Thread: planet "top posters" section
I was just noticing that the "top posters" section on Planet PostgreSQL is so long that the "top teams" section, at least in my window, gets pushed almost completely down to the second page. And I was also noticing that many of the "top posters" only actually have one post. So I was thinking that we should maybe reduce it to say the top 10 posters, or maybe the top ten plus enough extras to get everyone who is tied with the tenth position. It just seems a little silly that with my first post I have made the top 20 posters... actually I'm weighing in at #18, having the good fortune to have a name that alphabetically precedes both "Satoshi" and "Zmanda". ...Robert
Hi, On Tue, 13 Apr 2010 10:08:00 -0400 Robert Haas wrote: > I was just noticing that the "top posters" section on Planet > PostgreSQL is so long that the "top teams" section, at least in my > window, gets pushed almost completely down to the second page. And I > was also noticing that many of the "top posters" only actually have > one post. So I was thinking that we should maybe reduce it to say the > top 10 posters, or maybe the top ten plus enough extras to get > everyone who is tied with the tenth position. How about limiting this list to "more than one postings in the last month"? This would reduce the list to 12 entries right now. Bye -- Andreas 'ads' Scherbaum German PostgreSQL User Group European PostgreSQL User Group - Board of Directors Volunteer Regional Contact, Germany - PostgreSQL Project
> How about limiting this list to "more than one postings in the last
> month"? This would reduce the list to 12 entries right now.
I'd go for "more than 2". Anyone without at least 3 doesn't deserve to
be a top poster.
-- -- Josh Berkus PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://www.pgexperts.com
On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 2:00 PM, Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> wrote: >> How about limiting this list to "more than one postings in the last >> month"? This would reduce the list to 12 entries right now. > > I'd go for "more than 2". Anyone without at least 3 doesn't deserve to > be a top poster. That would be reasonable too, although it's a little hard to think about how to apply that to the team section, since the individuals are listed under the teams. Clearly you could also omit teams with 2 or fewer postings, but what if the team has >2 but some - or all - individuals within the team have <=2? ...Robert
Robert,
> That would be reasonable too, although it's a little hard to think
> about how to apply that to the team section, since the individuals are
> listed under the teams. Clearly you could also omit teams with 2 or
> fewer postings, but what if the team has >2 but some - or all -
> individuals within the team have <=2?
Well, that's an incentive to join a team.
-- -- Josh Berkus PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://www.pgexperts.com
On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 4:29 PM, Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> wrote: >> That would be reasonable too, although it's a little hard to think >> about how to apply that to the team section, since the individuals are >> listed under the teams. Clearly you could also omit teams with 2 or >> fewer postings, but what if the team has >2 but some - or all - >> individuals within the team have <=2? > > Well, that's an incentive to join a team. Hmm. Well, by that theory, Bruce should quite his job: he'd go from somewhere buried down in the weeds to the number one spot on the list. It's clearly not our policy to give people who are on a team a more prominent position. More like the reverse. Personally I think I'd favor just listing the top 6-10 posters (regardless of whether they're on a team) and the top 6-10 teams (without listing the posters) and call it good. ...Robert
> It's clearly not our policy to give people who are on a team a more
> prominent position. More like the reverse. Personally I think I'd
> favor just listing the top 6-10 posters (regardless of whether they're
> on a team) and the top 6-10 teams (without listing the posters) and
> call it good.
OK with me.
-- -- Josh Berkus PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://www.pgexperts.com
On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 10:48 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 4:29 PM, Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> wrote: >>> That would be reasonable too, although it's a little hard to think >>> about how to apply that to the team section, since the individuals are >>> listed under the teams. Clearly you could also omit teams with 2 or >>> fewer postings, but what if the team has >2 but some - or all - >>> individuals within the team have <=2? >> >> Well, that's an incentive to join a team. > > Hmm. Well, by that theory, Bruce should quite his job: he'd go from > somewhere buried down in the weeds to the number one spot on the list. > > It's clearly not our policy to give people who are on a team a more > prominent position. More like the reverse. Personally I think I'd Yes, if any, the reverse. And we definitely don't want to promote team-members over individuals. Or I should say, we have traditionally not wanted to do that. All policies are of course up for discussion :-) > favor just listing the top 6-10 posters (regardless of whether they're > on a team) and the top 6-10 teams (without listing the posters) and > call it good. If it doesn't show who's a member of a team, isn't that very confusing? -- Magnus HaganderMe: http://www.hagander.net/Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 2:52 AM, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote: > On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 10:48 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 4:29 PM, Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> wrote: >>>> That would be reasonable too, although it's a little hard to think >>>> about how to apply that to the team section, since the individuals are >>>> listed under the teams. Clearly you could also omit teams with 2 or >>>> fewer postings, but what if the team has >2 but some - or all - >>>> individuals within the team have <=2? >>> >>> Well, that's an incentive to join a team. >> >> Hmm. Well, by that theory, Bruce should quite his job: he'd go from >> somewhere buried down in the weeds to the number one spot on the list. >> >> It's clearly not our policy to give people who are on a team a more >> prominent position. More like the reverse. Personally I think I'd > > Yes, if any, the reverse. And we definitely don't want to promote > team-members over individuals. Or I should say, we have traditionally > not wanted to do that. All policies are of course up for discussion > :-) > >> favor just listing the top 6-10 posters (regardless of whether they're >> on a team) and the top 6-10 teams (without listing the posters) and >> call it good. > > If it doesn't show who's a member of a team, isn't that very confusing? If we want to have another screen somewhere that shows all the members of each team, that seems fine; but the current screen isn't an exhaustive listing, it's just the number of posts from each team. And if you want to find out who made those posts, you can: just click on team name and read the authorship information on each post. ...Robert
