Robbie Joosten wrote:
I think the deposition of maps is a waste of space. Maps may describe what the depositors <paranoid>want you to think they</paranoid> have looked at. But that does not mean they looked at the right thing. Who knows what they did to the maps in terms of (unwarrented) density modefication to make them look cleaner? The advantage of the EDS is that it is impartial and uniform. The maps are generated in a clear and well-described way.
For those who want to do bulk statistical analyses, the automated servers with uniform settings are unquestionably a good tool to have. They're also useful for the rare cases where somebody is cheating. I don't think deposited maps should replace the servers. But for most structures, where we do not suspect the crystallographer was intentionally cheating, I'd rather have the map as calculated with settings determined by the person who is most familiar with each specific data set.
Are default settings really smarter than the average crystallographer? My personal opinion is that in most cases, when non-default settings have been used, there was probably a valid reason.
--
