From: ajt@uk.ac.sari.rri (Tony Travis)
Newsgroups: bionet.general
Subject: Re: How will we deal with high volume newsgroups - Part II.
Date: 30 Jul 92 13:02:17 GMT
Distribution: bionet
Organization: Rowett Research Institute
Original-To: bioforum@uk.ac.daresbury

In article <92629215731.MIN-LXAAa09905.bionet-news@uk.ac.daresbury> you write:
: 
:   Thanks to everyone who has participated so far in the discussion of
: "How will we deal with high volume newsgroups?" I have tried to
: collect all the responses to date, and comment on them here.  This
: message is long, but is divided into three parts so that you need read
: only as much as interests you.  The three parts are:
: (1) A summary of the current version of my suggestion.
: (2) A detailed description of and justification for the current
:     version of my suggestion.
: (3) A summary of the responses to the first version of my suggestion
:     and my replies to the points raised.
: 
: SUMMARY:
: [deleted]

I have resisted responding to this thread so far, but I have been
reading it with increasing concern.

I cannot stress how much I fundamentally disagree with the proposal to
restrict the circulation of bionet messages on a question/answer basis.

Bionet is also a *discusion* forum in which all are invited to
participate.  I agree that _one_ of it's functions is to allow people
to ask questions that others may or may not be able to answer, but I
regard the primary purpose of my use of bionet as communication with a
community of other scientists interested in my area of work.

This is true even if I simply read the discussions and don't post.

I also read, with interest, questions and answers from people in areas
not related to my own because I believe that a multi-disciplinary
approach is a fundamental prerequisite to good science.

Anyone with an elementary knowledge of genetics will recognise that a
restricted gene pool is a disaster for the success of a biological
community and I wish to draw an analogy with restriction of the
information exchanges on bionet.

People who are concerned about the volume of news/mail they are
confronted with because of the _popularity_ of bionet groups could
filter what they read using a good, modern threaded newsreader like tin
(or trn).  After all, when accessing conventional journals or
newsletters it is equally necessary to be selective about what you
read.

As I've mentioned several times recently, it is actually possible to
read mail with the tin newsreader too and I use tin to avoid having to
wade through dozens of messages in my mail folder (which would be the
case if I read the BIOSCI lists as mail).  It also has the merit that
only one user at this site needs to subscribe to the BIOSCI mailing
lists.  This is only necessary if, like me, you don't have a news feed.

In my opinion, restricting the circulation of messages is NOT a
solution to dealing with the problem of reading high-volume news/mail
groups.  It may also undo much of the good work done by the biosci
people on our behalf to broaden the contact between biologists.  I
suggest that FAQ's and regular informational postings are the solution
to dealing with groups that have a high volume of naive questions.

	Tony

--
Dr. A.J.Travis,                       |  Tony Travis
Rowett Research Institute,            |  JANET: <ajt@uk.ac.sari.rri>
Greenburn Road, Bucksburn,            |  other: <ajt@rri.sari.ac.uk>
Aberdeen, AB2 9SB. UK.                |  phone: 0224-712751