Robert Haas wrote: > On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 4:29 PM, Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> wrote: > >> That would be reasonable too, although it's a little hard to think > >> about how to apply that to the team section, since the individuals are > >> listed under the teams. ?Clearly you could also omit teams with 2 or > >> fewer postings, but what if the team has >2 but some - or all - > >> individuals within the team have <=2? > > > > Well, that's an incentive to join a team. > > Hmm. Well, by that theory, Bruce should quite his job: he'd go from > somewhere buried down in the weeds to the number one spot on the list. I know Magnus wants to point out that the _quality_ of my posts is not being measured in that count, so I will write this for him. ;-) -- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
Hi! As the instigator of this "top-n" posters feature, Magnus suggested that I should weigh in. So here goes.. My goal in requesting the feature last year was to encourage more posts, have an at-a-glance reference for outsiders to see how many people are regularly contributing, and to encourage friendly competition. And, given that, I'm not a fan of limiting the number of names that can be displayed. On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 11:52 PM, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote: > On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 10:48 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 4:29 PM, Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> wrote: >>>> That would be reasonable too, although it's a little hard to think >>>> about how to apply that to the team section, since the individuals are >>>> listed under the teams. Clearly you could also omit teams with 2 or >>>> fewer postings, but what if the team has >2 but some - or all - >>>> individuals within the team have <=2? >>> >>> Well, that's an incentive to join a team. >> >> Hmm. Well, by that theory, Bruce should quite his job: he'd go from >> somewhere buried down in the weeds to the number one spot on the list. >> >> It's clearly not our policy to give people who are on a team a more >> prominent position. More like the reverse. Personally I think I'd > > Yes, if any, the reverse. And we definitely don't want to promote > team-members over individuals. Or I should say, we have traditionally > not wanted to do that. All policies are of course up for discussion > :-) The original thinking behind this feature was to provide a simple metric for people who are posting to see how they "rank" against others, and to give folks a bit of a cheap thrill in getting their name and a number at the top of the Planet page. The "Teams" feature was added as a way for development teams and businesses to market themselves, without getting to crazy about things. The Individual and Team listings don't show up if no posts are made, so it is an encouragement for both to provide content. And has the added benefit of giving outsiders a look at who contributes, and *how many people* contribute. >> favor just listing the top 6-10 posters (regardless of whether they're >> on a team) and the top 6-10 teams (without listing the posters) and >> call it good. > > If it doesn't show who's a member of a team, isn't that very confusing? I think it is confusing, and a little unfair to those who are part of a team. As we've talked about in the past, names are important. Again, my goal in having the feature was to also show how breadth of contribution to the aggregator. -selena -- http://chesnok.com/daily - me http://endpoint.com - work
On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 7:03 PM, Selena Deckelmann <selenamarie@gmail.com> wrote: > The original thinking behind this feature was to provide a simple > metric for people who are posting to see how they "rank" against > others, and to give folks a bit of a cheap thrill in getting their > name and a number at the top of the Planet page. I'm fine with that, but the current format doesn't let you do that. The only way you can see how you rank against other posters is to merge-sort the "not part of any team" list together with the list for each team. ...Robert
Personally I think the top teams thing has caused more trouble/confusion than any benefit it has produced, and at this point I think it could be dumped, and with that our top 20 would become much more reasonable looking. imho. On Friday 16 April 2010 19:03:04 Selena Deckelmann wrote: > Hi! > > As the instigator of this "top-n" posters feature, Magnus suggested > that I should weigh in. So here goes.. > > My goal in requesting the feature last year was to encourage more > posts, have an at-a-glance reference for outsiders to see how many > people are regularly contributing, and to encourage friendly > competition. And, given that, I'm not a fan of limiting the number of > names that can be displayed. > > On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 11:52 PM, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 10:48 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 4:29 PM, Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> wrote: > >>>> That would be reasonable too, although it's a little hard to think > >>>> about how to apply that to the team section, since the individuals are > >>>> listed under the teams. Clearly you could also omit teams with 2 or > >>>> fewer postings, but what if the team has >2 but some - or all - > >>>> individuals within the team have <=2? > >>> > >>> Well, that's an incentive to join a team. > >> > >> Hmm. Well, by that theory, Bruce should quite his job: he'd go from > >> somewhere buried down in the weeds to the number one spot on the list. > >> > >> It's clearly not our policy to give people who are on a team a more > >> prominent position. More like the reverse. Personally I think I'd > > > > Yes, if any, the reverse. And we definitely don't want to promote > > team-members over individuals. Or I should say, we have traditionally > > not wanted to do that. All policies are of course up for discussion > > > > :-) > > The original thinking behind this feature was to provide a simple > metric for people who are posting to see how they "rank" against > others, and to give folks a bit of a cheap thrill in getting their > name and a number at the top of the Planet page. > > The "Teams" feature was added as a way for development teams and > businesses to market themselves, without getting to crazy about > things. > > The Individual and Team listings don't show up if no posts are made, > so it is an encouragement for both to provide content. And has the > added benefit of giving outsiders a look at who contributes, and *how > many people* contribute. > > >> favor just listing the top 6-10 posters (regardless of whether they're > >> on a team) and the top 6-10 teams (without listing the posters) and > >> call it good. > > > > If it doesn't show who's a member of a team, isn't that very confusing? > > I think it is confusing, and a little unfair to those who are part of > a team. As we've talked about in the past, names are important. > > Again, my goal in having the feature was to also show how breadth of > contribution to the aggregator. > > -selena > > > -- > http://chesnok.com/daily - me > http://endpoint.com - work -- Robert Treat Conjecture: http://www.xzilla.net Consulting: http://www.omniti.com
On Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 9:32 PM, Robert Treat <xzilla@users.sourceforge.net> wrote: > Personally I think the top teams thing has caused more trouble/confusion than > any benefit it has produced, and at this point I think it could be dumped, and > with that our top 20 would become much more reasonable looking. imho. That'd be fine with me, too, as would any of the other suggestions so far offered. ...Robert
