OPEN READINGS 2011 conference feedback questionnaire

Please indicate the most significant shortcomings of conference organization

  1. nothing
  2. no
  3. no
  4. i could improve my knowledge by attending such a session.
  5. i could meet many well-known dignitaries.
  6. dormitories - i haven't seen anything worse in my life! i thought that lithuania was in the eu... the lack of coffee breaks is a shame. everyone from abroad was shocked...
  7. haven't noticed any.
  8. i did not see any major shortcomings.
  9. there was no lunch organized for participants.
  10. -
  11. too thin a line between conference language (english) and lithuanian.
  12. information shortage
  13. all oral presentations were on one day.
  14. technical problems during prof. g. tamulaitis' lecture at the vu botanic garden.
  15. i think the conference was very well organized, considering the low budget. the only thing that needs improvement is the signs leading to the information desk from the main entrance of the faculty - i think they were too small and i got lost :)
  16. it would make sense to place a permanent banner on the vu ff website (did i miss it?). perhaps also on popular science sites like technologijos.lt, so that people who did not participate in previous ors can discover the upcoming conference in time.
  17. it would make sense to place a permanent banner on the vu ff website (did i miss it?). perhaps also on popular science sites like technologijos.lt, so that people who did not participate in previous ors can discover the upcoming conference in time.
  18. a lot of useless oral presentations.
  19. few questions from the participants
  20. no organized coffee breaks during oral sessions; accommodation for participants in many different (at least 3) dormitories, far away from each other;
  21. i think there were no major shortcomings.
  22. the dates of the conference as posted on the webpage were misleading at one point.
  23. accommodation conference party lack of dinners for participants
  24. -
  25. poster presentations seemed chaotic in terms of relevant fields. two nearby posters can be so different in their field of study that it's hard to navigate. i think they should be divided into specific groups. participants could register in groups since, at least from vilnius university, we mostly know each other anyway. it's difficult to leave one's poster, but you do want to see other presentations as well. so grouping them would be the simplest solution. one could keep an eye on their poster while attending another.
  26. not enough oral presentations. maybe a sparse schedule.
  27. a number of presentations were based on textbook material with no significant follow-up original results (op-22, for example).
  28. can't think of anything.