tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9275314.post4428335381514121546..comments2024-03-23T11:34:23.998-04:00Comments on Togelius: CIG 2008 Conference ReportJulian Togeliushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09333191187316058782noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9275314.post-51783265007691813412009-01-08T05:40:00.000-05:002009-01-08T05:40:00.000-05:00Hi Julian, I suggest a workshop forum is a more ap...Hi Julian, <BR/><BR/>I suggest a workshop forum is a more appropriate venue for presenting draft work. A workshop allows for constructive feedback and gives authors an opportunity to take on-board said feedback to improve things.<BR/><BR/>Without putting too fine a point on it, I believe that publishing poor quality work as part of the main conference proceedings diminishes us all. <BR/>Firstly, it becomes harder for outsiders interested in the field to sift the good work from the bad. A direct corollary is that as our reputation diminishes, all papers presented at the conference will be tarred with the same brush: probably bad (regardless of their actual quality). <BR/><BR/>Secondly, there's no point doing good work if noone will read it and that's exactly the corner we risk painting ourselves into.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02479233808872618357noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9275314.post-52166689272859460052009-01-08T03:19:00.000-05:002009-01-08T03:19:00.000-05:00Hi Daniel,Thanks. These are some very relevant poi...Hi Daniel,<BR/><BR/>Thanks. These are some very relevant points you are raising. As for acceptance rates, it was lower then 75%, but over 50%; I can't remember the exact number now (though I think it was official, but not sure).<BR/><BR/>You are of course right about the acceptance rate possibly discouraging people to submit. At the same time, why should we hinder people with work-in-progress (or good ideas that they don't have time to finish themselves) from presenting papers in conjunction with the event hosting quality papers? We all benefit from being at the same place and being able to talk to each other.<BR/><BR/>Maybe we should have some sort of two-tier system. Maybe posters should only be published as abstract. But then, what's the reason for not publishing a full paper, when we don't print "papers" on paper anymore?<BR/><BR/>This topic is still very much up for discussion, and in the end it is up to the general chair of CIG'09, with the input of all of us.<BR/><BR/>That the program committee is not listed on the webpage is odd - I hadn't noticed it until now. I'll drop a mail to Luigi and Phil about it.Julian Togeliushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09333191187316058782noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9275314.post-29391655281218738132009-01-07T20:43:00.000-05:002009-01-07T20:43:00.000-05:00Hi Julian, Nice wrap-up. I'm actually drafting a s...Hi Julian, <BR/><BR/>Nice wrap-up. I'm actually drafting a similar article but focused more on papers I found particularly interesting. I'll post it to my (brand new and currently contentless) blog in the next day or so (http://harablog.wordpress.com).<BR/><BR/>Anyway, I thought I'd post because I'm not sure I agree with your suggestion that CIG keep its acceptance rate so high. I think this year was ~75% and, in all honesty, some of the papers presented left me wondering if there was a novel contribution being made at all. I can think of at least one paper which seemed to have no results and another that appeared to solve no problem in particular (I won't mention names; I'm sure you already have some ideas about who the culprits might be). <BR/><BR/>It is my strong belief that allowing such low-quality work to be published only hinders the reputation of the conference and discourages quality work from being submitted. I realise the community is not very large but growing it shouldn't mean lowering our standards. I know of at least one other community (diagnosis) that is also very small; the main event of their subfield is the DX workshop which, despite its size, is very well regarded. <BR/><BR/>I also don't see TCIAG as a substitute for a decent peer-review process. CIG shouldn't be a place for draft work (we have workshops for that) but completed pieces of science with results that are reproducible and which make sense (a number of authors seemed to have a poor grasp of their own data which was disappointing). I hope CIG'09 will go some way to address these issues. <BR/><BR/>On a side note, I also hope the organisers will be more open about who is on the program committee. I was personally disappointed not to know who are the group of people reviewing my work.<BR/><BR/>Anyway, sorry for the long rant. :)Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02479233808872618357noreply@blogger.com