On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 2:56 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 9:32 PM, Robert Treat > <xzilla@users.sourceforge.net> wrote: >> Personally I think the top teams thing has caused more trouble/confusion than >> any benefit it has produced, and at this point I think it could be dumped, and >> with that our top 20 would become much more reasonable looking. imho. > > That'd be fine with me, too, as would any of the other suggestions so > far offered. I disagree - I like the teams feature. How about just listing top posters and top teams separately, and not including the people under each team. Maybe something like Top posters ----------------- Robert Treat (OmniTI) - 5 Andreas Scherbaum - 5 Magnus Hagander - 4 Dave Page (EnterpriseDB) -2 Bruce Momjian (EnterpriseDB) - 2 Top teams ---------------- OmniTI - 5 EnterpriseDB - 4 My only concern with that is that the poster names could become quite long. -- Dave Page EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise Postgres Company
On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 10:17, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote: > On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 09:29, Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org> wrote: >> On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 2:56 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 9:32 PM, Robert Treat >>> <xzilla@users.sourceforge.net> wrote: >>>> Personally I think the top teams thing has caused more trouble/confusion than >>>> any benefit it has produced, and at this point I think it could be dumped, and >>>> with that our top 20 would become much more reasonable looking. imho. >>> >>> That'd be fine with me, too, as would any of the other suggestions so >>> far offered. >> >> I disagree - I like the teams feature. >> >> How about just listing top posters and top teams separately, and not >> including the people under each team. Maybe something like >> >> Top posters >> ----------------- >> >> Robert Treat (OmniTI) - 5 >> Andreas Scherbaum - 5 >> Magnus Hagander - 4 >> Dave Page (EnterpriseDB) -2 >> Bruce Momjian (EnterpriseDB) - 2 >> >> Top teams >> ---------------- >> >> OmniTI - 5 >> EnterpriseDB - 4 > > This is the best idea I've seen so far, I think. > > >> My only concern with that is that the poster names could become quite long. > > Yeah. We could limit the length of the name, I guess - but most are > short already. CommandPrompt is the longest, and that's not really > long. (It doesn't say "CommandPrompt, Inc" for example, which would've > been easily shortened). > > I whipped up a quick test (the first part, which is adding the teams > to the top listing, is trivial. The second one will require the > reqwrite of a query :P). Here's how it looks for me (attached). > > What we could do if we want this is either increase the width of the > right column (it's fixed at 250px now, with the contents column > scaling up in size to whatever the browser window has), or we could > decrease the font size. Thoughts? > > (Interestingly enough, the last decision made around changes here was > IIRC to allow "aliases" in the names of blogs, which helped break the > display :P But that's already broken on what we have now, with depesz > name being so long it always linebreaks. But this makes it even more > obvious.) Meh, posting denied due to size of attachment. Here's an URL for the attachment instead: http://www.hagander.net/tmp/20100419-102046-3421.png -- Magnus HaganderMe: http://www.hagander.net/Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 10:21, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote: > On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 10:17, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote: >> On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 09:29, Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org> wrote: >>> On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 2:56 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> On Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 9:32 PM, Robert Treat >>>> <xzilla@users.sourceforge.net> wrote: >>>>> Personally I think the top teams thing has caused more trouble/confusion than >>>>> any benefit it has produced, and at this point I think it could be dumped, and >>>>> with that our top 20 would become much more reasonable looking. imho. >>>> >>>> That'd be fine with me, too, as would any of the other suggestions so >>>> far offered. >>> >>> I disagree - I like the teams feature. >>> >>> How about just listing top posters and top teams separately, and not >>> including the people under each team. Maybe something like >>> >>> Top posters >>> ----------------- >>> >>> Robert Treat (OmniTI) - 5 >>> Andreas Scherbaum - 5 >>> Magnus Hagander - 4 >>> Dave Page (EnterpriseDB) -2 >>> Bruce Momjian (EnterpriseDB) - 2 >>> >>> Top teams >>> ---------------- >>> >>> OmniTI - 5 >>> EnterpriseDB - 4 >> >> This is the best idea I've seen so far, I think. >> >> >>> My only concern with that is that the poster names could become quite long. >> >> Yeah. We could limit the length of the name, I guess - but most are >> short already. CommandPrompt is the longest, and that's not really >> long. (It doesn't say "CommandPrompt, Inc" for example, which would've >> been easily shortened). >> >> I whipped up a quick test (the first part, which is adding the teams >> to the top listing, is trivial. The second one will require the >> reqwrite of a query :P). Here's how it looks for me (attached). >> >> What we could do if we want this is either increase the width of the >> right column (it's fixed at 250px now, with the contents column >> scaling up in size to whatever the browser window has), or we could >> decrease the font size. Thoughts? >> >> (Interestingly enough, the last decision made around changes here was >> IIRC to allow "aliases" in the names of blogs, which helped break the >> display :P But that's already broken on what we have now, with depesz >> name being so long it always linebreaks. But this makes it even more >> obvious.) > > Meh, posting denied due to size of attachment. Here's an URL for the > attachment instead: > > http://www.hagander.net/tmp/20100419-102046-3421.png And finally, I copied my files over to the server and ran it, so you can now see it live (well, the data isn't updated, but you can see it in your own browser) at http://planet-beta.postgresql.org/ -- Magnus HaganderMe: http://www.hagander.net/Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 3:29 AM, Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org> wrote: > On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 2:56 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 9:32 PM, Robert Treat >> <xzilla@users.sourceforge.net> wrote: >>> Personally I think the top teams thing has caused more trouble/confusion than >>> any benefit it has produced, and at this point I think it could be dumped, and >>> with that our top 20 would become much more reasonable looking. imho. >> >> That'd be fine with me, too, as would any of the other suggestions so >> far offered. > > I disagree - I like the teams feature. I like it, too. Just, I don't like the fact that the team member names are displayed so much less prominently than the non-team-member names. It doesn't seem particularly fair, but it also doesn't make much sense - the top poster (Bruce) isn't visible when you load the page, unless you scroll. > How about just listing top posters and top teams separately, and not > including the people under each team. Maybe something like This solution, like all of the other solutions so far offered, would be fine with me. > My only concern with that is that the poster names could become quite long. Yeah. Magnus' prototype doesn't look too bad, though. I liked parentheses around the number of posts better than a dash before it, but with parentheses around the team name, there's not much choice but to do something different for the post count. And from an information point of view I think it's definitely a big improvement. ...Robert
