Subject: structuring CCL!

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 Jun 94 08:50 N

Dear netters,

As an appendix to his "self-reply" to the question of CI-coeffcients, Aiaz
Bakassov made a very valuable suggestion:

> I have a suggestion. Why won't all of us who run G92 start their postings
> about G92 with keyword "G92" in the beginning of the subject ? This would
> make life a bit easier for G92 users.

> More generally, if a question is about some software, why don't we always
> start the subject from the name of the software?!

 In filling out the survey on CCL by Alejandro Pisanty I wrote among other
things:

>    As an example, I would find it *extremely* useful to have
>   lists which deal solely with individual quantum chemistry pro-
>   grams such as Gaussian, GAMESS etc. The Gaussian help service
>   is essentially useless unless you pay the $5000 annual mainte-
>   nance fee and *very many* people out there have questions about
>   how to do this or that with Gaussian, many of which are trivial
>   to answer for someone who has gone through the same experience
>   and has solved the problem. Much of this is now already happening
>   in CCL but it is buried in lots of "noise". The same is true
>   of other programs such as GAMESS and I am sure Mike Schmidt would
>   be extremely grateful if he would not have to answer all the mail
>   with questions on this program.
>   Also, questions like "what is the best model/program to solve
>   this or that problem" could be posed in a dedicated list. I would
>   be much more ready to contribute answers if I would no longer be
>   forced to dig out the questions from a mess of completely different
>   things (some of which may also be interesting to me, but again
>   only if they are properly classified)

I am convinced that CCL *direly* needs some structuring or it will soon become
unmanageable for people who cannot afford to spend ours on end with it every
day. This  structuring is neither obvious nor easy, and it will have to be done
*very* thoughfully or otherwise much useful information will wasted.

  Bakassov's above suggestion would be one way to do it, but I am afraid that
eventually this would result in a procrastination of the "Subject:" field which
already now starts with "CCL:". If you have to add the name of a quantum
chemical program to this, there remains little space to say what the
contribution is actually concerned with (I understand that the field may
actually be almost as long as you wish, but most mailing software only show
the first 25-30 characters and you only get to see the rest when you actually
go an open the message). Thus I think sub-lists would be the way to go,
although a combination of the above two approaches are also imagineable.

 What does everybody else out there think about this matter? Why don't you post
your proverbial 2 cents worth under the "Subject:" heading "structuring CCL",
so we all immediately see what we are dealing with

 with a toast to the survival of a healthy (and useful) CCL

  thomas

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|  Prof. Thomas Bally                    |  E-mail:  BALLY@CFRUNI52          |
|  Institute for Physical Chemistry      |                                   |
|  University of Fribourg                |  Tel:     011-41-37 826 489       |
|  Perolles                              |  FAX:     011-41-37 826 488       |
|  CH-1700 FRIBOURG                      |                                   |
|  Switzerland                           |                                   |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------