There's a recent tendency towards requesting very short CfP proposals. 300 characters, for example. I think that program committees think that by forcing it to be brief, their workload is reduced. But that's misguided: it's actually more work for everyone. (1/2)
-
Show this thread
Instead, the author has to labor over the busywork of micro-editing as much detail as possible into a tweet-sized description... then the reviewers have to try to second-guess the author's intended nuance in every word. It's lossy compression, and really very pointless. (2/2)
5:52 AM - 29 Apr 2020
0 replies
0 retweets
12 likes
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.