Re: Ruth's comment that: "The internet is always changing and I worry that to fully take on board Nicole's suggestion of only submitting things that had 'findings' ..." I'd like to clarify that this is not what I said at all, nor do I think this should be the case. I'm actually pretty shocked that my note was interpreted this way. My comment was about the need for different kinds of presentation formats that support different kinds of work. For empirical ("straight") research, I think it makes sense to include "findings" when assessments about quality are being made. The perceived low-quality of the conference (and its subsequent implications for funding, tenure decisions, etc.) have been noted by others, and I think encouraging people to include their findings when submitting empirical work will go a long way towards addressing the problems others have noted with regard to cocktail-napkin-notes presentations or excellent abstracts/poor papers. ***I also think there should be separate formats for the other kinds of work that Terri and others have mentioned - be they roundtables, birds of a feather, performances, workshops, etc.*** I think the conference can support these different kinds of presentation modes. I agree that having clearer guidelines for authors and reviewers will help with the reviewing problems that have been noted, as would a larger reviewing pool. Thanks, Nicole -- Nicole B. Ellison Associate Professor School of Information University of Michigan