Snoooze

> Linear-regression estimates show gene name errors in supplementary files have increased at an annual rate of 15 % over the past five years, outpacing the increase in published papers (3.8 % per year).

This still doesn't actually tell us if the problem is getting worse. Or if it does it is badly worded. Even assuming this 3.8% is derived from their own data, you need the number of papers published that contain genelists (I would imagine this has probably risen faster than the number of papers overall).

In other words, the authors should have plotted the error rate over time rather than the number of errors over time.

The dating world is already experimenting. (e.g. http://www.genepartner.com/)

No. The article mentions a number of reasons why friends can be (and are) genetically closer than random people.

I think the suggestions is that Perl 6 is a very different beast to Perl 5. Or to put it another way, you could read the title of the post as "Bioinformatics and the joy of Foo Programming Language".

I'm not sure I agree with that, however.

> b) it's an old timer who has never gotten with the times.

As someone who knows the author of the post, that is mostly true ;)

In all seriousness, while I generally agree with your sentiments I don't think that Perl is dead within Bioinformatics. Not least since major data providers, e.g. Ensembl, write their tools in Perl.

On a similar minor note, it would be nice to have exact matches to the 3 letter station codes appear at the top of the list, as they do on 'official' sites.

This is a great site though and potentially very useful, great job!

Yes, this article really fails to mention the superior build quality of the MPB, which I think is one of the biggest reasons they are popular