How to evaluate conferences
Obviously, there will be as many answers to questions as there are scientists (plus one). However, if you focus on the scientific quality of the talks, I always got the impression that the questions and the reactions of the audience are a supreme measure, particular if I do not understand the specifics of the presentation to the T. If you get heated debates, clever questions and interaction between the speaker and the audience, I feel in a good place.
If you get the pundits talking about papers they read by chance or if you get deafening silence after every talk, finally relieved by the chair of the session, chances are I am wasting my time.
Just re-discovered the positive feeling here...
If you get the pundits talking about papers they read by chance or if you get deafening silence after every talk, finally relieved by the chair of the session, chances are I am wasting my time.
Just re-discovered the positive feeling here...
spitshine - 2005-09-15 17:23
On the personal side: This is a meeting by and primarily for experimentalists and much of it is pretty new for me anyway, so I am cautious as to select interesting talks, particulary for a bioinformatics readership. But thanks for asking, blogging from conferences sounds like a good idea in general.