User talk:Mokhov/2008

Your recent edits

Hi

Your recent edits to the EasyChair afd debate have messed up my nomination. The etiquette is to add your comments at the end of the text, or to add single blocks of text after other people's comments. I removed your edits so you can tidy them up and add them properly. Here they are. andy (talk) 20:25, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No independent evidence of notability

the above is a bold and uninformed/unsuppored claim. Please see the list of notable conferences that use the EasyChair conference system --Mokhov (talk) 17:20, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No independent evidence for any of the claims made about usage and functionality

the very same notable conferences and many others use it for the very functionality --Mokhov (talk) 17:20, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the statements made about usage are wrong and misleading - e.g. the product website says that it has been used for certain conferences where in fact rival software was used

your claim/facts are outofdate. It happens for coferences to start with one system first, and then in the course of action switch to another system. Also andy when you checked back in March, we are in July, things evolve. Many conferences later remove the links to submission when the submission deadline passes. Now, the confereces listed on the stats page due to the systems requirements to combat spam and auto-registration -- have to be approved manually after submitting a form. The fact they even appear there is that the conference organizers made a request to have it hosted by EasyChair and were granted (manual) approval to do so. If one conferences has switched from one system it started with and then to EasyChair as another system does not support your claim, as the conference web page maintainers also quite often lag behind updating the pages with the proper links. In another instance I have experienced, was the initial submission was through one system for a review, and the final camera-ready submission was through another, which was announced through the acceptance email rather than on the web page. --Mokhov (talk) 17:20, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article makes exaggerated claims that are not backed by any evidence, for example saying that it's definitely "the most widely used conference management system"

there are no such claims in the aticle anymore; the original contributor may have been very pationate and did not remove the NPOV wording, but we can clean up all those remaining, if any, in the short term --Mokhov (talk) 17:20, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The software functionality is no different from many rival products

perhaps the claimant hasn't used this or any other system of this kind to make such a claim; one only learns by usage and experience, which it seems andy does not have (this not personal) --Mokhov (talk) 17:20, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Essentially, it's spam. If it wasn't for the fact that it's freeware it would have been deleted long ago andy (talk) 16:31, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I sincerely diagree it is a spam. I used the said system (and many others) to submit my academic articles through for review and publication and this one is most functional by far; regardless the "spam" assertion is not supported enough given there are plethora of independent evidence from the very conferences and the notable conferences that use it. The only problem with the article is not elaborate enough and had a few NPOV traces; which is often a problem of many articles as they start up. --Mokhov (talk) 17:20, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The topic "conference management software" in general is notable, but, Andy, I agree with you that single systems such as EasyChair might not (yet) be. I suggest moving the current EasyChair article to an article Conference Management Software, stripping all references to EasyChair from the general part of the article, but preserving the list of common features and the reference to that one scientific paper about such systems, and then mentioning EasyChair and competitors in a subsection of that article. --Langec (talk) 17:16, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

perhaps I added too much text in the inline comments above in the defense of the article... I am not sure if we will manage to keep the EasyChair wikipedia article in place, but I will not oppose consolidating it under Conference Management Software as Langec suggests if the community finds the current article still to fail the said standards and to be deleted. --Mokhov (talk) 17:26, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep is, therefore, my vote, per the above reasons I put in my responses inline and signed. --Mokhov (talk) 18:03, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]