From: steffen@mbcr.bcm.tmc.edu (David Steffen)
Newsgroups: bionet.general
Subject: How will we deal with high volume newsgroups - Part II.
Date: 29 Jul 92 20:48:00 GMT
Organization: Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Tx


  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:
-------

  I believe that the bionet newsgroups are rapidly approaching the
point of having too many messages to be usable by the majority of
biologists.  I propose that a long term solution to this problem is
the development of new network software to replace the current usenet
software currently used by bionet.  This replacement would be a
hierarchical messaging system.  Under this hierarchical messaging
systems, questions would first be circulated to a limited number of
local subscribers so that easy questions could be answered.  Only
those questions not satisfactorily answered by this limited group
would be circulated to everyone.  The result of this is that each
reader would see a small number of questions, a large fraction of
which would be difficult to answer and therefor of general interest.

Description and Justification of the Proposal:
---------------------------------------------

  Currently, only a tiny fraction of biologists read any of the bionet
newsgroups.  As valuable as this amount of interaction is, I look
forward to the day that use of bionet by biologists is as common as
use of computers for word processing.  This cannot happen, of course,
without some better way of dealing with a large number of messages.
This is required for two reasons:
(1) Such a large increase in membership would produce a large increase
in the number of messages.
(2) The current readership of bionet consists of those biologists
particularly taken with computers, who have the interest to devise
various strategies for dealing with a moderately large number of
messages.  If more biologists begin using bionet, more of these new
members will be less patient and forgiving and will expect the system
to accommodate itself to their work habits.

  Those of us who are current, enthusiastic users of bionet sometimes
are impatient with the demands of the vast majority of our colleagues
who are not users of bionet.  Whatever your opinion is on the
legitimacy of such complaints, however, I think most of you will agree
that we would be much better off if we could somehow seduce more of
our colleagues into the bionet community, especially knowledgeable,
senior scientists.  To avoid using real peoples' names, I will refer
to such people from now on as BIG CHEESE.

  Consider how (non-bionet, conventional) biology works now.  If a
graduate student is having a problem, they don't immediately telephone
BIG CHEESE to get her advice; rather they first ask their colleagues
in the lab, including their thesis advisor, for help.  If no answer is
forthcoming, they might then ask their colleagues at their medical
school/university/company.  Finally, if all of these local resources
agree that the question is interesting, and that it cannot be answered
locally, they (or their advisor) might telephone BIG CHEESE for her
advice.

  Consider how usenet works now.  (I am mostly talking about groups
with much higher volume than that of the bionet groups, such as the
comp.sys.mac groups.) A new graduate student discovers usenet and the
mac groups.  They immediately post a question like "the apple in the
upper left hand corner of my Mac keeps flashing - what's up?" [For non
Mac users: this is a VERY frequently asked question with a VERY simple
answer.] Dozens of newer subscribers are excited that they finally see
a question they can answer and simultaneously post the same answer.
Dozens of old timers, who have seen this question too many times, mail
or post a sarcastic messages about FAQ lists [Frequently Asked
Questions], and suggest that the new student RTFM [Read The Fine
Manual], etc.  This particular student either has their feelings so
badly hurt that they abandon the group or else wise up.  However,
there is no shortage of new graduate students, so this process
repeats.  In exasperation, the old timers unsubscribe from the group.
Finally, when an interesting question comes along, the person who
could answer it no longer reads the group.  In my experience,
subdividing the group just makes things worse.

  Consider how things would work in a hierarchical version of bionet.
A new user posts a question like "When I run HindIII- digested lambda
DNA as size markers, the 4 kb band is either very faint or missing.
What's up?" Very quickly, they would get an answer from their local
subscribers ["You probably need to heat your markers just before
running them to prevent the lambda arms from annealing"].  BIG CHEESE
doesn't have to wade through this question and the 20 or 30 answers to
it, and thus is not driven to unsubscribe.  (BIG CHEESE will, of
course, see a few such questions from their local area like everyone
else, but not enough to be objectionable.) The graduate student
doesn't get yelled at for being naive, and is encouraged to use
bionet.  Finally, when a really *TOUGH*, *INTERESTING* question comes
along, it is circulated to the world biology community, and BIG
CHEESE, who happens to be the only one in the world with a useful
insight, sees this question and comments.

  Obviously, a lot of questions remain unanswered in the previous
paragraph.  How would local subgroups of subscribers be defined?  What
is the optimal number of people in a subgroup and the optimal number
of steps in the hierarchy? How would it be decided when a question
needed to move one step wider in the hierarchy? How would this new
software work within the existing environment? I propose we start
thinking about them now.

Responses to my first message, and my answers to them:
------------------------------------------------------

People who have posting or emailed responses (quoted by permission) are:

AJB@UK.AC.DARESBURY.DLVH (Alan Bleasby)
dan@cubmol.bio.columbia.edu (Daniel Zabetakis)
emv@msen.com (Edward Vielmetti)
francis@monod.Biol.McGill.CA (Francis Ouellette)
hartzell@genome.Stanford.EDU (George Hartzell)
kristoff@GENBANK.BIO.NET (Dave Kristofferson)
robert@arbo.microbiol.uwa.oz.au (Robert Coelen)
robison1@husc10.harvard.edu (Keith Robison)
tpm@anat.UMSMED.EDU (Terence P.  Ma)
una@sleepy.phy.duke.edu (Una Smith)
(My apologies if I missed anyone).