On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 16:00, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 3:29 AM, Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org> wrote: >> On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 2:56 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 9:32 PM, Robert Treat >> My only concern with that is that the poster names could become quite long. > > Yeah. Magnus' prototype doesn't look too bad, though. I liked > parentheses around the number of posts better than a dash before it, > but with parentheses around the team name, there's not much choice but > to do something different for the post count. And from an information > point of view I think it's definitely a big improvement. Well, we could easily switch to use a dash before the name of the team, and then parentheses around the number, if you think that's better? But as you note, it would look like *** if we use parentheses around both... -- Magnus HaganderMe: http://www.hagander.net/Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 10:03 AM, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote: > On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 16:00, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 3:29 AM, Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org> wrote: >>> On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 2:56 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> On Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 9:32 PM, Robert Treat >>> My only concern with that is that the poster names could become quite long. >> >> Yeah. Magnus' prototype doesn't look too bad, though. I liked >> parentheses around the number of posts better than a dash before it, >> but with parentheses around the team name, there's not much choice but >> to do something different for the post count. And from an information >> point of view I think it's definitely a big improvement. > > Well, we could easily switch to use a dash before the name of the > team, and then parentheses around the number, if you think that's > better? I doubt it. I thought about name@team or name @ team or name/team or name / team, but none of those seemed all that great either. It's probably fine the way you have it. > But as you note, it would look like *** if we use parentheses around both... To be precise, it would like as if it were designed by engineers. Which would be true, but we're trying to cover it up. :-) ...Robert
On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 7:47 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote: > To be precise, it would like as if it were designed by engineers. > Which would be true, but we're trying to cover it up. :-) Move the number to the beginning of the line, get rid of the spaces and the dashes, and get rid of the RSS icon (or make it smaller), and the alignment will be much nicer. -selena -- http://chesnok.com/daily - me http://endpoint.com - work
On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 16:56, Selena Deckelmann <selenamarie@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 7:47 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote: > >> To be precise, it would like as if it were designed by engineers. >> Which would be true, but we're trying to cover it up. :-) > > Move the number to the beginning of the line, get rid of the spaces > and the dashes, Uh, are you saying it should just read 8BruceMomjianEnterpriseDB (clearly I don't get what you're saying :P) > and get rid of the RSS icon (or make it smaller), and > the alignment will be much nicer. The RSS icon currently links you to the feed for that blog in question. Are you suggesting we remove that link completely, or link some other part to that? -- Magnus HaganderMe: http://www.hagander.net/Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 3:58 PM, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote: > On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 16:56, Selena Deckelmann <selenamarie@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 7:47 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> To be precise, it would like as if it were designed by engineers. >>> Which would be true, but we're trying to cover it up. :-) >> >> Move the number to the beginning of the line, get rid of the spaces >> and the dashes, > > Uh, are you saying it should just read > 8BruceMomjianEnterpriseDB Nah - Selena didn't mention losting the brackets: 8BruceMomjian(EnterpriseDB) -- Dave Page EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise Postgres Company
On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 7:58 AM, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote: > On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 16:56, Selena Deckelmann <selenamarie@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 7:47 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> To be precise, it would like as if it were designed by engineers. >>> Which would be true, but we're trying to cover it up. :-) >> >> Move the number to the beginning of the line, get rid of the spaces >> and the dashes, > > Uh, are you saying it should just read > 8BruceMomjianEnterpriseDB > > (clearly I don't get what you're saying :P) Heh. More like: 8 BruceMomjian (EnterpriseDB) > The RSS icon currently links you to the feed for that blog in > question. Are you suggesting we remove that link completely, or link > some other part to that? I think remove that entirely, and offer a link at the top to the page of all RSS feeds. It seems less likely to me that people will want the individual RSS feeds before they want to go to that person's blog. And one extra click to get to all the feeds seems like small price to pay for readability. -selena -- http://chesnok.com/daily - me http://endpoint.com - work
On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 11:05 AM, Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org> wrote: > On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 3:58 PM, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote: >> On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 16:56, Selena Deckelmann <selenamarie@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 7:47 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> To be precise, it would like as if it were designed by engineers. >>>> Which would be true, but we're trying to cover it up. :-) >>> >>> Move the number to the beginning of the line, get rid of the spaces >>> and the dashes, >> >> Uh, are you saying it should just read >> 8BruceMomjianEnterpriseDB > > Nah - Selena didn't mention losting the brackets: > > 8BruceMomjian(EnterpriseDB) You guys are horrible. ...Robert
