tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-786333285568106173.post7274583238054539828..comments2024-01-25T01:05:59.968-05:00Comments on WebDiarios de Motocicleta: SODAMihaihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11599372864611039927noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-786333285568106173.post-13016238975556298742007-08-08T17:02:00.000-04:002007-08-08T17:02:00.000-04:00Data structures may or may not be hot, but there a...Data structures may or may not be hot, but there are typically quite a few submissions in related areas like streaming. There is no PC member on streaming either!<BR/><BR/>Instead we have lots of people on random graphs and games. Pretty bad composition.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-786333285568106173.post-62069231405983967492007-08-08T16:30:00.000-04:002007-08-08T16:30:00.000-04:00It seems to me that data structures, though a fund...It seems to me that data structures, though a fundamental area, has not been "hot" for many years. Perhaps, this is an indication as to the composition of this committee. <BR/><BR/>It seems to me that Teng did not do a very good job in selecting the committee members...too many people working in game theory..Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-786333285568106173.post-6324611142475555432007-08-08T12:10:00.000-04:002007-08-08T12:10:00.000-04:00Ok, so a conservative estimate is 1/8 of the paper...Ok, so a conservative estimate is 1/8 of the papers are on data structures. On a committee of this size (4 people more than last year) there should be AT LEAST one person versed in data structures. (I can't imagine the same sorry situation happening to game theory, or approximation algorithms, or geometry, etc... all areas well represented at SODA in recent years.) I think Mihai should question Teng at the business meeting on how he composed this committee. Maybe he'll say something candid like "my bad" or "I didn't realize data structures was a field" or "who ISN'T qualified to evaluate a data structures paper?"Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-786333285568106173.post-65713789688244171392007-08-08T01:12:00.000-04:002007-08-08T01:12:00.000-04:00Suresh, the phenomenon I'm seeing is the following...Suresh, the phenomenon I'm seeing is the following. I am a PC member and of course I get assigned some papers that are not in my area. I don't know enough about the paper to know who the best reviewer is, but wait --- the paper is about data structures and there's this funny guy I know from beer / flaming / gossip / whereever, that keeps talking about data structures...<BR/><BR/>Nothing in this chain of events can be blamed on anyone in particular... I'm quite convinced that 99%+ of the people out there are doing their PC jobs in all earnest.<BR/><BR/>The unfortunate thing is that a suboptimal review gives you incomplete information. What does that lead to? So people think it leads to fewer accepted papers in the area. But the more likely outcome, I believe, is that papers with bombastic introductions tend to get accepted. Some are good, some are bad -- and if you don't know the area too well, you'll think twice before claiming a paper with a convincing intro is actually weak.<BR/><BR/>On first count, last SODA had about 16 data-structure papers. Like I said, I would forecast a similar number this year, despite the PC composition.Mihaihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11599372864611039927noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-786333285568106173.post-23755564374546207042007-08-08T00:53:00.000-04:002007-08-08T00:53:00.000-04:00Actually, inexperienced reviewers seem make more t...<I>Actually, inexperienced reviewers seem make more tough decisions.</I><BR/><BR/>Precisely. A review that comes back restating the introduction and saying that the paper seems correct is virtually useless.Mihaihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11599372864611039927noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-786333285568106173.post-61298811131850816002007-08-07T22:39:00.000-04:002007-08-07T22:39:00.000-04:00Actually, inexperienced reviewers seem make more t...Actually, inexperienced reviewers seem make more tough decisions.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-786333285568106173.post-5759609683783079322007-08-07T22:22:00.000-04:002007-08-07T22:22:00.000-04:00To reiterate the point made after you made a simil...To reiterate the point made after you made a similar complaint about the FOCS accepted list, you'd have to know more about the pool of DS papers submitted before you could make any inference based on the outcome. <BR/><BR/>The fact that the 6 papers sent to you had only tangential connection to your research (l'etat c'est moi ?) might also indicate something about the paucity of DS submissions in generalSuresh Venkatasubramanianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15898357513326041822noreply@blogger.com