tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6555947.post115576559170689052..comments2024-03-14T01:32:43.610-06:00Comments on The Geomblog: SIGGRAPH, hiring, and peer review.Suresh Venkatasubramanianhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15898357513326041822noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6555947.post-1155839736828687212006-08-17T12:35:00.000-06:002006-08-17T12:35:00.000-06:00Fortunately I don't think this is the case in the ...<I>Fortunately I don't think this is the case in the main theory conferences but we should be vigilant about it,</I> <BR/><BR/>this is partially true: we don't have the exact SIGGRAPH-style biases. But we do have our own blind spots (Lance wrote an article about this a while back, on how to get a paper into STOC/FOCS), and vigilance about one's own blind spots is always a good thing. <BR/><BR/><A></A><A></A>Posted by<A><B> </B></A>SureshSuresh Venkatasubramanianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15898357513326041822noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6555947.post-1155827996835765942006-08-17T09:19:00.000-06:002006-08-17T09:19:00.000-06:00There is nothing wrong with having a conference su...<I>There is nothing wrong with having a conference such as siggraph that emphasizes novelty over incremental results. </I> <BR/><BR/>In the discussion it was pointed out that as a field matures most results (good or bad) are all incremental, and refereeing boils down to judging how big the increment is. Good papers have large increments, mediocre papers have small increments. <BR/><BR/>Yet, according to the discussion currently in SIGGRAPH an important increment on a fundamental problem has less chance of getting accepted that a solution to a totally new, made-up problem.<BR/><BR/>Fortunately I don't think this is the case in the main theory conferences but we should be vigilant about it, particularly when some start to equate "incremental" with "mediocre". <BR/><BR/><A></A><A></A>Posted by<A><B> </B></A>anonAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6555947.post-1155786637535154632006-08-16T21:50:00.000-06:002006-08-16T21:50:00.000-06:00There is nothing wrong with having a conference su...<I>There is nothing wrong with having a conference such as siggraph that emphasizes novelty over incremental results.</I> <BR/><BR/>Big names in the community bitterly complain about it and yet "there is nothing wrong" with it? I'd posit that the mere fact that so many people are unsatisfied with it proves your statement wrong. <BR/><BR/><A></A><A></A>Posted by<A><B> </B></A>anonAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6555947.post-1155771336023916862006-08-16T17:35:00.000-06:002006-08-16T17:35:00.000-06:00There is nothing wrong with having a conference su...There is nothing wrong with having a conference such as siggraph that emphasizes novelty over incremental results. Incremental results can be submitted elsewhere. <BR/><BR/><A></A><A></A>Posted by<A><B> </B></A>AnonymousAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6555947.post-1155766945731080352006-08-16T16:22:00.000-06:002006-08-16T16:22:00.000-06:00Of course, Marc Levoy is the mother of all cliques...Of course, Marc Levoy is the mother of all cliques in the graphics community. Letting him lead the discussion on it is more or less like letting the wolf guard the chickens. <BR/><BR/>Poor chickens - not only they are going to be eaten alive, but the wolf is also going to lecture them on his good intentions before that.<BR/> <BR/><BR/><A></A><A></A>Posted by<A><B> </B></A>AnonymousAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com