At this late date, it would be terrible if these two showstopper requirements came as news to the SQLA 2.0 team, but here goes...

First, SQLA 2.0 must be fast, much faster than DCX. The DCX website is tolerated only because of what it is: the one and only online interface for RTFM. If SQLA 2.0 runs on the same geological timescale as DCX, it will fail.

I think DCX's problem may be the enormously bloated responses (700K+) but I am just guessing.

Second, SQLA 2.0 must be Google-searchable. Not the laughable database "search" field you see on the grey links bar (look up, and to the right, on this page), but the "Search SQLA" button above that, at the very top right.

( Don't even think that a full-text database search will meet the need. SQL Anywhere is wonderful, so is full-text searching, but Google it is not and never will be. Suck it up, move on. :)

Here's a sample "Search SQLA" of this website: http://www.google.com/cse?cx=016640858164961096467%3Aqptqxoigjji&ie=UTF-8&q=execute+immediate&sa=Search+SQLA&siteurl=sqla.stackexchange.com%2F

The Search SQLA button is easy to add (it's called "Google Custom Search") if it isn't in SQLA 2.0 already, that's not the point. The point is, the SQLA 2.0 content must be visible to the Google bots, and it must be indexed on a regular basis. That means no clever HTML that Google will interpret as SEO bullsiht.

It took a long time for SQLA 1.0 (this site) to be Google-searchable, and even after the HTML template was stripped of all the fluff and crap it still isn't perfect. But it's good enough. If SQLA 2.0 isn't at least as good, it will fail.

asked 07 Nov '10, 09:15

Breck%20Carter's gravatar image

Breck Carter
25.6k427586844
accept rate: 20%

edited 18 Mar '11, 11:42

Mark%20Culp's gravatar image

Mark Culp
22.9k9129269


Thanks for the reminder about google searchability ... we will need to check this (and do something about it if needed) once the site is visible to the outside world.

BTW: Yes, the new 'SQLA' does use the full text search capability within SQL Anywhere.

permanent link

answered 07 Nov '10, 13:48

Mark%20Culp's gravatar image

Mark Culp
22.9k9129269
accept rate: 41%

Perhaps the new site needs to be "beta" (alpha? gamma?) tested by some of this site's users before going live and before we let go of this site?

It's hard to compare what one has never seen, but this site is working well and it would be a shame to lose any momentum.

permanent link

answered 07 Nov '10, 16:59

Siger%20Matt's gravatar image

Siger Matt
3.1k486493
accept rate: 13%

2

I fully second this suggestion. Fully. Really fully.

(07 Nov '10, 20:59) Volker Barth

It would be nice for a few people to see the new site before it goes live but wouldn't too much testing slow the change over down, and as there is a new version on the horizon there isn't much enthusiasm for making some necessary changes to SQLA 1.0 so my worry would be everything stagnating ?

(13 Nov '10, 00:13) Daz Liquid
Your answer
toggle preview

Follow this question

By Email:

Once you sign in you will be able to subscribe for any updates here

By RSS:

Answers

Answers and Comments

Markdown Basics

  • *italic* or _italic_
  • **bold** or __bold__
  • link:[text](http://url.com/ "title")
  • image?![alt text](/path/img.jpg "title")
  • numbered list: 1. Foo 2. Bar
  • to add a line break simply add two spaces to where you would like the new line to be.
  • basic HTML tags are also supported

Question tags:

×164

question asked: 07 Nov '10, 09:15

question was seen: 531 times

last updated: 18 Mar '11, 11:42