[andreas.sjodin]

I think wet lab protocols are better hosted at OpenWetWare.

Adding a section of small "example code snippets" to each software in the SEQwiki would be great. Should be added to wanted features in the SEQwiki.

I think it is better to mainly concentrate on the SEQanswer Forum in the letter.

[marcowanger]

I think wet lab protocols are better hosted at OpenWetWare.

Adding a section of small "example code snippets" to each software in the SEQwiki would be great. Should be added to wanted features in the SEQwiki.

I think it is better to mainly concentrate on the SEQanswer Forum in the letter.

Agree that openwetware works better for wet lab protocols. And in fact there are some software walkthrough in SEQwiki already. Snippet would be great

[dan]

I also think that SEQanswers is an incredibly useful knowledgebase all around NGS and its bioinformatics applications. I especially love its instantaneous character and the (usually) extremely short reaction times of experts and developers in the fields to all sorts of questions, ranging from biological questions to discussion/usage of various bioinformatic tools to bug reports or feature requests. For many questions I have and had in the past, SEQanswers has become my first port of call to look for solutions or help.

I think you speak for a lot of users. Please go ahead and write this in the letter if you agree :-D

[dan]

However, I think we should separate the Forum from the Wiki for the letter, as the Wiki is getting published already, am I right?

Yup, the point of the letter is to focus on the forum, and hopefully publish before the wiki (coming out in January).

[flxlex]

There is some (considerable?) overlap between the bioinformatics forum at SeqAnswers, and biostar.stackexchange.com. Perhaps we should acknowledge that, and comment that SeqAnswer is targeting a wider audience than just those analyzing data using bioinformatic tools?

[marcowanger]

Yup, the point of the letter is to focus on the forum, and hopefully publish before the wiki (coming out in January).

For the letter, I think it would be suitable for SCIENCE letter (<400 words) and NATURE correspondence. Both are meant to be short. So, let's write everything first and pick the most significant points to keep.

[marcowanger]

There is some (considerable?) overlap between the bioinformatics forum at SeqAnswers, and biostar.stackexchange.com. Perhaps we should acknowledge that, and comment that SeqAnswer is targeting a wider audience than just those analyzing data using bioinformatic tools?

Sure it may seems to be. I think both SEQ and Biostar are great, and we should definitely acknowledge Biostar in the letter. However, one particular strong point in SEQ Bioinformatics Section is the freedom granted to users to announce their tools, which fostered much discussion beyond question-and-answer style in Biostar. IMO, Biostar does a better job in Q&A. So, both sites serve different purposes.

[andreas.sjodin]

There is some (considerable?) overlap between the bioinformatics forum at SeqAnswers, and biostar.stackexchange.com. Perhaps we should acknowledge that, and comment that SeqAnswer is targeting a wider audience than just those analyzing data using bioinformatic tools?

I think this a good selling point. The SeqAnswers has a wide community of both wet-lab and computer biologists.

[flxlex]

Sure it may seems to be. I think both SEQ and Biostar are great, and we should definitely acknowledge Biostar in the letter. However, one particular strong point in SEQ Bioinformatics Section is the freedom granted to users to announce their tools, which fostered much discussion beyond question-and-answer style in Biostar. IMO, Biostar does a better job in Q&A. So, both sites serve different purposes.

I tried to add something to the letter along these lines.

[marcowanger]

I tried to add something to the letter along these lines.

Thanks flxlex

[marcowanger]

One caution for Nature Correspondence:

A Correspondence is usually signed by no more than three authors; this is because Correspondence is a forum for readers' reactions, not for statements by organizations or groups of individuals.

[andreas.sjodin]

Then I think we need to skip the Nature Correspondence alternative

[marcowanger]

Then I think we need to skip the Nature Correspondence alternative

Andreas, agree.

[suryasaha]

The letter should make an effort to address PI's in the audience to make them point their students and post docs to this forum, especially if they are newbies. It will help, if metrics like the average time for response and % of answered queries were included, to present the effectiveness of the forum to non-users.

[colindaven]

I think funding is an important issue. Who funds SeqAnswers ? I think if I remember rightly there was some mention one of the admins was at Pac Bio. How is advertising handled and the site supported ?

I personally do not think there is a lot of bias due to advertising etc, but some who do not know the community may be more skeptical.

Also, what are the guidelines on commercial software plugs, and should this be mentioned ?