Subject: Re: CCL:CCL = G98 userlist

From: Valentine Ananikov <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 07 Apr 2001 11:43:20 +0400

Hi,

Your observation seems to be correct, some of Gaussian users 
are quick in asking and slow in reading manuals.

However, dividing CCL into a series of topic specific sublists
might not be a best solution. IMHO, not long ago a lot of technical
questions concerning CHARM and Autodock have appeared (probably too
much from Gaussian user's point of view).
Should these be moved to sublists also? 

Of course CCL isn't directly supposed to be a universal theoretical 
chemistry software help desk. However, attempts to define discussion
limits may not be the best way to keep the list active and interesting
for a wide range of theoretically oriented chemists.

It seems, it would be nice to mark ALL software specific questions,
i.e. CHARM, Autodock, etc., to allow mail programs tuning for all of
subscribers. 

best regards,
Valentin.

Rick Venable wrote:
> 
> This topic has come up a couple of times before on CCL.
> 
> I also feel the number of Gaussian specific questions and answers is too
> high for what is supposed to be a GENERAL discussion list, and not a
> Gaussian help desk.
> 
> The main problems seem to be:
> 
> (1) there isn't a good Gaussian mailing list already
> (2) product support for Gaussian is not very good
> 
> I value the breadth of contributions to CCL as well, but don't see how
> that relates to whether or not there should be a specific Gaussian list.
> 
> I happen to think a Gaussian specific list would be an excellent idea.
> IMHO, that would be the proper place to discuss nuances such as memory
> usage as a consequence of symmetry changes in G98.  Attempts to create
> such a list in the past, however, haven't been very successful, which is
> why this topic has come up again.
> 
> Fortunately, the message volume on CCL is reasonable, and it's easy to
> delete messages with G98 in the Subject: line with most mail programs.
> 
> 
> =+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=
> Rick Venable
> FDA/CBER/OVRR Biophysics Lab
> 1401 Rockville Pike    HFM-419
> Rockville, MD  20852-1448  U.S.A.
> (301) 496-1905   [email-masked]
> ALT email:  [email-masked]
> =+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=
> 

====================================================================
                                             ,         ,      ,   ,
Valentin  P. Ananikov                        |\\\\ ////|     /////|
NMR Group                                    | \\\|/// |    ///// |
ND Zelinsky Institute of Organic Chemistry   |  |~~~|  |   |~~~|  |
Leninsky Prospect 47                         |  |===|  |   |===|  |
Moscow,  119992                              |  |   |  |   |   |  |
Russia                                       |  | A |  |   | Z |  |
                                              \ |   | /    |   | /
e-mail: [email-masked]                     \|===|/     |===|/
http://nmr.ioc.ac.ru/Staff/AnanikovVP/          '---'      '---'
  Fax +7 (095)1355328   Phone +7 (095)9383536
====================================================================

---

From: Rick Venable <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2001 14:25:10 -0400

> Should these be moved to sublists also? 

There are independent mailing lists for programs like GAMESS, AMBER,
CHARMM, etc. which deal with many more package specific questions than
ever appear on CCL.  If all these questions were also appearing on CCL,
it would be a much busier list.  Fortunately, Gaussian users are spared
the details of tweaking input files, compiling for platform X, etc.; it
would be nice if G98 users would return the favor.  I don't think CCL
should split up-- but I do lament the lack of a Gaussian mailing list,
where a major percent of the Gaussian messages that appear on CCL would
be more germane and appreciated.

> for a wide range of theoretically oriented chemists.

I completely agree; the diversity of topics adds to the value of the
Computational Chemistry List.  Program specific minutiae, i.e. helpdesk
questions, probably belong on another mailing list dedicated to that
topic, however.  In the case of Gaussian, I am somewhat surprised that
the vendor hasn't shown more initiative, and established just such a
mailing list.

> i.e. CHARM, Autodock, etc., to allow mail programs tuning for all of

The Subject: lines are up to the message submitter; most posts to CCL
seem to have relevant ones which often include the program name, which
is about all we can hope for.