Tuesday, March 01, 2005
Don Burleson has a couple of new articles out that are somewhat educational reads. The first is a 'Challenge' to build a set of predictive tests to allow you to predict when a table or index should be reorganized. This has led to at least 2 or 3 discussions about the challenge in particular (there is one on the boards that Don owns) and one over here at AskTom. They are certainly worth reading for some insight into the ongoing (maybe never-ending) discussions between those who want to understand why and how something happens, and those who want a set of quick fixes or rules of thumb.
The second article looks at the issue of credibility. Don states that he looks for
Experience at Oracle corporation
Computer Science Background
Computer Science Research (specifically ACM and IEEE)
He also clearly regards having books published as an indicator of credibility. Of the 9 people he chooses to highlight, 7 are published authors of books on Oracle.
He also states that
the Oracle Oak Table group claims to be “a network for the Oracle scientist”, yet I was concerned when I could not locate some of their members scientific research, academic achievements, awards, computer science conference proceedings, nor their membership in professional computer science organizations such as ACM or IEEE.
He probably has me, amongst others in mind, the Google search for a CV or Resume which he says he uses doesn't actually throw up my resume (because it isn't on-line) (though it does throw up VB code with On Error Resume Next in it, the perils of searching).
I'd agree that the ability to distinguish good advice from bad, and sound thinking from unsound is very important. I don't think that the Web helps much here. On the other hand CV information, even if you can get it, may not be that much of a help. For example Don appears to have none of the qualifications he looks for in others, his degree is in Psychology, he has never worked for Oracle, if you use the free scholar service provided by Google, you will find that whilst Don's books are listed and his presentations at IOUG count (the UKOUG doesn't show in these searches) he is cited just the once. That citation is in itself an interesting and accurate description of the checklist approach.
"Traditional approaches ([B01], [G01], [ORCLT99]) rely primarily on graphing and examining a small number of system parameters. Determining which system resources to investigate is at best a lengthy process of educated guesswork, where many problems can run undetected." (B01 is the citation, the paper is here).
There is of course another thing that is important in determining credibility, and that is the content of what the author is proposing. The credibility article is somewhat excellent in this regard.
Don - who, according to his resume, got his degree in Psychology in 1979 and started work in 1983 - claims in the article to have been using email in the 70s, one assumes that this was the University in-house email system rather than public discourse, and 'the web' at the same time period. This is really quite a remarkable claim given that Tim Berners-Lee had not yet even started upon Enquire, which itself would not become the web until 1991 or so. For some reason I am reminded of Al Gore. Now, it is true that people confuse the web and the internet all the time, but how credible is a Adjunct Professor in an IT field who does the same thing?
Now I am sure that Don is not arguing that he himself has little or no credibility in his own eyes (and we do know that he is a prolific publisher and author), but I remain confused as to why a published CV is apparently more important than attempting to understand and demonstrate behaviours.
In the mean-time and for what its worth I do have a degree - in Economics from the University of Bristol, I already have a job and am not actively looking for another, and if you care to read my presentations you will find them here or at the websites of the relevant conferences.
Niall.
0 Comments
The second article looks at the issue of credibility. Don states that he looks for
He also clearly regards having books published as an indicator of credibility. Of the 9 people he chooses to highlight, 7 are published authors of books on Oracle.
He also states that
the Oracle Oak Table group claims to be “a network for the Oracle scientist”, yet I was concerned when I could not locate some of their members scientific research, academic achievements, awards, computer science conference proceedings, nor their membership in professional computer science organizations such as ACM or IEEE.
He probably has me, amongst others in mind, the Google search for a CV or Resume which he says he uses doesn't actually throw up my resume (because it isn't on-line) (though it does throw up VB code with On Error Resume Next in it, the perils of searching).
I'd agree that the ability to distinguish good advice from bad, and sound thinking from unsound is very important. I don't think that the Web helps much here. On the other hand CV information, even if you can get it, may not be that much of a help. For example Don appears to have none of the qualifications he looks for in others, his degree is in Psychology, he has never worked for Oracle, if you use the free scholar service provided by Google, you will find that whilst Don's books are listed and his presentations at IOUG count (the UKOUG doesn't show in these searches) he is cited just the once. That citation is in itself an interesting and accurate description of the checklist approach.
"Traditional approaches ([B01], [G01], [ORCLT99]) rely primarily on graphing and examining a small number of system parameters. Determining which system resources to investigate is at best a lengthy process of educated guesswork, where many problems can run undetected." (B01 is the citation, the paper is here).
There is of course another thing that is important in determining credibility, and that is the content of what the author is proposing. The credibility article is somewhat excellent in this regard.
Don - who, according to his resume, got his degree in Psychology in 1979 and started work in 1983 - claims in the article to have been using email in the 70s, one assumes that this was the University in-house email system rather than public discourse, and 'the web' at the same time period. This is really quite a remarkable claim given that Tim Berners-Lee had not yet even started upon Enquire, which itself would not become the web until 1991 or so. For some reason I am reminded of Al Gore. Now, it is true that people confuse the web and the internet all the time, but how credible is a Adjunct Professor in an IT field who does the same thing?
Now I am sure that Don is not arguing that he himself has little or no credibility in his own eyes (and we do know that he is a prolific publisher and author), but I remain confused as to why a published CV is apparently more important than attempting to understand and demonstrate behaviours.
In the mean-time and for what its worth I do have a degree - in Economics from the University of Bristol, I already have a job and am not actively looking for another, and if you care to read my presentations you will find them here or at the websites of the relevant conferences.
Niall.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
