2014 CFP Metrics
Posted On: 2014-01-05 18:26:23
Like last year, we wanted to share with you a few of the submission stats. If you'd like to know more, we'll be going into a bit more detail at the 0wn the Con session on Saturday.
Total of 182 Submissions. Roughly 20 less submissions than last year.
35 Accepted for normal speaking slots. 4 combined into closing plenary. 2 Alternates.
Acceptance Rate = 19.23%, w/ plenary = 21.42%, w/ plenary and alternates = 22.53%
224 unique names on submissions (some submissions had more than one author, some authors made more than one submission).
Using dubious best guess methods (based on obvious indication by name or personal knowledge):
- 208 male
- 16 female
- 1 weasel
WHAT WAS SUBMITTED?
Talks submitted per track (some talks were submitted to multiple tracks):
Belay It - Submissions were down this year, though still enough submissions to build a good track
- Belay It - 47 <--way down from last year, like half.
- Bring It On - 87
- Build It - 44
- One Track Mind - 65
Bring it On - A lot of submissions here. We love finding truly unique and fun Bring It On type talks.
Build It - like Belay, submissions here were a bit light. Still enough to choose from though.
One Track Mind often gets tagged onto other submissions with a "I could shorten this" comment. We took advantage of that and even asked some people who did not submit to the OTM track if they were willing to condense their submitted talk to the 20 minute limit.
Word Trends (How many times each word appeared in the submissions. Many more obviously, but just a few that jumped out):
233 - security
101 - data
64 - network
60 - information
59 - analysis
48 - attack
44 - defense
36 - code
30 - cyber <--down from last year
29 - community
29 - hacking
23 - encryption
17 - privacy
14 - professionals
10 - analyze
1 - manning-in-the-middle
HOW DO SPEAKERS GET CHOSEN?
Our selection committee this year was comprised of 15 people. We use an open source system called OpenConf to collect, read and review the CFP proposals. There are no hard rules for our reviewers, we prefer that they read each paper with their own unique point of view and skill sets. However, the committee keeps in mind ShmooCon's emphasis on new and upcoming speakers - both to ShmooCon and to the industry in general. There is also a strong emphasis on never before presented material as well as talks that include the release of open source code. Talks that have been given repeatedly or have been submitted to multiple cons in the future tend to get rated down by our reviewers. Talks that have been given before but promise new/updated material are given more leeway.
After the committee has finished doing their reviews the Program Chairs along with Bruce and Heidi take that information and start to build a program. This is a game of score, topic, and track balancing and can take several days as we work across time zones.
This year's selection committee consisted of the following people:
Ben Laurie* - Program Chair
Jon Callas* - Program Chair
Heidi Potter* - Conference Organizer
Bruce Potter*- Conference Organizer
and then those who shall not be named
*members of The Shmoo Group
TO EVERYONE WHO SUBMITTED
Thank you. Per the email we sent everyone who didn't get selected this year, as it bears repeating: We very much appreciate your submission and we encourage you to submit again next year or to some alternate venue. Many great talks were turned away and it is our hope that some of those reach audiences by other means.
Share this post: