tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6555947.post5106444063251275153..comments2024-03-14T01:32:43.610-06:00Comments on The Geomblog: Innovation in Computer ScienceSuresh Venkatasubramanianhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15898357513326041822noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6555947.post-69051468911884888132009-11-03T04:46:53.303-07:002009-11-03T04:46:53.303-07:00would say the overall quality looks closer to ICAL...<i>would say the overall quality looks closer to ICALP.</i><br /><br />I agree. Indeed, it's very impressive that the first meeting of this new conference managed to be as good as the best TCS conference in Europe, and one of the best in the wrold, i.e., ICALP.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6555947.post-81179358018568151652009-11-03T02:38:40.372-07:002009-11-03T02:38:40.372-07:00I submitted a comment on the quantum money paper. ...I submitted a comment on the quantum money paper. Please don't post it. Whatever my thoughts, I shouldn't be bad-mouthing papers on the web. Sorry.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6555947.post-71181438516023452842009-11-02T16:40:20.775-07:002009-11-02T16:40:20.775-07:00I appreciate how anonymous number one can predict ...I appreciate how anonymous number one can predict the future and so can separate out ideas that will and will not be useless in the future. I look forward to his or her paper on how this is done.Dave Baconhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03506030153326411733noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6555947.post-48971295090859454462009-11-02T15:09:05.124-07:002009-11-02T15:09:05.124-07:00...and any of these could have been a credible pap......and any of these could have been a credible paper at FOCS/STOC<br /><br />I agree. May be not "any", but many of them can be creditable FOCS/STOC papers. In fact, I am impressed by the list of papers and the abstracts. It is no way close to ICALP. <br /><br /> #anon 1: I also know of a few papers that got rejected from STOC, but made into FOCS. Not all the papers in STOC/FOCS leave a mark. I don't understand, how someone can comment that many of the papers are on fringe ideas, when "many" of them are not yet publicly available. Probably you don't have a paper in ICS. Get a life and try to appreciate new things that are good.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6555947.post-46125147785474992852009-11-02T11:41:29.112-07:002009-11-02T11:41:29.112-07:00To be fair, Sorelle, I don't know how many (if...To be fair, Sorelle, I don't know how many (if any) comp geom papers were submitted, and it's not even clear what kinds of comp. geom papers would make sense in this broad context.Suresh Venkatasubramanianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15898357513326041822noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6555947.post-7572819047209777632009-11-02T11:40:01.559-07:002009-11-02T11:40:01.559-07:00Also, no comp geometry at all (at least that I not...Also, no comp geometry at all (at least that I noticed). I maintain that a double blind system would have reinforced their dedication to innovation over name recognition (just to beat a dead horse...).sorellehttp://kdphd.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6555947.post-11285590668850254132009-11-02T09:02:03.023-07:002009-11-02T09:02:03.023-07:00A side note. 8 of the 12 PC members have papers at...<i>A side note. 8 of the 12 PC members have papers at the conference. This is a departure from the theory "norm".... Is this something we'd like to have happen in other theory conferences as well?</i><br /><br />No. Absolutely not.<br /><br />I suspect the fact that 20% of the papers are written by PC members helps explain why, as you put it, "innovation = game theory + crypto + quantum + misc". There are definitely a few gems here, but I was really hoping for a <b><i>LOT</i></b> more "misc".JeffEhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17633745186684887140noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6555947.post-43977093303777692132009-11-02T08:49:10.243-07:002009-11-02T08:49:10.243-07:00...and any of these could have been a credible pap...<em>...and any of these could have been a credible paper at FOCS/STOC</em><br /><br />I disagree, although this may just prove the organizers point about ICS relative to FOCS/STOC. <br /><br />I know for a fact that some of these papers were rejected from earlier FOCS/STOC. Looking at some of the papers, it's not hard to see why: many of the papers are "fringe" ideas that are not going to go anywhere (quantum money?) except possibly to generate more papers, or uninteresting results augmented with lots of technicalities. Only some subset of the papers (the Arora one being among them) are both conceptually interesting and deep. I would say the overall quality looks closer to ICALP.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com