Hello all,

I am definitely out of it--I had no idea this forum was going on. But then, I more or less dropped out of CG a bit before Michael (but less ceremoniously) for mostly the same reasons, and I haven't been to SIGGRAPH in a few years. It is very encouraging however, to see so many others agreeing that there are some serious problems with SIGGRAPH as well as the peer-review process in graphics. In fact, it has revived my interest in the field. Thanks!

It looks like this forum is essentially dead and I missed my chance to post, but in case anyone is still reading it there a couple of things I'd like to add. First, I have come to learn that many of the problems described here also show up in other fields. To my mind, the "peer review" process has two basic problems: we are never formally trained in how to do reviews, and we are seldom (if ever) held accountable for our reviews. That is not a good combination. My second comment has to do with another down side of the emphasis placed on SIGGRAPH papers. If work published in SIGGRAPH becomes a "sacred cow", what happens if research comes along later that contradicts it? In my experience, it is pretty hard to publish that kind of research. I agree that graphics is getting "overcrowded" and it would be nice to have other top-tier venues.

Michael, thanks for starting this forum, and I am flattered that you included me in your "A-list."