From: kristoff@NET.BIO.NET (Dave Kristofferson)
Newsgroups: bionet.molbio.genbank
Subject: Re: BLAZE survey
Date: 7 Jan 93 01:15:45 GMT
Distribution: bionet

> In article <9301050203.AA16211@argosy.MasPar.COM>, stamm@MasPar.COM 
> (Richard Stamm) writes:
> > This posting is in response to Michael McKenna who writes:
> > 
> >> ...I grew kind of fond of the BLAZE server at IG during the short period
> >> it was available (for free). And does anybody have any comments regarding the
> >> _practical_ advantages of the various search strategies- ie FASTA, BLAST,
> >> BLAZE.
> 
> Will the *real* Michael McKenna please stand up?   :)

Jasper (and everyone else interested in this commercial use issue),

	Sorry for the delay in responding as I just got out of an all
day management meeting.  I'm not quite sure what your implication is
here, but one might wonder whether you are implying that IG and Maspar
somehow fabricated this person in order to put up this response?!?!
If that is the implication, I can assure you that this is completely
untrue.  I do not know Michael McKenna nor does Rich Stamm and he is
not an "invention" of either company.  Whoever he is, he posted a
legitimate request for a comparison of the three search programs.  

We (IG and Maspar) had conducted a survey of Blaze users on this very
question (and also on several others; the answers to the other
questions were not publicly posted, but we told the users in the
questionnaire that the responses would be made available to everyone
when compiled - thus we took the risk of being trashed by their
complaints - the survey responses were not altered).  Rich discussed
this posting with me in advance (something I greatly appreciate when
such gray area postings are contemplated!), and I told him that it was
within network guidelines to make the posting.

***NOTE***: I also include for everyone's reference a posting I made
about these commercial usage and commercial job posting subjects over
a year and a half ago.  I maintain my position that nothing improper
was done, but more on this below.


> > I recently compiled the responses of a survey taken of all users
> > of the GenBank BLAZE server.   We will post a tally and summary of 

(stuff deleted)

> Then instead of the  
> 
> >> _practical_ advantages of the various search strategies- ie FASTA, BLAST,
> >> BLAZE.                      
> 
> requested, there was attached an apparently everlasting string of unascribed, 
> unsubstantiated, unscientific nonsense, of the level normally seen in the 
> less imaginative television advertisements for products such as soap powder, 
> breakfast cereals or dog food.

These were the verbatim comments of researchers who used the programs,
so they might not feel the same about the quality of the remarks that
they made.  Both positive and negative responses to the survey
question were provided.  I mentioned to Rich when he brought the
subject to my attention that I thought the user comments alone might
be less convincing then posting the actual research paper in
preparation, but the authors of the paper were not ready to
disseminate results that had not yet completed the publication/review
process.

There is no question that advantage was taken of the question posed by
McKenna to publicize the survey results, but this act does not violate
network regulations.  There are many companies on other USENET
newsgroups that put out complete product announcements, look at
comp.sys.mac.announce, for example, or many of the Sun, etc.
newsgroups.  In those cases the text of the message is composed by the
company in its entirety.  In this case all that was done was to post
the actual comments of respondents to our survey regarding the very
question that was posed by Michael McKenna.  The text of the comments
was not the composition of either Maspar or IG.  I would never condone
business in this fashion.

I will be the first to admit that, as an IG employee, I could be
accused of bias in this matter, but people who know me know that I try
hard to play by the rules, and my reading of the rules tells me that
nothing improper occurred here.  Others are, of course, free to
differ, but I think that the situation is pretty clear cut.

> 
> > A scientific comparison of the various search methods is in also
> > in preperation.  
> 
> Fine, write it up, submit it for publication in a peer reviewed journal, and
> if it is accepted then we can all read it. 

This is being done.

> > Rich Stamm 
> > stamm@maspar.com
>                ^^^ !!! 

I hope that it will not shock anyone that another one of my e-mail
addresses is kristoff@presto.ig.com.  I highly doubt given the
previous exchanges on this topic that anyone did not know that Maspar
is a commercial company.  I don't think that there was any attempt to
disguise this. 


> I think this is unadulterated advertising of the lowest form, this is a
> service for which you are expected to PAY, it is not longer free, and as such
> this posting is way out of line for UseNet. 

I disagree for the reasons mentioned above.  This posting is
completely within guidelines, i.e., as I have said before to many
people, it is O.K. for a company to respond to questions about its
products as long as it is done in a factual fashion without
advertising hype.  GCG does this on the INFO-GCG list, for example.
In this case the text of the comments came directly from end users and
was not prepared by anyone's marketing group.

> Of course if Dave K thinks it's OK, then I withdraw the above unconditionally 
> and apologise. 
> 
> regards,   jasper

There is no need for withdrawals or apologies simply because *I*
happen to say something personally.  Your concerns are legit and you
expressed them openly.  I hope that my explanation is satisfactory.
If after reading the above and the message below, people still think
that I am out to lunch or letting my commercial affiliation warp my
better judgment, please feel free to show me the error of my ways.  I
want to emphasize that Rich discussed the propriety of this posting
with me before making it.  I concluded that it was within guidelines
and still see nothing to make me conclude otherwise.

				Sincerely,

				Dave Kristofferson
				BIOSCI/bionet Manager

				kristoff@net.bio.net


Here is the posting about the usage regulations: