On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 6:01 PM, Krzysztof Janowicz <janowicz@ucsb.edu> wrote: > Besides being the primary W3C outlet for SW related topics, >> semantic-web@w3.org is in my feeling also the primary outlet for the >> research community in this area. So, spreading calls for papers there is as >> natural as using dbworld in the databases community. >> >> My feeling is that of we ban CfPs on this list, we cut one of the major >> distribution channels for CfPs in our community. >> > > I absolutely agree. In fact CfPs are one of the reasons why I am on this > mailinglist. > Sorry but I cannot see how CFPs contribute to research. Sending post conference / workshop summaries probably would but sending CFPs for a conference multiple times for multiple tracks & multiple workshops, sometimes deadline extensions and early bird / late registrations sounds more like spam. I am saying this knowing that I have also done this a few times. Personally I have ~250 distinct CFPs in my inbox from 2016 alone and I already know where I plan to submit without looking at any CFP. Actually when I want to look up something I search online and not on my mails anymore because it is easier. Looking at public-lod in March I see ~ 30-40% of emails related to cfps and ~20% are related to ESWC alone. https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-lod/2016Mar/subject.html This is not to say that we should ban CFPs but there must be something we can do to improve this situation. Best, Dimitris -- Kontokostas Dimitris
Received on Wednesday, 30 March 2016 18:41:35 UTC