Big lesson: next year's conference selection process will be awesome, because we'll be using the tool(s) for the second time, and things will work nicely!
- Have the daily ration be smaller. Needs to be small enough to do while eating lunch, or later (after you've read many abstracts) during a long coffee break. If people have more time, let them sign up for a second round each day. - If you can post slightly more statistics of how many rankings were assigned each talk and the distribution, it might help people feel more comfortable getting away from the traditional 1-5 scale. (Not that the 1-5 scale was useful, but that's what people are comfortable with). In particular, hearing there were 50+ scores for every talk was an "ah-ha!" moment for me. There really was a lot of input per talk. I agree with not releasing the whole raw dataset; but posting a little more on the methodology and approximate scoring of two bubbles vs. three bubbles etc. would be helpful. - I'd like to include the "why is this talk important for X audience" data as well; at least I try to fill that in with something useful for reviewers and organizers on my proposals that I think add some data. Thanks! - Shane
