Firstly I am more than happy with the conference tracks, I always learn a huge amount and take away a lot more for study.Â
A few thoughts from discussing this thread with organisers of other major (non-LF) conferences:
- possibly having review spreadsheet checkboxes for "abstract doesn't clarify the talk's content", or "good abstract but a better one was selected, please apply again", "huge number of submissions in this area" etc could ease the burden of personalised, individual review. Small extra detail in rejection responses may serve to encourage first-time submitters/serial rejectees
-Â helpmeabstract.com could help as one of these checkbox recommendations for unclear or unspecific abstracts
- in some cases the natural bias of single blind submissions is desirable, and a good abstract is not necessarily correlated with a quality presentation. My personal review flow is to skim and roughly grade abstracts, then when a subject's in high contention scroll right for further information. In some cases an SME's authorship with scant abstract will outweigh a well-written abstract, as the expected depth of the SME's presentation is preferable (especially for new or emerging technologies). And observationally: in small fields such as Kubecon's per-technology tracks, double blind doesn't ensure anonymity due to writing and abstract style. YYMV