On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 11:07 AM, Selena Deckelmann <selenamarie@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 7:58 AM, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote: >> On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 16:56, Selena Deckelmann <selenamarie@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 7:47 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> To be precise, it would like as if it were designed by engineers. >>>> Which would be true, but we're trying to cover it up. :-) >>> >>> Move the number to the beginning of the line, get rid of the spaces >>> and the dashes, >> >> Uh, are you saying it should just read >> 8BruceMomjianEnterpriseDB >> >> (clearly I don't get what you're saying :P) > > Heh. > > More like: > 8 BruceMomjian (EnterpriseDB) Probably a space between Bruce and Momjian, too. >> The RSS icon currently links you to the feed for that blog in >> question. Are you suggesting we remove that link completely, or link >> some other part to that? > > I think remove that entirely, and offer a link at the top to the page > of all RSS feeds. It seems less likely to me that people will want the > individual RSS feeds before they want to go to that person's blog. And > one extra click to get to all the feeds seems like small price to pay > for readability. I like the RSS icon and would keep that, but moving the number of posts to the beginning is at least worth experimenting with to see how it looks. ...Robert
On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 17:08, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 11:07 AM, Selena Deckelmann > <selenamarie@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 7:58 AM, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote: >>> On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 16:56, Selena Deckelmann <selenamarie@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 7:47 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> To be precise, it would like as if it were designed by engineers. >>>>> Which would be true, but we're trying to cover it up. :-) >>>> >>>> Move the number to the beginning of the line, get rid of the spaces >>>> and the dashes, >>> >>> Uh, are you saying it should just read >>> 8BruceMomjianEnterpriseDB >>> >>> (clearly I don't get what you're saying :P) >> >> Heh. >> >> More like: >> 8 BruceMomjian (EnterpriseDB) > > Probably a space between Bruce and Momjian, too. > >>> The RSS icon currently links you to the feed for that blog in >>> question. Are you suggesting we remove that link completely, or link >>> some other part to that? >> >> I think remove that entirely, and offer a link at the top to the page >> of all RSS feeds. It seems less likely to me that people will want the >> individual RSS feeds before they want to go to that person's blog. And >> one extra click to get to all the feeds seems like small price to pay >> for readability. > > I like the RSS icon and would keep that, but moving the number of > posts to the beginning is at least worth experimenting with to see how > it looks. Site updated, take a look. -- Magnus HaganderMe: http://www.hagander.net/Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 1:24 PM, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote: > On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 17:08, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 11:07 AM, Selena Deckelmann >> <selenamarie@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 7:58 AM, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote: >>>> On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 16:56, Selena Deckelmann <selenamarie@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 7:47 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> To be precise, it would like as if it were designed by engineers. >>>>>> Which would be true, but we're trying to cover it up. :-) >>>>> >>>>> Move the number to the beginning of the line, get rid of the spaces >>>>> and the dashes, >>>> >>>> Uh, are you saying it should just read >>>> 8BruceMomjianEnterpriseDB >>>> >>>> (clearly I don't get what you're saying :P) >>> >>> Heh. >>> >>> More like: >>> 8 BruceMomjian (EnterpriseDB) >> >> Probably a space between Bruce and Momjian, too. >> >>>> The RSS icon currently links you to the feed for that blog in >>>> question. Are you suggesting we remove that link completely, or link >>>> some other part to that? >>> >>> I think remove that entirely, and offer a link at the top to the page >>> of all RSS feeds. It seems less likely to me that people will want the >>> individual RSS feeds before they want to go to that person's blog. And >>> one extra click to get to all the feeds seems like small price to pay >>> for readability. >> >> I like the RSS icon and would keep that, but moving the number of >> posts to the beginning is at least worth experimenting with to see how >> it looks. > > Site updated, take a look. I rate that about equal with the previous version, maybe slightly better. ...Robert
On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 6:44 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote: >>> I like the RSS icon and would keep that, but moving the number of >>> posts to the beginning is at least worth experimenting with to see how >>> it looks. >> >> Site updated, take a look. > > I rate that about equal with the previous version, maybe slightly better. Not entirely convinced, but I could live with it. The team counts should follow the same format though. -- Dave Page EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise Postgres Company
On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 20:06, Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org> wrote: > On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 6:44 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> I like the RSS icon and would keep that, but moving the number of >>>> posts to the beginning is at least worth experimenting with to see how >>>> it looks. >>> >>> Site updated, take a look. >> >> I rate that about equal with the previous version, maybe slightly better. > > Not entirely convinced, but I could live with it. > > The team counts should follow the same format though. Obviously. Personally, I'd say about as robert except the other way around - about equal, maybe slightly worse :) Other opinions? -- Magnus HaganderMe: http://www.hagander.net/Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
On Mon, 2010-04-19 at 19:06 +0100, Dave Page wrote: > On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 6:44 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> I like the RSS icon and would keep that, but moving the number of > >>> posts to the beginning is at least worth experimenting with to see how > >>> it looks. > >> > >> Site updated, take a look. > > > > I rate that about equal with the previous version, maybe slightly better. > > Not entirely convinced, but I could live with it. > > The team counts should follow the same format though. I see no reason for Top Teams with the new beta format. Joshua D. Drake -- PostgreSQL.org Major Contributor Command Prompt, Inc: http://www.commandprompt.com/ - 503.667.4564 Consulting, Training, Support, Custom Development, Engineering
On Mon, 2010-04-19 at 20:07 +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote: > > Not entirely convinced, but I could live with it. > > > > The team counts should follow the same format though. > > Obviously. > > Personally, I'd say about as robert except the other way around - > about equal, maybe slightly worse :) > > Other opinions? So I took a minute to look around at other sites such as: planet.python.org planet.kde.org planet.debian.org We as a community are starting to really look like a corporate prostitute. Can we just dump the company names? Joshua D. Drake -- PostgreSQL.org Major Contributor Command Prompt, Inc: http://www.commandprompt.com/ - 503.667.4564 Consulting, Training, Support, Custom Development, Engineering
