[adaptivegenome]

When we submit the paper, we can use the current resolution figures embedded in the document. If the manuscript is accepted, then we need to upload high-res images (1200dpi). I am going to split the figures from their legends. All legends should be on a separate page...

[adaptivegenome]

I like Figure 3 a lot but it is very small and seems to relate to Figure 1. Is there are way we can make it part of Figure 1 and have an (A) and a (B). This will be a better use of space and I think will look better. For example, we could stack them, Figure 1 on top and Figure 3 right underneath and enlarged to be the width of the plot in Figure 1.

Rob/Marco, are you guys okay with this?

[robs]

When we submit the paper, we can use the current resolution figures embedded in the document. If the manuscript is accepted, then we need to upload high-res images (1200dpi). I am going to split the figures from their legends. All legends should be on a separate page...

Google docs only allows a maximum height/width of 1600px. I can send you higher resolution figures when needed.

[robs]

I like Figure 3 a lot but it is very small and seems to relate to Figure 1. Is there are way we can make it part of Figure 1 and have an (A) and a (B). This will be a better use of space and I think will look better. For example, we could stack them, Figure 1 on top and Figure 3 right underneath and enlarged to be the width of the plot in Figure 1.

I am not sure if we can relate both. Figure 1 shows the activity of forum members (as in contributing to the forum with posts), but figure 3 shows the number of visitors from Google Analytics (which might only be visiting, but not posting).

[adaptivegenome]

I am not sure if we can relate both. Figure 1 shows the activity of forum members (as in contributing to the forum with posts), but figure 3 shows the number of visitors from Google Analytics (which might only be visiting, but not posting).

I think we should frame Figure 1 as a summary of the community. The community is made of (A) authors who contribute posts and threads and (B) readers who benefit from the contributions.

We can comment that we are not confident whether the contributor breakdown mirrors the readership breakdown.

Then Figure 2 works for showing how fast problems are solved; and this relates to the board enabling fast timescales of innovation.

Do you think we can do this? Stylistically I think it works better than having a small and out of place Figure 3. And for a compact correspondence it looks better and will be easier to follow I think.

Let me know if you are okay with this.

[adaptivegenome]

Google docs only allows a maximum height/width of 1600px. I can send you higher resolution figures when needed.

We do not need final figures until the manuscript is accepted.

[Joann]

I think we should frame Figure 1 as a summary of the community. The community is made of (A) authors who contribute posts and threads and (B) readers who benefit from the contributions.

We can comment that we are not confident whether the contributor breakdown mirrors the readership breakdown.

Perhaps this can be addressed as best as possible by looking at

1. the total number of registered forum members
against
2. the number of readers by way of Google Analytics info.

I have noticed that most times when I log on to the forum, there are many more unregistered/unlogged in readers than members participating during that time. I've always wondered why and if there are really that many "unofficial" readers of the forum. But it would be good to show the numbers which can suggest that useful information posted is being re-read by many, many others. This could support even more thoughtful and complete questions and posts.

[adaptivegenome]

Perhaps this can be addressed as best as possible by looking at

1. the total number of registered forum members
against
2. the number of readers by way of Google Analytics info.

I have noticed that most times when I log on to the forum, there are many more unregistered/unlogged in readers than members participating during that time. I've always wondered why and if there are really that many "unofficial" readers of the forum. But it would be good to show the numbers which can suggest that useful information posted is being re-read by many, many others. This could support even more thoughtful and complete questions and posts.

Take a look at what Rob did now. I like the new Figure 1.

[robs]

At some point we are going to duplicate Biostar...I haven't thought about how to deal with that, but I think for now it's not "reported post" worthy...?

This might be something we could try to address in the Outlook section.

[marcowanger]

This might be something we could try to address in the Outlook section.

when did ECO said this? I couldn't find the exact post...

(off-topic), robs, check your Linkedin.

[marcowanger]

references are added in text for now.

[marcowanger]

re-writed the introduction part. I hope you will find the argument make sense..

Language is rough, but the idea is there

[marcowanger]

i added examples and comments from Keith's and others' blog and note the debate on recently hot debate on RNA-editing. Interesting, someone continue to cite Li's article without notice the counter-argument proposed in another paper....

[adaptivegenome]

references are added in text for now.

This is ideal. Just put the PUBMED ID in parenthesis. I will go back and swap with endnote citations.

[adaptivegenome]

re-writed the introduction part. I hope you will find the argument make sense..

Language is rough, but the idea is there

Looks good!