It is an interesting observation, Tim.
The fact that people do not read tutorials or manuals, is somewhat related to the fact
that many questions asked in the ccp4bb could be answered by a more experienced colleague,
a supervisor, a manual, a wiki, St Google the revealer, not to mention the somewhat extreme
suggestion of an actual text book.
Tassos
PS Many questions can also be answered by coming to the Gordon Conference for Diffraction Methods
in Structural Biology this summer!!! A great investment of your time, suitable for
both seasoned crystallographers and wannabe stars of the next edition of Cell alike !!!
https://www.grc.org/programs.aspx?year=2014&program=diffrac
But more on that next week!!!
On 14 Feb 2014, at 19:25, Tim Gruene wrote:
> Hi Robbie,
>
> I think lack of feedback is a serious problem for wikis. I once started
> an XDS tutorial at Kay's XDS-wiki, stating that it was still under
> development and encouraging readers to send me an email if they want to
> see faster progress in the completion of the tutorial. I never received
> a single email, so I did not see the point of spending more time there
> and the tutorial is still pretty incomplete (although Kay also
> contributed to it from time to time).
>
> It may be hard to believe (why?) for newcomers, but crystallographers
> are actually very open to criticism and discussions (cf. ccp4bb ;-).
>
> Cheers,
> Tim
>
> On 02/14/2014 07:14 PM, Robbie Joosten wrote:
>> Limited contributions are a common problem with wikis. This paper
>> describes a way to add some incentive to contributing to a wiki:
>> http://bioinformatics.oxfordjournals.org/content/29/14/1837.full
>>
>> Cheers, Robbie
>>
>> Sent from my Windows Phone ________________________________ Van: Kay
>> Diederichs Verzonden: 14-2-2014 8:21 Aan: [log in to unmask]
>> Onderwerp: Re: [ccp4bb] Sister CCPs
>>
>> 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
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
> --
> Dr Tim Gruene
> Institut fuer anorganische Chemie
> Tammannstr. 4
> D-37077 Goettingen
>
> GPG Key ID = A46BEE1A
>
|