Magnus Hagander escribió: > Other opinions? I have an unrelated question. Why do the team names links to a company page? Would it make more sense to have it link to a page listing all people in that team (with links to their blogs and possibly post counts)? The link to the company could go in that new page. FWIW I like the current beta (modulo fixing formatting of team post counts like individual counts, and the above complaint) a lot better than the original. Thanks! -- Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/ The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 21:10, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com> wrote: > Magnus Hagander escribió: > >> Other opinions? > > I have an unrelated question. Why do the team names links to a company > page? Would it make more sense to have it link to a page listing all > people in that team (with links to their blogs and possibly post > counts)? The link to the company could go in that new page. Well, there is such a page already - http://planet.postgresql.org/feeds.html. It used to be that we listed the team members under the team, at which point it made a lot more sense to link it to the company homepage... -- Magnus HaganderMe: http://www.hagander.net/Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
Joshua D. Drake wrote: > So I took a minute to look around at other sites such as: > > planet.python.org > planet.kde.org > planet.debian.org > Considering that the Debian planet has entries that are broken altogether and an article discussing baby slings, I think they've gone quite a bit too far toward unprofessional. And the floating heads on the KDE planet just creep me out. To pick a more fair comparison site, http://planet.mysql.com/ has a personal and team section that looks quite similar to today's redesign prototype. And if you to see a real corporate driven site to provide perspective, I'd suggest http://planetdb2.com/ -- Greg Smith 2ndQuadrant US Baltimore, MD PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support greg@2ndQuadrant.com www.2ndQuadrant.us
On Mon, 2010-04-19 at 19:25 -0400, Greg Smith wrote: > Joshua D. Drake wrote: > > So I took a minute to look around at other sites such as: > > > > planet.python.org > > planet.kde.org > > planet.debian.org > > > > Considering that the Debian planet has entries that are broken > altogether and an article discussing baby slings, I think they've gone > quite a bit too far toward unprofessional. And the floating heads on > the KDE planet just creep me out. Well I am not giving points for design here. I was just saying a little more community flavor over the pimping we are currently doing is in order. I don't know, maybe it is just me but there are a half-dozen postgresql companies all prominent, do we really need to be slathering on the icing about it? > > To pick a more fair comparison site, http://planet.mysql.com/ has a > personal and team section that looks quite similar to today's redesign And I don't agree that is a fair comparison because mysql is a company not a community. Joshua D. Drake -- PostgreSQL.org Major Contributor Command Prompt, Inc: http://www.commandprompt.com/ - 503.667.4564 Consulting, Training, Support, Custom Development, Engineering
Joshua D. Drake wrote: > I don't know, maybe it is just me but there are a half-dozen postgresql > companies all prominent, do we really need to be slathering on the icing > about it? > I pointed out the DB2 site because that's to me a clear example to me of what going too far would look like. There's quite some distance between there and the current PostgreSQL site. I don't think it's the case that PostgreSQL is so overwhelmed by businesses that are prominent *outside* the PostgreSQL community that everyone should toss any look of corporate ties altogether. There are still many depressingly many business people out there who view all open source databases as hobbyist toy projects. >> To pick a more fair comparison site, http://planet.mysql.com/ has a >> personal and team section that looks quite similar to today's redesign >> > > And I don't agree that is a fair comparison because mysql is a company > not a community. > The increasing viability of all the MySQL forks out there makes that meme not so relevant anymore. Regardless, did you look at the site recently? It's a completely relevant comparison point. The most active thing there is Percona's MySQL Performance Blog, and they surely aren't MySQL the company. Neither is the MySQL@Facebook team, one of the other most active posters. -- Greg Smith 2ndQuadrant US Baltimore, MD PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support greg@2ndQuadrant.com www.2ndQuadrant.us
On Mon, 2010-04-19 at 19:06 +0100, Dave Page wrote: > On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 6:44 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> I like the RSS icon and would keep that, but moving the number of > >>> posts to the beginning is at least worth experimenting with to see how > >>> it looks. > >> > >> Site updated, take a look. > > > > I rate that about equal with the previous version, maybe slightly better. > > Not entirely convinced, but I could live with it. > > The team counts should follow the same format though. I see no reason for Top Teams with the new beta format. Joshua D. Drake -- PostgreSQL.org Major Contributor Command Prompt, Inc: http://www.commandprompt.com/ - 503.667.4564 Consulting, Training, Support, Custom Development, Engineering
On Mon, 2010-04-19 at 20:07 +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote: > > Not entirely convinced, but I could live with it. > > > > The team counts should follow the same format though. > > Obviously. > > Personally, I'd say about as robert except the other way around - > about equal, maybe slightly worse :) > > Other opinions? So I took a minute to look around at other sites such as: planet.python.org planet.kde.org planet.debian.org We as a community are starting to really look like a corporate prostitute. Can we just dump the company names? Joshua D. Drake -- PostgreSQL.org Major Contributor Command Prompt, Inc: http://www.commandprompt.com/ - 503.667.4564 Consulting, Training, Support, Custom Development, Engineering
On Mon, 2010-04-19 at 19:25 -0400, Greg Smith wrote: > Joshua D. Drake wrote: > > So I took a minute to look around at other sites such as: > > > > planet.python.org > > planet.kde.org > > planet.debian.org > > > > Considering that the Debian planet has entries that are broken > altogether and an article discussing baby slings, I think they've gone > quite a bit too far toward unprofessional. And the floating heads on > the KDE planet just creep me out. Well I am not giving points for design here. I was just saying a little more community flavor over the pimping we are currently doing is in order. I don't know, maybe it is just me but there are a half-dozen postgresql companies all prominent, do we really need to be slathering on the icing about it? > > To pick a more fair comparison site, http://planet.mysql.com/ has a > personal and team section that looks quite similar to today's redesign And I don't agree that is a fair comparison because mysql is a company not a community. Joshua D. Drake -- PostgreSQL.org Major Contributor Command Prompt, Inc: http://www.commandprompt.com/ - 503.667.4564 Consulting, Training, Support, Custom Development, Engineering
On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 12:34 AM, Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com> wrote: > On Mon, 2010-04-19 at 19:25 -0400, Greg Smith wrote: > Well I am not giving points for design here. I was just saying a little > more community flavor over the pimping we are currently doing is in > order. Pretty sure it was you that used to argue with me (on a fairly regular basis) that our contributing companies are part of the community too.... -- Dave Page EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise Postgres Company
