[labnetwork] Labnetwork - Process?

Fri Jul 4 12:46:52 EDT 2014

Duane et al:

This seems like a valuable addition to make the labnetwork archives 
searchable.  While the name labnetwork in the search string will 
certainly constrain the search a great deal, I think that you can also 
get a more focused search more quickly if you localize the search to the 
site www-mtl.mit.edu with a search string such as:

labnetwork your search keys here site:www-mtl.mit.edu

While the recent archives aren't yet included, I just compared searching 
for:

labnetwork chlorine

and

labnetwork chlorine site:www-mtl.mit.edu

The non-site-specific search returned 6,150 results  .... most of which 
included the terms "lab" and "network" separately and are likely not 
what you were hoping for ... whereas the second site-specific search 
localized to www-mtl.mit.edu returned only 16 entries from the pre-2007 
archives.

Thanks again for all of your efforts Duane on behalf of the entire 
labnetwork community and happy lab management to all,

John

On 7/4/2014 6:12 AM, Duane Boning wrote:
> Hello all,
>
>    Thanks for the helpful dialog on the list, and the question of
> splitting it. Based on what I've heard, I will stick with the
> single integrated labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu mailing list.
>
>    I am making one change based on the discussion: I'll try to make
> the archive pages searchable.
>
>    As Matthieu notes, the archives are available through the link
> at the bottom of all labnetwork emails; they are standard mailman
> archives organized by date, thread, or subject. But unfortunately
> mailman doesn't directly have a search facility.
>
>    Fortunately, it looks like a good solution is relatively simple:
> I can open up the archives so that they can be indexed by Google.
> It may take a few days for the Google crawlers to walk the pages
> and include in its index, but hopefully in the future you can do
> searches for something like "labnetwork aaa bbb ccc" and get
> connected up to relevant posts in the archives.
>
> Take care,
> /Duane
>
> On 7/3/2014 4:34 PM, Matthieu Nannini wrote:
>> Dear colleagues,
>>
>> Is the list searchable ? I know one can browse the list archives
>> but can you search it ?
>> That would be the only downside of the mailing list if it wasn't
>> searchable and maybe switching to a "one subject" forum engine
>> like phpBB would be useful for search purposes if we don't want
>> the questions to be duplicated.
>>
>> -- 
>> -----------------------------------
>> Matthieu Nannini
>> McGill Nanotools Microfab
>>
>>> Walsh,Kevin M. <mailto:kevin.walsh at louisville.edu>
>>> 3 juillet 2014 11:03
>>>
>>> I vote for  1 listserve
>>>
>>>   
>>>
>>> *Dr. Kevin M. Walsh*
>>>
>>> Ky nanoNET Director
>>>
>>> Samuel T. Fife Professor of Electrical and Computer Engineering
>>> Founding Director of the UofL Micro/Nanotechnology Center
>>>
>>> 2210 South Brook St
>>>
>>> Shumaker Research Building, Room 234
>>>
>>> Louisville, KY 40292
>>>
>>> Office # (502) 852-0826
>>>
>>> Fax # (502) 852-8128
>>>
>>> *http://kynanonet.org/*
>>>
>>> Description: Capture for email signature**
>>>
>>>   
>>>
>>> *From:*labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu
>>> [mailto:labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu] *On Behalf Of *Morrison,
>>> Richard H., Jr.
>>> *Sent:* Thursday, July 03, 2014 9:14 AM
>>> *To:* Mac Hathaway; labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu
>>> *Subject:* Re: [labnetwork] Labnetwork - Process?
>>>
>>>   
>>>
>>> I vote that we keep just one Labnet list. It will just make more
>>> work for the person whom moderates the list today. I suggest
>>> that we can ask any questions related to fab work including
>>> process questions.
>>>
>>>   
>>>
>>> Rick
>>>
>>>   
>>>
>>>   
>>>
>>> *From:*labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu
>>> <mailto:labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu>
>>> [mailto:labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu] *On Behalf Of *Mac Hathaway
>>> *Sent:* Wednesday, July 02, 2014 9:56 AM
>>> *To:* labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu <mailto:labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu>
>>> *Subject:* [labnetwork] Labnetwork - Process?
>>>
>>>   
>>>
>>> Hey All,
>>>
>>> As there is still occasional uncertainty regarding the main
>>> thrust of Labnetwork (i.e. general questions about cleanroom
>>> operation and administration vs. more specific questions of more
>>> narrow interest), I'm guessing that some Labnetworkers sometimes
>>> don't ask certain question, out of deference to others...
>>>
>>> If this is the case, does it make sense to create a parallel
>>> list, for instance "Labnetwork - Process" or "Labnetwork -
>>> Equipment", where much more specific questions can be aired
>>> without guilt(!), such as "Has anyone seen a difference between
>>> 5x9s purity and 98% purity TMA in their ALD aluminum oxide?"  Or
>>> do folks feel it's fine as it is?  I'm thinking a specific
>>> process or equipment list might bring in other folks for whom
>>> the general questions have not been sufficiently relevant to
>>> merit their attention.
>>>
>>> Just a thought that came up during the UGIM...
>>>
>>>
>>> Mac Hathaway
>>> Harvard CNS
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> labnetwork mailing list
>>> labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu
>>> https://www-mtl.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo.cgi/labnetwork
>>> Morrison, Richard H., Jr. <mailto:rmorrison at draper.com>
>>> 3 juillet 2014 09:14
>>>
>>> I vote that we keep just one Labnet list. It will just make more
>>> work for the person whom moderates the list today. I suggest
>>> that we can ask any questions related to fab work including
>>> process questions.
>>>
>>>   
>>>
>>> Rick
>>>
>>>   
>>>
>>>   
>>>
>>> *From:*labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu
>>> [mailto:labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu] *On Behalf Of *Mac Hathaway
>>> *Sent:* Wednesday, July 02, 2014 9:56 AM
>>> *To:* labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu
>>> *Subject:* [labnetwork] Labnetwork - Process?
>>>
>>>   
>>>
>>> Hey All,
>>>
>>> As there is still occasional uncertainty regarding the main
>>> thrust of Labnetwork (i.e. general questions about cleanroom
>>> operation and administration vs. more specific questions of more
>>> narrow interest), I'm guessing that some Labnetworkers sometimes
>>> don't ask certain question, out of deference to others...
>>>
>>> If this is the case, does it make sense to create a parallel
>>> list, for instance "Labnetwork - Process" or "Labnetwork -
>>> Equipment", where much more specific questions can be aired
>>> without guilt(!), such as "Has anyone seen a difference between
>>> 5x9s purity and 98% purity TMA in their ALD aluminum oxide?"  Or
>>> do folks feel it's fine as it is?  I'm thinking a specific
>>> process or equipment list might bring in other folks for whom
>>> the general questions have not been sufficiently relevant to
>>> merit their attention.
>>>
>>> Just a thought that came up during the UGIM...
>>>
>>>
>>> Mac Hathaway
>>> Harvard CNS
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> labnetwork mailing list
>>> labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu
>>> https://www-mtl.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo.cgi/labnetwork
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> labnetwork mailing list
>> labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu
>> https://www-mtl.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo.cgi/labnetwork
>>
> _______________________________________________
> labnetwork mailing list
> labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu
> https://www-mtl.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo.cgi/labnetwork