Frank,
the way you phrase implies that the outcome of the 'experiment', as you call it, is obvious. But that would be throwing out the baby with the bathtub, it seems to me.
My point is: the wiki and the bulletin board have complementary roles, and it makes sense to use both.
After all, there are on average 500 "visits" viewing 3.500 "pages" _every_ _day_ (not counting robots/spiders of search engines) to CCP4wiki + XDSwiki combined:
Day Number of visits Pages Hits Bandwidth
01 Feb 2014 373 2,363 4,760 58.26 MB
02 Feb 2014 361 2,142 4,806 122.95 MB
03 Feb 2014 483 3,139 6,635 102.01 MB
04 Feb 2014 489 3,224 7,999 118.76 MB
05 Feb 2014 450 3,187 7,722 125.14 MB
06 Feb 2014 451 2,627 5,940 87.03 MB
07 Feb 2014 490 2,999 7,087 185.78 MB
08 Feb 2014 55 368 916 9.20 MB
09 Feb 2014 323 1,928 4,327 58.37 MB
10 Feb 2014 597 3,160 7,986 163.56 MB
11 Feb 2014 535 3,485 8,685 114.64 MB
12 Feb 2014 540 3,231 7,883 123.59 MB
13 Feb 2014 544 3,498 8,367 147.47 MB
(awstats statistics; sorry for the bad formatting; column 2 is "visits", 3 is "pages", 4 is "hits", 5 is "bandwidth".)
So people _do_ turn to the wiki for information - maybe potential contributors should know this!
best,
Kay
On Fri, 14 Feb 2014 08:15:51 +0000, Frank von Delft <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>Seems it's worth thinking about this as an experiment that has actually
>been done: BB and wiki have been available in parallel for many years
>now; so where has all the activity happened, where do people go for
>information - and more to the point, where are other people happy to
>volunteer information?
>
>According to what you say, the experiment has a clear outcome.
>
>Even crystallographers are social beings, and thrive on interaction.
>Wikis don't interact.
>
>I should add I'm not at all clear what problem is being addressed here:
>if I get an email I don't want to read, I make a tiny hand-movement (=
>hit delete) and it vanishes forever. Are people suggesting we abandon
>an empirically proven mechanism merely to save me the need for this tiny
>hand-movement?
>
>phx
>
>
>
>On 14/02/2014 07:19, Kay Diederichs wrote:
>> Nat,
>>
>> that's why I set up the CCP4 wiki at http://strucbio.biologie.uni-konstanz.de/ccp4wiki/index.php/Main_Page ! The idea is that everybody benefits: experienced crystallographers/biologists can concentrate on the new and difficult questions coming up on the bulletin board, and novices find answers to those ever-recurring questions. Everybody can contribute answers, or improve existing ones!
>>
>> But the wiki can only be useful in the long run if there are contributors. Why are there (almost) no contributors? It cannot be due to technical difficulty; it's very easy to contribute to a wiki. One guess is that a posting on a BB is more socially rewarding, because the interaction via emails is more immediate.
>>
>> Re-vitalize the wiki!
>>
>> Kay
>>
>> On Thu, 13 Feb 2014 07:21:14 -0800, Nat Echols <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>>> One comment (not a complaint) on all this: it seems like the same questions
>>> get asked over and over again. If there is a good place for a general
>>> crystallography FAQ list it is well past time for one to be put together -
>>> or maybe it just needs to be better advertised? At a minimum, for instance:
>>>
>>> - what cryoprotectant should I use?
>>> - how do I get big single crystals?
>>> - how do I improve diffraction?
>>> - how can I tell if I've solved my structure?
>>> - why is my R-free stuck?
>>> - is <pick random statistic> suitable for publication?
>>>
>>> Some of the other common queries ("name my blob!") still need to be handled
>>> on a case-by-case basis, but it would be much more efficient for everyone
>>> if the standard answers were collected somewhere permanent.
>>>
>>> -Nat
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 7:05 AM, Eugene Valkov <[log in to unmask]>wrote:
>>>
>>>> I absolutely agree with Juergen.
>>>>
>>>> Leaving aside methods developers, who are a completely different breed,
>>>> there is no such thing as a "crystallographer" sitting in a dark room
>>>> solving structures all day. If there are, these are anachronisms destined
>>>> for evolutionary demise.
>>>>
>>>> More and more cell biologists, immunologists and all other kinds of
>>>> biologists are having a go at doing structural work with their molecules of
>>>> interest themselves without involving the "professionals". Typically, they
>>>> learn on the job and they need advice with all kinds of things ranging from
>>>> cloning and protein preps through to issues with tetartohedrally-twinned
>>>> data and interpreting their structures.