  In the interests of brevity, I will discuss the issues raised
without attributing individual quotes.  I have rephrased the comments
received as answers to the question "What should we do about the high
volume of messages posted on bionet.molbio.methods- reagents?" Many of
the answers consist of excellent short term solutions to dealing with
a moderately large number of messages.  To the extent I critique
these, it is in terms of the long term goals I have outlined above.

---------
COMMENT 0:

"Leave everything the way it is.  Things are working fine.  Ten to
twenty messages a day is not a high volume."

MY RESPONSE:

-a- The number of messages will increase with time.  We should plan
    for that now.

-b- Independent of how many messages are posted on other usenet
    groups, or the number of messages some people can cope with, the
    number of messages posted *NOW* is ALREADY too high for many people
    who WE ALL *WANT* to be available as resources for bionet.

---------
COMMENT 1:

"Reduce or eliminate posting of raw answers and/or discussion to the
newsgroup.  Questions should be posted, but answers should be emailed
to the questioner who then would summarize them and post only the
summary."

MY RESPONSE:

-a- This is an excellent plan which I would be in favor of
    implementing now.  I will comment, however, that the last time we
    discussed this there was some disagreement with this idea.  Some
    people felt that the back and forth of discussion was more valuable
    than the distraction caused by the responses.  A modified version of
    this, proposed by one of the responders, is the following: the person
    answering the question emails or posts the answer as seems most
    appropriate to them.  I support this.

-b- The people most likely to post simple questions and simple answers
    are least likely to be computer sophisticated enough to know the
    etiquette and/or how to mail rather than post.  Further, what people
    consider to be of general interest will vary.  Thus, I do not think
    that this solution is adequate for the long run, when 80% of the
    biological research community reads bionet.

---------
COMMENT 2:

"Use the current geographical limitation features of usenet to
geographically limit postings.  If a satisfactory answer was not
received, the questioner would repost to a wider geographical area."
In response to this, it was noted that "current geographical
limitations on usenet don't work as advertised." A second response
argued that this practice "would be a waste of time; why not post to
the World immediately and get an answer sooner?"

MY RESPONSE:

-a- If the current geographical limitations don't work well, then this
    is moot, but even if they do, this solution will work least well for
    those who need it most; the new subscribers.

-b- In response to the comment that the hierarchy is a "waste of
    time": in exchange for the delayed gratification required by my plan
    is the potential for a vastly increased number of potential
    responders.  Consider; the number of biologists in your local group
    who would respond to your question IMMEDIATELY will be almost as large
    as the entire bionet community is today.  The only time in which
    response would be delayed is when a much larger readership than is
    ever likely to otherwise be available needs be consulted.  Thus, I
    propose a win/win situation :-).

---------
COMMENT 3:

"Subdivide the bionet.molbio.methods-reagents group into subgroups."
(This is the standard usenet response).  There was at least one
objection to this solution, fearing that a critical mass would be
lost.

MY RESPONSE:

I have not developed a logical refutation for this argument, but my
experience with an embarrassingly large number of usenet groups
indicates to me that this solution does not work well.  I would
vigorously oppose any move to subdivide bionet.molbio.methods-reagents

---------
COMMENT 4:

"Use more efficient newsreaders so that uninteresting "threads" (a
question followed by a series of answers) can be ruthlessly
terminated."

MY RESPONSE:

-a- This an excellent idea, but I do not believe that, by itself, this
    is enough in the long run.

-b- Many people who ought to be reading this list will find it
    difficult to implement this solution.  I, myself, cannot implement
    this solution.  I currently use rn, which I gather is a "good"
    newsreader.  Many people have recommended nn or trn as better
    alternatives.  I think I would need to get the overworked system
    support people at Baylor to install these alternative newsreaders if I
    wish to try them.  This is a non-trivial undertaking.  I have to
    admit, however, that since my proposal requires installation of new
    software as well, that I can't complain about this too much.  This
    response has gotten me to get off my rear and begin negotiating with
    my systems people about getting some alternative newsreaders on line.

---------
COMMENT 5:

"Encourage biologists to read the group regularly so that messages
don't build up to an unacceptably large number."

MY RESPONSE:

My experience with watching people use bionet and trying to get
people to start using bionet indicates to me that this will not
happen.  We only read a paper journal weekly or monthly.  Why should
we HAVE to read an electronic version of basically the same thing more
often than this? I firmly believe that if we are to vastly increase
the readership of bionet we will have to make the tool conform to the
worker, not vice versa.

---------
COMMENT 6:

"Post a list of frequently asked questions and their answers (FAQ)."

MY RESPONSE:

-a- Producing a FAQ list for bionet.molbio.methods-reagents, would be
    a *LOT* of work, IMHO.  I would heap praise upon the person willing to
    do this.  Don't get me wrong, I think this is a wonderful idea.,
    however ...

-b- Many of the people who would most benefit from a FAQ will be least
    able to find and use it.  Thus, as useful as it would be, it would not
    solve the volume problem.


Thanks for all the responses!  Sorry that this message was so long,
but it was the only way I could think of to deal with all the ideas
expressed.

-- 
David Steffen
Department of Cell Biology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston TX 77030
Telephone = (713) 798-6655, FAX = (713) 790-0545
Internet = steffen@bcm.tmc.edu
Newsgroups: bionet.xtallography