| Oracle FAQ | Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid | |
 |
 | |||
| Oracle FAQ | Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid | |
|
| |||
Home -> Community -> Usenet -> c.d.o.server -> Re: A proper FAQ - Wish fulfillment
>>>>> "Richard" == Richard Foote <richard.foote_at_bigpond.com> writes:
<snip>
Richard> Agreed. Also any error message that may be applicable, Richard> execution plans if a SQL tuning issue, etc.
and please, the whole error message an not just the error number. I find the whole message more of a memory jog than just "ORA-1234" or whatever.
<snip>
Richard> I think there are pros and cons to top/bottom posting. On Richard> the negative side to bottom posting, having to scroll down Richard> stuff you've already read is a right pain. Also, here we are Richard> encourging people to search google archives and again, it's Richard> a right pain having to clink on the extra link to see the Richard> whole posting as you haven't yet reached the "new bit" that Richard> initially displayed.
I think bottom posting will probably upset less people. I rarely see anyone complain about bottom posting, but regularly see "Please don't top post" messages.
I think the most important is to really encourage people to edit/prune the included text so that it only contains the bits they are responding to or just the relevant info.
<snip>
>> 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.
Assuming they are aware of the other sources of help. RTFM is considered to be a bit insulting to some. When I first came to this group, I was not aware of sites like tahiti asktom and docs, even though I had checked out he obvious oracle sites for info before ever reading this group (e.g. www.oracle.com, otn.oracle.com). Now I'm more familiar with Oracle and its web site structure, these sites seem obvious, but as a beginner, the oracle web presents can be a bit overwhelming.
<snip>
>> 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.
<snip>
Richard> 3) I actually think it quite nice when a poster, Richard> particularly a regular one, reveals a bit of their Richard> personality and enables one to get to know the real Richard> "them". I personally enjoy reading some of the idle banter Richard> that sometimes occurs (be it Monty Python, malt whiskeys, Richard> sail boats, woman's underwear etc.) and confirms that it's Richard> real people that communicate here, not soulless, technical Richard> nobodies ....
I think I have to go with Richard on this one. If you are a regular on the group, its nice to begin to feel your perhaps getting to know the other posters a bit - a little bit of personal info, humor etc is a good thing as long as it doesn't begin to dominate.
>> 9. An answer that consists of only questions isn't an answer.
Richard> True, but it might help to provide or prompt for some Richard> necessary information (such as in point 1). Communication Richard> doesn't necessarily constitute a question, followed by an Richard> accurate response. There may be the need for a few Richard> interations.
Though an anser which consists only of questions can help in finding an answer and start the OP thinking along the right track or highlight how inssuficient their problem/question details are.
>> 10. An answer that consists of half-remembered commands from
>> three versions ago without testing it on a current version isn't
>> an answer.
Richard> But it might be.
Richard> The issue I have here is that as a group, I think we can be Richard> unnecessarily hard and harsh on those posters whom make Richard> mistakes. It can be quite intimidating posting a response Richard> (or indeed a question) and can require a bit of courage on Richard> the part of someone to do so. If someone has a go and takes Richard> the trouble to contribute (even if based on half remembered Richard> commands from 3 years ago) then I say "good on you" !! If Richard> you happen to be wrong, or inaccurate or offer an incomplete Richard> answer, then a polite correction is all that is required for Richard> the post to still be a positive contribution. Because their Richard> misunderstanding is probably already somebodies else's Richard> misunderstanding and a clarification could help many, Richard> including importantly the poster who made the mistake.
Richard> We should be encouraging rather than discouraging Richard> contributions ....
I agree very much with this. As long as you indicate your working from memory and could be wrong its fine - the user shold always take any answers they say as just a guide or additional input, not the gospel truth. Sometimes you might get a question on an old version and there may be few (no) readers who can accurately remember the full / correct response. At least something which might help is better than nothing at all. corrections should always be polite and nobody should be offended at being corrected.
>> 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.
Richard> True, but many blatent untruths are often widely held Richard> beliefs and if the complete thread can clarify these points Richard> up, then documenting, discussing and addressing these issues Richard> is not necessarily a bad thing. Most people don't Richard> *intentionally* post blatent untruths. When they do arise, Richard> if they could be responded to in a positive manner that can Richard> avoid or reduce any possible embarressments and bruised egos Richard> so that the poster of the error feels their posts was still Richard> a positive experience, then all well and good I say ... Richard> Errors, mistakes, inaccuracies, untruths (which we all make)Richard> are not necessarily a "bad thing" and I would have thought Richard> discussing and resolving them was what this NG is all about.
Amen. I think we need to remember this is a newsgroup - the quality and accuracy of anything you read has to be taken with a grain of salt. Its just one source of information and should always be balanced out with other sources.
<snip>
>> 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.
Richard> OK, I have a bit of an issue with this, although I agree all Richard> mentioned are/were excellent contributors who have a Richard> brilliant understanding of Oracle. Singling out individuals Richard> is a bit of a dangerous affair, especially if addressed as Richard> "good guys (in alphabetical order)". I totally agree that Richard> your "good guys" deserve much thanks and credit, but I can Richard> think of many others who also deserve like recognition, Richard> although I won't mention names for making the same Richard> mistake. It also strongly suggests that anyone else (unless Richard> your surname starts after an "S") is not a good guy and has Richard> an unsavoury taste of elitism to it (although I'm sure that Richard> was not your intention). It also "suggests" that other Richard> contributions are not as valued or accurate or Richard> worthwhile. It also "suggests" that Oracle can only really Richard> be understood and mastered by elite beings and that to be a Richard> good guy listed in alphabetical order is not something that Richard> a newbie to Oracle is likely ever to reach.
Again I agree - although all of the above mentioned make great contributions to the group, I don't feel comfortable with individuals being singled out because it somehow seems to go against the philosophy of a newsgroup where everyone has an equal ability to contribute. To set some above others is likely to have a negative impact in that those who have some knowledge may not feel good enough to post. We could discourage some good posts/discussions rather than encourage them.
<snip>
One thing I have observed in this group is there does seem to be a higher sensitivity than in many other groups - more people seem to get upset about posts relating to common problems, posts from people who have not tried to work things out for themselves, posts with insufficient info etc. What I don't understand is why people don't just ignore posts which don't meet their criteria of worthy content. Its very simple just to hit delete on a post/thread and most decent news readers have mechanisms for scoring relevance of different posters and placing others into 'kill files'.
I feel the nature of newsgroups makes any type of policing or constraining pointless (unless you want a moderated group). I think a FAQ would be marvelous and if I felt my Oracle knowledge was strong enough, I'd certainly want to contribute. I hope in time I am able to do this. However, if we are to have a FAQ, it has to consist of more than just rules on what can an cannot be posted and how posts should be structured etc. It also needs to contain answers to common questions about Oracle and the Oracle server, possibly some Oracle history, common misconceptions and maybe even a small section about glam rock, 70s music and monty python!
Tim
-- Tim Cross The e-mail address on this message is FALSE (obviously!). My real e-mail is to a company in Australia called rapttech and my login is tcross - if you really need to send mail, you should be able to work it out!Received on Wed Mar 12 2003 - 02:02:52 CST
 |
 |