Recently SQLServerPedia.com revamped their site, and in the process left a LOT of dead links. I know that I have posted many (non-link-only) answers with links to their content, and I am already in the process .

Some links that were actively listed on this site, were once deemed valuable, and are now dead include:




This content may be on the site still, in a different location; I have no idea. I tried searching for a few minutes and quickly gave up. Clicking on each link above gets you into either a dead end or a "start at the beginning" scenario.

Now, I would happily edit any such answers to indicate at the very least that the SQLServerPedia links are no longer valid, and users might have a tough time locating the content that used to exist at that location.

This Google search suggests that there are about 265 pages (and that might mean more posts and more links than 265), however that is going to be a very cumbersome process, never mind that I don't know how accurate that search really is. (As an aside, there are also 75 relevant posts highlighted on dba.SE.

Running a local search, it says SO has 201 posts (64 less than Google) and dba.SE has 36 posts (39 less than Google). Thanks @Yannis.

So I guess my question is:

Is there a way to efficiently deal with this scenario? Most of the questions that deal with link rot talk about individual answers with dead links, not an entire site killing every single link on the network. I wonder if there is a way for the devs to find all the post ids with the URL, flag them with a custom comment and shove them in a review queue.

Barring that, I guess I (and any others who want to join) can update the content of these posts in a more cumbersome way.

  • There's a url search operator: stackoverflow.com/search?q=url%3A%22sqlserverpedia.com%22
    – yannis
    Jul 25, 2013 at 22:32
  • 1
    @Yannis Interesting, this accepted answer offered slightly different syntax: stackoverflow.com/… Still (1) would be preferable. This is a much bigger problem than me figuring out how to work a search. :-)
    – Aaron Bertrand Staff
    Jul 25, 2013 at 22:35
  • Well, for #1 there's always SEDE...
    – yannis
    Jul 25, 2013 at 22:37
  • @Yannis yes, but it's out of date, and still will be cumbersome back-and-forth to edit 200+ posts that way I think.
    – Aaron Bertrand Staff
    Jul 25, 2013 at 22:41
  • 11
    Yet again we have a demonstration of why link only answers or answers that rely heavily on links are bad answers. Including as much information as possible in the answer is always the best policy.
    – ChrisF Mod
    Jul 25, 2013 at 22:46
  • 2
    @ChrisF but let's keep this focused on what it is: this is also detrimental to posts that contain links and useful context.
    – Aaron Bertrand Staff
    Jul 25, 2013 at 22:47
  • 1
    @AaronBertrand Point taken.
    – ChrisF Mod
    Jul 25, 2013 at 22:48
  • 2
    @ChrisF I will say I agree 100%, and have been engaged in the topic for much of the day.
    – Aaron Bertrand Staff
    Jul 25, 2013 at 22:58

1 Answer 1


There are 2 patterns to the SQLServerPedia links: those in the /wiki directory and those in the /blog directory.

How to fix "*/wiki" links

  1. find questions: SO questions with these links
  2. get the article title from the old link (replace underscore with space)
  3. search for article title in Toad World's top right search box, or you can use a search engine I guess.

How to fix "*/blog" links

  1. find questions: SO questions with these links
  2. get article title (same as before)
  3. use a search engine to find the article (not 100% chance of finding the article though)

Note: I haven't had success locating the SQLServerPedia blog articles on Toad World, but some of the articles can be found in their own blogs. Looking at some Toad World blog posts (example 1 and example 2), I see that the people who blog there might keep a separate/complete copy of article on their own blogs (i.e. the articles end with "Read the complete post at...").

Old link → New link reference? (Possibly not very useful)

I propose we have a knowledgebase of sorts mapping old links (SQLServerPedia) to new links (Toad World), so that users who want to help out with replacing the broken links can have an easy reference of sorts (just Ctrl+F this page).

Proposed format:

old link

new link ("???" means can't locate the equivalent on the new site)


Given the variety of articles that was on SQLServerPedia, I'm not sure how useful this "reference" is – I think majority of the articles/links are used only once.



















  • I'm tired from typing this up. Now you guys go fix them link haha. Jul 26, 2013 at 3:22

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .