Comment Summary

Do you think the ICML2010 reviews were different in quality from those at related conferences?
#	Response Date	What conference are you comparing to and what is the subject area?
1	Jun 10, 2010 7:01 PM	COLT, NIPS, theory, algorithms
2	Jun 10, 2010 7:12 PM	NIPS
3	Jun 10, 2010 7:20 PM	NIPS, AISTATS (Bayesian inference)
4	Jun 10, 2010 8:24 PM	NIPS, topic models
5	Jun 10, 2010 8:25 PM	NIPS
6	Jun 10, 2010 8:38 PM	NIPS
7	Jun 10, 2010 9:15 PM	COLT, NIPS, ECML Reinforcement Learning
8	Jun 10, 2010 10:02 PM	ACL, NAACL: The NLPers tend to write longers reviews with more details, and be more polite.
9	Jun 11, 2010 1:31 AM	NIPS2009, machine learning
10	Jun 11, 2010 5:17 AM	NIPS
11	Jun 11, 2010 6:45 AM	NIPS
12	Jun 11, 2010 8:09 AM	CVPR, ICCV, NIPS. Computer Vision and Machine Learning
13	Jun 11, 2010 8:37 AM	NIPS tends to be somewhat better. AISTATS this year was similarly bad.
14	Jun 11, 2010 1:26 PM	UAI
15	Jun 11, 2010 1:36 PM	AAAI in unsupervised learning
16	Jun 11, 2010 2:31 PM	Definitely more extensive reviews than what I'm used to getting from NIPS.
17	Jun 11, 2010 3:07 PM	NIPS; boosting
18	Jun 11, 2010 3:11 PM	NIPS
19	Jun 11, 2010 10:55 PM	NIPS, for example.
20	Jun 11, 2010 11:02 PM	Much better than kdd and ilp Roughly same at aaai, ecml, uai area is statistical relational learning
21	Jun 12, 2010 3:57 AM	NIPS, CVPR, AISTATS
22	Jun 14, 2010 5:53 AM	NIPS, graphical models and continuous time models.
23	Jun 14, 2010 9:31 AM	UAI
24	Jun 14, 2010 9:14 PM	No experience with other conferences