> I think the real problem is that limiting the distribution is a waste
> of time unless you are _certain_ that your question has a local answer. On
> those few occasions when I've posted here with questions, the best answers
> have come from non-local areas. The only time I limit my distribution is
> if the question is very trivial, or of local interest.
I tend to agree with you on this.
> >Another possibility that we could entertain would be to split up
> >METHODS into a few subsets if anyone thinks that the time has come for
> >this.
> >
> A much better idea. I predict that bionet readership will be going way
> up in the next few years. Biologists are underrepresented as users, especially
> considering what computers and network communication can do for a biologist.
> More and more of the students and faculty here are getting interested in
> databases, and e-mail communication, and bionet. I predict that bionet
> volume will grow faster than usenet(anybody got any stats?)
I will also be expanding the non-network PR for BIOSCI after GenBank
ends too, so this will undoubtedly be the case, i.e., rapid expansion
although I am less certain about rates compared to USENET as a whole.
> Isn't bionet.genbank.updates (or something like that) one of the highest
> volume groups?
Yes.
Sincerely,
Dave Kristofferson
GenBank Manager
kristoff at genbank.bio.net
