Comments on: PG-3 for theoretical content and lack of depth http://www.gridshore.nl/2008/10/08/pg-3-for-theoretical-content-and-lack-of-depth/ A weblog about software engineering, Architecture, Technology an other things we like. Sat, 28 Jan 2012 20:11:11 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Allard http://www.gridshore.nl/2008/10/08/pg-3-for-theoretical-content-and-lack-of-depth/comment-page-1/#comment-8617 Allard Thu, 09 Oct 2008 06:54:27 +0000 http://www.gridshore.nl/2008/10/08/pg-3-for-theoretical-content-and-lack-of-depth/#comment-8617 Ok, just for clarity... I didn't see Jettro's comment while typing mine (see time). Our choice of words is purely based on coincedence :) Ok, just for clarity… I didn’t see Jettro’s comment while typing mine (see time). Our choice of words is purely based on coincedence :)

]]> By: Allard http://www.gridshore.nl/2008/10/08/pg-3-for-theoretical-content-and-lack-of-depth/comment-page-1/#comment-8616 Allard Thu, 09 Oct 2008 06:53:15 +0000 http://www.gridshore.nl/2008/10/08/pg-3-for-theoretical-content-and-lack-of-depth/#comment-8616 Ben, the best moment to rate a session is indeed afterwards. However, that wouldn't help anyone. I don't think that presenters intentionally try to lure people to their presentation using false promises. But since the "Free text box" with the explanation doesn't quite say what we want to hear, I'd like to see some standard categories that all session presenters have to choose from. That means that, not like the movie industry, the presenter will have to choose the ratings for each category himself. If you get bored because the presenter chose a wrong rating, you'll at least have good arguments to step up to his desk and.... well.... tell him ;-). Ben,

the best moment to rate a session is indeed afterwards. However, that wouldn’t help anyone. I don’t think that presenters intentionally try to lure people to their presentation using false promises. But since the “Free text box” with the explanation doesn’t quite say what we want to hear, I’d like to see some standard categories that all session presenters have to choose from.

That means that, not like the movie industry, the presenter will have to choose the ratings for each category himself. If you get bored because the presenter chose a wrong rating, you’ll at least have good arguments to step up to his desk and…. well…. tell him ;-) .

]]> By: jettro http://www.gridshore.nl/2008/10/08/pg-3-for-theoretical-content-and-lack-of-depth/comment-page-1/#comment-8615 jettro Thu, 09 Oct 2008 06:52:32 +0000 http://www.gridshore.nl/2008/10/08/pg-3-for-theoretical-content-and-lack-of-depth/#comment-8615 Of course I think it is a great idea, what beer can do to your creative mind. As a response to Ben reaction, I do get your point. Still I do not agree, even if the presentation is done only once. For every talk that you give you have to think about your target audience. If the target audience is a free format text box, it is hard to come up with a consistent rating system. When we do use this default rating, we can setup some rules and attendees can use the provided rating to comment later on. That way the speaker can improve his rating next time he gives a presentation and maybe the organization can challenge the speaker the next time he submits a presentation somewhere, based on his previous achievements. Of course I think it is a great idea, what beer can do to your creative mind. As a response to Ben reaction, I do get your point. Still I do not agree, even if the presentation is done only once. For every talk that you give you have to think about your target audience. If the target audience is a free format text box, it is hard to come up with a consistent rating system. When we do use this default rating, we can setup some rules and attendees can use the provided rating to comment later on. That way the speaker can improve his rating next time he gives a presentation and maybe the organization can challenge the speaker the next time he submits a presentation somewhere, based on his previous achievements.

]]> By: Erik van Oosten http://www.gridshore.nl/2008/10/08/pg-3-for-theoretical-content-and-lack-of-depth/comment-page-1/#comment-8614 Erik van Oosten Thu, 09 Oct 2008 06:31:52 +0000 http://www.gridshore.nl/2008/10/08/pg-3-for-theoretical-content-and-lack-of-depth/#comment-8614 Ben, I do not agree. Presentations are rarely held only once. Furthermore, even if the presentation is new, it is in the speaker's best interest to rate his/her own presentation correctly. Ben, I do not agree. Presentations are rarely held only once. Furthermore, even if the presentation is new, it is in the speaker’s best interest to rate his/her own presentation correctly.

]]> By: Ben Tels http://www.gridshore.nl/2008/10/08/pg-3-for-theoretical-content-and-lack-of-depth/comment-page-1/#comment-8613 Ben Tels Thu, 09 Oct 2008 00:23:11 +0000 http://www.gridshore.nl/2008/10/08/pg-3-for-theoretical-content-and-lack-of-depth/#comment-8613 Allard, I think you raise a good point about conferences and I think it would be nice for the attendees of a conference to have such a rating. However... don't you think that one problem might be that such rating can only be applied a posteriori by somebody who attended the session? That's not a problem for movies, which are repeat performances. But sessions tend to be held only once. Allard,

I think you raise a good point about conferences and I think it would be nice for the attendees of a conference to have such a rating. However… don’t you think that one problem might be that such rating can only be applied a posteriori by somebody who attended the session? That’s not a problem for movies, which are repeat performances. But sessions tend to be held only once.

]]>