>>>>
>>>> So, a modern structural biologist is one who is equipped for the wet lab
>>>> and has some idea of how to go about solving structures. CCP4BB is a
>>>> wonderful resource that is great for both the quality of the advice offered
>>>> to those that seek it and for the variety of topics that are addressed in
>>>> the scope of structural biology. I have learnt greatly from reading posts
>>>> from very skilled and knowledgeable scientists at this forum and then
>>>> implemented these insights into my own research. I am very grateful for
>>>> this.
>>>>
>>>> In short, please do not discourage your colleagues, particularly very
>>>> junior ones, from posting to the CCP4BB. Some of the questions may appear
>>>> quaint or irrelevant but it is easy to simply ignore topics that are of no
>>>> interest!
>>>>
>>>> Eugene
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 13 February 2014 14:41, Bosch, Juergen <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Let me pick up Eleanor's comment:
>>>>> is there something like a crystallographer today ? I mean in the true
>>>>> sense ?
>>>>> I think as a "crystallographer" you won't be able to survive the next
>>>>> decade, you need to diversify your toolset of techniques as pointed out in
>>>>> this article
>>>>> http://www.nature.com/naturejobs/science/articles/10.1038/nj7485-711a
>>>>>
>>>>> And I'm not quite sure how software developers see themselves, as I would
>>>>> argue they are typically maybe not doing so much wet lab stuff related to
>>>>> crystallography (I may be wrong here) but rather code these days.
>>>>>
>>>>> What "type" of crystallographer is a software developer ?
>>>>>
>>>>> I think like our beloved crystals "we" come in different flavors. And we
>>>>> need to train the next generation of students with that perspective in mind.
>>>>>
>>>>> Just my two cents on a snowy day (>30cm over night)
>>>>>
>>>>> J�rgen
>>>>> ......................
>>>>> J�rgen Bosch
>>>>> Johns Hopkins University
>>>>> Bloomberg School of Public Health
>>>>> Department of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology
>>>>> Johns Hopkins Malaria Research Institute
>>>>> 615 North Wolfe Street, W8708
>>>>> Baltimore, MD 21205
>>>>> Office: +1-410-614-4742
>>>>> Lab: +1-410-614-4894
>>>>> Fax: +1-410-955-2926
>>>>> http://lupo.jhsph.edu
>>>>>
>>>>> On Feb 13, 2014, at 6:41 AM, Eleanor Dodson <[log in to unmask]>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I agree with Frank - it keeps crystallographers modest to know how
>>>>> challenging wet lab stuff still is..
>>>>> Eleanor
>>>>>
>>>>> On 12 February 2014 19:23, Robbie Joosten <[log in to unmask]>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> It's not an e-mail bulletin board, but Researchgate seems to be quite
>>>>> popular for wet lab questions. IMO the Q&A section of the social network
>>>>> is
>>>>> a bit messy. That said, the quality seems to improve gradually.
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>> Robbie
>>>>>
>>>>> Sent from my Windows Phone
>>>>> ________________________________
>>>>> Van: Paul Emsley
>>>>> Verzonden: 12-2-2014 19:23
>>>>> Aan: [log in to unmask]
>>>>> Onderwerp: Re: [ccp4bb] Sister CCPs
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 12/02/14 15:59, George Sheldrick wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> It would be so nice to have a 'sister CCP' for questions aboud wet-lab
>>>>> problems that have nothing to do with CCP4 or crystallographic
>>>>> computing, The is clearly a big need for it, and those of us who try
>>>>> to keep out of wet-labs would not have to wade though it all.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> FWIW, the remit of CCP4BB, held at jiscmail-central, is describes as:
>>>>>
>>>>> /The CCP4BB mailing list is for discussions on the use of the CCP4
>>>>> suite, and macromolecular crystallography in general./
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Thus wet-lab questions are not off-topic (not that anyone recently
>>>>> described them as such).
>>>>>
>>>>> Having said that, Jiscmail mailing lists are easy to set-up (providing
>>>>> that you can reasonably expect that the mailing list will improve
>>>>> knowledge sharing within the UK centered academic community) and
>>>>> relatively low maintenance. I, for one, would not be entirely unhappy to
>>>>> miss out on questions about lysis.
>>>>>
>>>>> Paul.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Dr Eugene Valkov
>>>>
>>>> Room 3N049
>>>> Division of Structural Studies
>>>>
>>>> MRC Laboratory of Molecular Biology
>>>> Francis Crick Avenue
>>>> Cambridge Biomedical Campus
>>>> Cambridge CB2 0QH, U.K.
>>>>
>>>> Email: [log in to unmask]
>>>> Tel: +44 (0) 1223 267358
>>>>
|