On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 09:29, Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org> wrote: > On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 12:34 AM, Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com> wrote: >> On Mon, 2010-04-19 at 19:25 -0400, Greg Smith wrote: >> Well I am not giving points for design here. I was just saying a little >> more community flavor over the pimping we are currently doing is in >> order. > > Pretty sure it was you that used to argue with me (on a fairly regular > basis) that our contributing companies are part of the community > too.... To avoid this issue getting stalled by endless bikeshedding, I have applied the version that I think most people agreed upon - or at least that fewest disagreed with. We can keep the discussion going about further changes, of course, but at least we have something done now. -- Magnus HaganderMe: http://www.hagander.net/Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
Hi! On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 3:39 AM, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote: > To avoid this issue getting stalled by endless bikeshedding, I have > applied the version that I think most people agreed upon - or at least > that fewest disagreed with. > > We can keep the discussion going about further changes, of course, but > at least we have something done now. Thanks, Magnus :) The point of the feature was to increase the visibility of all contributors, not just the ones contributing the most. I think now that the name I chose for it was not the best. In general, I favor highlighting individual contribution, and providing opportunities for hobbyists to be very prominently featured. The "fairness" issue brought up earlier doesn't register with me, because the difference between someone who spends their free time tinkering and someone who can claim a salary during the time that they are writing a blog post is significant. And I would never claim to put a greater or lesser value on that. I just want to point out to those who *can* claim a salary while working on Postgres are in a position of privilege. We're all volunteers in some capacity, of course. I hesitate to reduce the visibility of the smaller (in quantity) contributors, just because we decided to add the "top posters" listing. In a Selena-run world, I would not limit the number of items in the 'top posters' list. -selena -- http://chesnok.com/daily - me http://endpoint.com - work
On Tue, 2010-04-20 at 08:29 +0100, Dave Page wrote: > On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 12:34 AM, Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com> wrote: > > On Mon, 2010-04-19 at 19:25 -0400, Greg Smith wrote: > > Well I am not giving points for design here. I was just saying a little > > more community flavor over the pimping we are currently doing is in > > order. > > Pretty sure it was you that used to argue with me (on a fairly regular > basis) that our contributing companies are part of the community > too.... Absolutely and I haven't changed that stance. I just think to some degree it should be balanced. I feel that Planet is getting over the top. Bringing it back to the people as it were, is a good thing. Joshua D. Drake -- PostgreSQL.org Major Contributor Command Prompt, Inc: http://www.commandprompt.com/ - 503.667.4564 Consulting, Training, Support, Custom Development, Engineering
On Tue, 2010-04-20 at 08:29 +0100, Dave Page wrote: > On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 12:34 AM, Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com> wrote: > > On Mon, 2010-04-19 at 19:25 -0400, Greg Smith wrote: > > Well I am not giving points for design here. I was just saying a little > > more community flavor over the pimping we are currently doing is in > > order. > > Pretty sure it was you that used to argue with me (on a fairly regular > basis) that our contributing companies are part of the community > too.... Absolutely and I haven't changed that stance. I just think to some degree it should be balanced. I feel that Planet is getting over the top. Bringing it back to the people as it were, is a good thing. Joshua D. Drake -- PostgreSQL.org Major Contributor Command Prompt, Inc: http://www.commandprompt.com/ - 503.667.4564 Consulting, Training, Support, Custom Development, Engineering
On Monday 19 April 2010 04:21:08 Magnus Hagander wrote: > On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 10:17, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 09:29, Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org> wrote: > >> On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 2:56 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> On Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 9:32 PM, Robert Treat > >>> > >>> <xzilla@users.sourceforge.net> wrote: > >>>> Personally I think the top teams thing has caused more > >>>> trouble/confusion than any benefit it has produced, and at this point > >>>> I think it could be dumped, and with that our top 20 would become much > >>>> more reasonable looking. imho. > >>> > >>> That'd be fine with me, too, as would any of the other suggestions so > >>> far offered. > >> > >> I disagree - I like the teams feature. > >> > >> How about just listing top posters and top teams separately, and not > >> including the people under each team. Maybe something like > >> > >> Top posters > >> ----------------- > >> > >> Robert Treat (OmniTI) - 5 > >> Andreas Scherbaum - 5 > >> Magnus Hagander - 4 > >> Dave Page (EnterpriseDB) -2 > >> Bruce Momjian (EnterpriseDB) - 2 > >> > >> Top teams > >> ---------------- > >> > >> OmniTI - 5 > >> EnterpriseDB - 4 > > > > This is the best idea I've seen so far, I think. > > > >> My only concern with that is that the poster names could become quite > >> long. > > > > Yeah. We could limit the length of the name, I guess - but most are > > short already. CommandPrompt is the longest, and that's not really > > long. (It doesn't say "CommandPrompt, Inc" for example, which would've > > been easily shortened). > > > > I whipped up a quick test (the first part, which is adding the teams > > to the top listing, is trivial. I actually think this looks bad... it's pretty cluttered. I'd rather we dropped the teams from the top and listed team members under their respective teams (offset). *shrug* > > The second one will require the > > reqwrite of a query :P). Here's how it looks for me (attached). > > More importantly, there's a flaw in your query me thinks. OmniTI currently shows having 9 posts in the team section, which also matches the breakdown of my cohorts (4,3,2) in the top posters section, however I also have a blog post on the 13th, so I'd think that we should have at least 10 posts on our "Team", no? I'm guessing others might be off as well, I only noticed cause I knew I had blogged recently. -- Robert Treat Conjecture: http://www.xzilla.net Consulting: http://www.omniti.com
On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 03:18, Robert Treat <xzilla@users.sourceforge.net> wrote: > More importantly, there's a flaw in your query me thinks. OmniTI currently > shows having 9 posts in the team section, which also matches the breakdown of > my cohorts (4,3,2) in the top posters section, however I also have a blog post > on the 13th, so I'd think that we should have at least 10 posts on our "Team", > no? I'm guessing others might be off as well, I only noticed cause I knew I had > blogged recently. Uh, que? There may be more posts now, but I see: Hubert - 4 Theo - 3 You - 2 Which is 9, which happens to be what's listed as OmnitTI. I don't think you get to count yourself twice ;) -- Magnus HaganderMe: http://www.hagander.net/Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
