Re: Looks like HJR is thinking about tossing in the towel?

On Nov 3, 1:13 am, Steve Howard <stevedhow..._at_gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 2, 5:31 am, hjr.pyth..._at_gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Nov 2, 10:46 am, hpuxrac <johnbhur..._at_sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> > > I have been way too busy lately. I guess being busy beats the
> > > alternative.
>
> > > A recent blog posting notes that HJR is ( once again ) thinking about
> > > shutting down. I guess that doesn't surprise me a lot as I have
> > > noticed that he is sporadically posting here on cdos.
>
> > Try learning to read. The recent blog post asked the question, "Is
> > this site still worth keeping?"
>
> > I explained why I was asking the question: a lack of forum activity, a
> > lack of response to blog pieces. A general perceived sense that people
> > had moved on.
>
> > I got lots of answers, about 45 on the website itself, another 50 or
> > so via email. The consensus was, 'yes, the site is worth keeping, so
> > please keep it'
>
> > Which is why the even more recent blog post announced the fact that
> > the site would indeed be staying.
>
> > > Several thoughts in no specific order. The enthusiasm and quality of
> > > blogging about oracle has really spiraled down over the last 2
> > > years ... maybe the honeymoon is over?
>
> > Are you talking about me specifically at this point, or Oracle-related
> > blogging generally?
>
> > > Those people that do post the most are pretty much unchanged. The
> > > usual suspects with the usual ulterior motives possibly. Yeah the
> > > cherry sisters are still alive plus well ... you know.
>
> > > I have been thrown off HJR's site's more than once. I guess if you
> > > want to express opinions that don't agree with his viewpoint that's
> > > what happens.
>
> > No, that's not what happens at all. You get thrown off the site for
> > being a dumb-ass trouble maker that doesn't know when to stop digging
> > no matter how deep the hole.
>
> > > However much more than that HJR's site has gone through so many
> > > versions and providers and reincarnations that it was probably very
> > > hard for people to keep up. Vague good intentions of preserving older
> > > content just never happened.
>
> > You really do need to get out and about more. The site hasn't changed
> > providers in 10 months. It hasn't changed format or content in over a
> > year. The old content is still there, exactly where it's always been,
> > and I went to especial efforts to convert all old wiki content into
> > new knowledge base content. There were never any "vague good
> > intentions of preserving older content", but concrete promises to do
> > just that which have been kept.
>
> > The forum content was indeed wiped (more than 12 months ago) because
> > conversion issues were just too tricky to deal with, plus I can tell
> > what people read on the site and posts from over 12 months ago isn't
> > it. It would have been a waste of effort to convert it, which is why I
> > announced, again very concretely and specifically, that that
> > particular bit of site content would NOT be converted.
>
> > > C'est la vie toujours tout la meme. It would be good to see HJR back
> > > here on cdos but I am not sure he has the appetite for it any longer.
>
> > If there's one thing I hate more than people pontificating about
> > Oracle non-factually, it's people pontificating about my state of mind
> > on even less evidence and with even less accuracy or regard for the
> > facts. When I don't have the appetite for it any longer, I'll be sure
> > to post a message to that effect just before I switch off the site.
> > Asking people whether the site is still useful doesn't even get close.
>
> > > It's a tough choice putting in so many hours on something that doesn't
> > > bring in any additional revenue.
>
> > No, it's not. The only tough choice I have ever had to make was
> > whether I was being useful to enough people.
>
> > Idle, ill-informed, obviously biased and factually erroneous
> > speculations such as yours presented here are one of the main reasons
> > you got booted off the site. With justification, I'd have said,
> > judging by this complete dollop of tripe.
>
> This thread is really interesting to me, on a variety of fronts. This
> isn't related to you, but it just reminded me I have been thinking
> about this stuff, recently.
>
> To me, Oracle blogs (or any blog) are exactly that...a web diary. I
> log stuff all the time (although google still hasn't found me), as it
> helps me to clarify my thoughts on how things in my day job work. I
> don't feel a duty (specially since no one knows my blog exists, LOL!)
> to provide a service for what is just a log of my thoughts/
> understandings of technology stuff.
>
> This thread is also interesting to me on the front of "kicking people
> off". In the last six months, I have also killfiled a few *extremely*
> prominent posters on this board, because I just couldn't stand how
> they treated newbies. My life (at least in terms of reading this
> group) has improved immeasurably since doing so.
>
> As such, I have been thinking recently that a group run membership
> policy (not here, but on a site such as yours) would be a good thing.
> Accepted by "majority vote" democracy type of thing. Are there legal
> issues with this? In other words, what if a "scorned poster" posts
> things from a different IP, etc., which get the forum owner in legal
> hot water? Would this idea itself drive away good contributors?
>
> Drawbacks for sure, but worth considering?

It is an interesting thought. But I'll tell you: I have spent the past two years trying to get people to *participate* in the site by having a wiki, now a knowledge base, now the ability to blog... and the takeup  has always been abysmal. It was indeed one of my laments in the "is this site useful" post: the forums are dominated by the same people answering the same questions (badly) and (almost) no-one else ever steps up to the plate to do new and better service. (And the quality of the questions never seems to improve, either!) I did, of course, get some excellent contributions: there are always exceptions to every rule. But the generality of it is, most people don't write substantial pieces for the site, no matter how often I give them the chance to do so.

Of course, writing an article or knowledge base piece is not quite the same thing as pressing a 'yes/no' button. It takes effort; the ability to think in paragraphs, not words; it means sticking your head over the parapet... and that's probably why most people don't seem to want a bar of it. They want to be consumers, not providers.

I'm reluctant to hand votes out to people who don't participate more actively, though: no representation without being taxed (i.e., made to work for it) a little, I say! Contribute rather more than either "my database is broken, how do I fix it?" or "RTFM!" and I think I would have to evolve some form of 'democratic' element about the place: because it's their content too, now. If and when I get more Knowledge Base Authors and bloggers on the site, I think you will see some sort of governance structure being put in place.

I don't think it's a legal issue, in other words. A 'scorned poster' is certainly capable of getting back on and posting horrors... but they'd be deleted within hours, I'd have thought, if they were that bad, that obvious. No-one else is going to take a site to court for not *preventing* the posting of outrages: the trouble only starts when, having had them pointed out, the site owner refuses to do anything about them. Even then, there's a 'threshold test': the stuff has to be really, really bad to make it worth your while expending time and effort and cash in the legal system seeking redress.

Interesting thoughts, though, no doubt about that. Received on Fri Nov 02 2007 - 15:27:14 CDT