From: jasper@vax.path.ox.ac.uk
Newsgroups: bionet.molbio.genbank
Subject: Re: BLAZE survey
Date: 7 Jan 93 18:16:21 GMT
Distribution: bionet
Organization: Oxford University Molecular Biology Data Centre
Nntp-Posting-User: jasper

Hi,

First, I do not wish this to turn into a flame war, I guess the dreaded
British humour does not always commute.... I guess I had forgotten that :( 

>> Will the *real* Michael McKenna please stand up?   :)

> but one might wonder whether you are implying that IG and Maspar
> somehow fabricated this person in order to put up this response?!?!

well it *was* a joke....  

but seriously, we all take it as accepted practice to put his posting details
on the top, and in this case it is unfortunate that they were not there. It is
barely relevant, but I obviously am happy that he exists. 

> 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. 

Are you saying you actually read this message and decided it was OK, or just
that he asked if it would be OK to post in the general area of this material.
The latter is what is implied I think. I can't believe you read and sanctioned
this rubbish. 

>> 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.

I'm going to stand by this I'm afraid, I agree that I'm being *very*
sarcastic, but there is *no way* that this adds anything to the average users
knowledge of the software, algorithm, value of the output, comparison with the
other programs, etc etc etc. which is what was asked for. This really doesn't
stand up as a survey, the results of which should be a valuable contribution
to the audience. 

In addition, you guys have access to a good analysis of the comparative use of 
this software, which could have been summarised to the Net, perhaps at the 
time that the paper (below) is published. Indeed I hope it will be.

As for the sarcasm? well, substitute the names of brands of popular soap
powders and it is clear what I mean. 

> 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.  

Look, we know that the BLAZE server was put up for public use last year, that
it was a valuable service that people took a lot of advantage of, in
particular extensive advantage was taken of it from this site. It was also 
free, and sponsored (to the best of my knowledge) by MasPar and IG. I doubt 
anyone seriously expected to sell many machines on that basis. So it is not a 
problem from that point of view. 

It is also widely known that the services sold by IG over the net are a
valuable part of the Biocomputing facilities available to the community, many
of us are aware of the previous link between IG and the free GOS services and
regret the passing of them. But they have not gone away, they are a commercial
service, openly available, and occassionally noted on the Net. This does not
cause offense. It would be nonsense to suggest that any company posting to the
net about its services or products or employment prospects should be banned.
If anything, one is inclined to feel that not allowing this sort of
information out is to everyone's detriment. 

I see no reason why the information about this service should not be broadcast
(my personal point of view) in an accurate and appropriate fashion, with
appropriate disclaimers. I feel this posting violates every aspect of that. It
is *not* the answer to the question posed (well if I got that as an answer I
would be pretty disappointed!) it does not state the service is to be payed
for, it does not state where to get it, it is clearly aimed at trawling for
people who do not yet know where to get the info, and they are responding in 
the hoped for fashion. And I am protesting.

> 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.

Well, I have always felt that you have always made and still make a great
effort to wear both your hats appropriately; indeed I guess a lot of people 
don't know your real employ! I really appreciate that, and all the help I and 
users associated with me have had over the years.

>> > 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.

Now when this is out it would be good to have the reference posted.

> I hope that it will not shock anyone that another one of my e-mail
> addresses is kristoff@presto.ig.com.  

Dunno....   :) what's shocking about "presto" ?                          :)

> 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. 

That is not the issue, as I think is totally obvious. 

>> 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, 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.  

Exactly, that is just have I am unhappy about, I think that this posting is
against everything you have said in the previous paragragh. 

> In this case the text of the comments came directly from end users and
> was not prepared by anyone's marketing group.

They were submitted by an employee of MasPar, from a MasPar address, if he 
does not represent MasPar then he should say so, if he does, then he should be 
replying to this.

And of course I'm not really sure why this is in the bionet.molbiol.genbank 
group, rather than the .software group....  but who cares!

Well, I've said what I think and I've said why I think it. I'm willing to 
agree to differ! Anyway, these are my views only they do not represent Oxford 
University, or the Wellcome Trust or any other anonymous body!
 
warmly, from the microfilaments to the (ex-)microtubles!     jasper

Jasper Rees

etc etc etc 

jasper@molbiol.ox.ac.uk  (new mail address)
jasper@vax.path.ox.ac.uk