On Thu, 2010-04-22 at 19:20 +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote: > On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 03:18, Robert Treat > <xzilla@users.sourceforge.net> wrote: > > More importantly, there's a flaw in your query me thinks. OmniTI currently > > shows having 9 posts in the team section, which also matches the breakdown of > > my cohorts (4,3,2) in the top posters section, however I also have a blog post > > on the 13th, so I'd think that we should have at least 10 posts on our "Team", > > no? I'm guessing others might be off as well, I only noticed cause I knew I had > > blogged recently. > > Uh, que? There may be more posts now, but I see: Shouldn't that be, vad? :P Joshua D. Drake -- PostgreSQL.org Major Contributor Command Prompt, Inc: http://www.commandprompt.com/ - 503.667.4564 Consulting, Training, Support, Custom Development, Engineering
On Thursday 22 April 2010 13:20:40 Magnus Hagander wrote: > On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 03:18, Robert Treat > > <xzilla@users.sourceforge.net> wrote: > > More importantly, there's a flaw in your query me thinks. OmniTI > > currently shows having 9 posts in the team section, which also matches > > the breakdown of my cohorts (4,3,2) in the top posters section, however I > > also have a blog post on the 13th, so I'd think that we should have at > > least 10 posts on our "Team", no? I'm guessing others might be off as > > well, I only noticed cause I knew I had blogged recently. > > Uh, que? There may be more posts now, but I see: > > Hubert - 4 > Theo - 3 > You - 2 > > Which is 9, which happens to be what's listed as OmnitTI. > > I don't think you get to count yourself twice ;) :-) My bad, I see one of my cohorts isn't actually listed as being part of the OmniTI team, perhaps we'll have to fix that. Of course that also means that I'm not listed in the top posters section, even though I have 2 posts (like most of the other people). Guessing you sort it by first name, what you really need is some magic window query to grab top n plus ties and display that. In the meantime, I can change my name to Bob I guess :-P -- Robert Treat Conjecture: http://www.xzilla.net Consulting: http://www.omniti.com
On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 21:15, Robert Treat <xzilla@users.sourceforge.net> wrote: > On Thursday 22 April 2010 13:20:40 Magnus Hagander wrote: >> On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 03:18, Robert Treat >> >> <xzilla@users.sourceforge.net> wrote: >> > More importantly, there's a flaw in your query me thinks. OmniTI >> > currently shows having 9 posts in the team section, which also matches >> > the breakdown of my cohorts (4,3,2) in the top posters section, however I >> > also have a blog post on the 13th, so I'd think that we should have at >> > least 10 posts on our "Team", no? I'm guessing others might be off as >> > well, I only noticed cause I knew I had blogged recently. >> >> Uh, que? There may be more posts now, but I see: >> >> Hubert - 4 >> Theo - 3 >> You - 2 >> >> Which is 9, which happens to be what's listed as OmnitTI. >> >> I don't think you get to count yourself twice ;) > > :-) My bad, I see one of my cohorts isn't actually listed as being part of > the OmniTI team, perhaps we'll have to fix that. Of course that also means that > I'm not listed in the top posters section, even though I have 2 posts (like > most of the other people). Guessing you sort it by first name, what you really > need is some magic window query to grab top n plus ties and display that. In > the meantime, I can change my name to Bob I guess :-P Nope, we sort it by score only, which means the ones being listed on the toplist is in "pseudo random" order of however they happen to be on disk. But yes, it's rather easy to do with a window query. The big thing is that I'd need to upgrade the machine to 8.4 :-P -- Magnus HaganderMe: http://www.hagander.net/Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: RIPEMD160 > Nope, we sort it by score only, which means the ones being listed on > the toplist is in "pseudo random" order of however they happen to be > on disk. May I introduce you to the "ORDER BY random()" concept? :) > But yes, it's rather easy to do with a window query. The big thing is > that I'd need to upgrade the machine to 8.4 :-P I would hope most everything we have is 8.4, in the name of eating our own dog food. - -- Greg Sabino Mullane greg@turnstep.com PGP Key: 0x14964AC8 201004221541 http://biglumber.com/x/web?pk=2529DF6AB8F79407E94445B4BC9B906714964AC8 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iEYEAREDAAYFAkvQpogACgkQvJuQZxSWSsjU2gCdGnqIL3KHqe/BcDhcm/nb36n/ dT4An2gtFKJBXZC7XsZY7R+lu9QctPkR =pTVP -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 3:42 PM, Greg Sabino Mullane <greg@turnstep.com> wrote: >> But yes, it's rather easy to do with a window query. The big thing is >> that I'd need to upgrade the machine to 8.4 :-P > > I would hope most everything we have is 8.4, in the name of > eating our own dog food. Foolish mortal! Bwahahahahaha. ...Robert
On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 3:29 PM, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote: > But yes, it's rather easy to do with a window query. The big thing is > that I'd need to upgrade the machine to 8.4 :-P Too bad we don't have some kind of feature to make that easy. ...Robert
On Thu, 2010-04-22 at 15:43 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 3:42 PM, Greg Sabino Mullane <greg@turnstep.com> wrote: > >> But yes, it's rather easy to do with a window query. The big thing is > >> that I'd need to upgrade the machine to 8.4 :-P > > > > I would hope most everything we have is 8.4, in the name of > > eating our own dog food. > > Foolish mortal! Bwahahahahaha. You have no idea. > > ...Robert > -- PostgreSQL.org Major Contributor Command Prompt, Inc: http://www.commandprompt.com/ - 503.667.4564 Consulting, Training, Support, Custom Development, Engineering
On Thu, 2010-04-22 at 19:20 +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote: > On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 03:18, Robert Treat > <xzilla@users.sourceforge.net> wrote: > > More importantly, there's a flaw in your query me thinks. OmniTI currently > > shows having 9 posts in the team section, which also matches the breakdown of > > my cohorts (4,3,2) in the top posters section, however I also have a blog post > > on the 13th, so I'd think that we should have at least 10 posts on our "Team", > > no? I'm guessing others might be off as well, I only noticed cause I knew I had > > blogged recently. > > Uh, que? There may be more posts now, but I see: Shouldn't that be, vad? :P Joshua D. Drake -- PostgreSQL.org Major Contributor Command Prompt, Inc: http://www.commandprompt.com/ - 503.667.4564 Consulting, Training, Support, Custom Development, Engineering
On Thu, 2010-04-22 at 15:43 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 3:42 PM, Greg Sabino Mullane <greg@turnstep.com> wrote: > >> But yes, it's rather easy to do with a window query. The big thing is > >> that I'd need to upgrade the machine to 8.4 :-P > > > > I would hope most everything we have is 8.4, in the name of > > eating our own dog food. > > Foolish mortal! Bwahahahahaha. You have no idea. > > ...Robert > -- PostgreSQL.org Major Contributor Command Prompt, Inc: http://www.commandprompt.com/ - 503.667.4564 Consulting, Training, Support, Custom Development, Engineering