle has when compared to other databases. Postings that suggest that Oracle is "simply and always better" are not particularly informative.

>
> 17. Rule out any possible replies that can't apply to you. If your problem
> might be solved by a shutdown, but your database is in production and
> can't be shutdown, for example: tell us. We won't then propose something
that
> is totally inapplicable in your circumstances.
>
> 18. OCP is a qualification you can get. It exists. There's not much that
> can be done about that. Please don't ask anyone to comment on its
> usefulness, it's relevance or the accuracy of exam questions. They're
> *exam* questions: whatever the answer, it usually rarely applies in the
> real world, so live with it.

What's OCP ?

;)

>
> 19. Enjoy Oracle. It's like a crossword puzzle: the more effort you put
> in, the more answers you start getting out. Expecting it to be easy is not
> the way forward.
>

And enjoy other things as well, although I won't mention any suggestions.

For now ....

Cheers

Richard Received on Tue Mar 11 2003 - 08:19:07 CST