Last year, I submitted abstracts to the PASS Summit for the first time. I sent in four abstracts and all four were rejected outright. I took the rejection pretty hard, especially considering all four were rejected for no other stated reason than “max sessions allocated for track” — in other words, simply not good enough. This year, I served on the abstract review committee for the AppDev track. I not only wanted to serve the SQL Server community in this way, but I also sought a better understanding of how abstracts are selected, and what makes an abstract a winner. To ease the sting to those who are going to be rejected for this year’s Summit (or were rejected in years past), I thought I’d share with you a conversation between last year’s me (the rejected applicant) and this year’s me (the committee member).
Rejected Me: I suppose you know why I’m here.
Committee Me: First, let me tell you, very sincerely, I’m sorry you didn’t have any abstracts selected this year.
Rejected Me: Thanks, but I’m still pissed about it.
Committee Me: I understand. I’ve been there. I wasn’t on your track’s committee, so can you tell me your reasons for rejection? Maybe I can help you understand.
Rejected Me: I don’t know, all they said were “Max sessions allocated”.
Committee Me: That just means you wrote adequate abstracts, didn’t leave anything incomplete, that sort of thing.
Rejected Me: Duh. I was thorough. I spellchecked and filled in all the required info.
Committee Me: It also means, for whatever reason, all the accepts and alternates were better than yours in the eyes of the committee.
Rejected Me: Can’t they tell me more than that?
Committee Me: I know it stinks not getting better feedback, but keep this in mind: three volunteers took time to evaluate as many as over 200 abstracts. Most of them are complete and halfway well-written. They don’t have time to give full critiques to each one.
Rejected Me: But that doesn’t help me. How will I know what I need to do better next time?
Committee Me: I don’t want to sound harsh, but it’s not their job to counsel you on why they didn’t like your abstracts more. Read the abstracts that were accepted and you’ll see commonalities. Learn from those.
Rejected Me: Fine. But why does [this person] always get to speak? Why not let some new people get a chance?
Committee Me: It just so happens that experienced speakers tend to be experienced abstract writers. Like I said, learn from the successful ones.
Rejected Me: I submitted three of my four abstracts in the same subject area. Surely they could have picked one of them.
Committee Me: Not necessarily. It could be they thought the target audience would be too small, or they already had it covered by another abstract — one that was better written.
Rejected Me: Is it me? Maybe my abstracts weren’t the problem.
Committee Me: Could be. Your experience does factor in, but we do want some newer speakers in there too. How many events have you presented at before you submitted to the Summit?
Rejected Me: Two.
Committee Me: Hmmm, that’s not many. Did you do well at those events?
Rejected Me: My feedback was good, so I don’t think I’ve got a bad reputation.
Committee Me: Certainly no reputation is better than a bad one, but neither case is very helpful. Keep speaking when you can find the opportunity. You’ll be much more established by this time next year, and that can only help.
Rejected Me: I suppose.
Committee Me: Try to remember this is the world’s largest SQL Server conference and the people that speak here have earned their way up on stage by building a history of successful presentations and writing good abstracts. Hang in there. Work to improve your content, delivery, and abstract writing, and you’ll get the call eventually.
Rejected Me: Thanks. But why didn’t they like my abstracts this time?
Committee Me: Well, if it’s any consolation, it could be someone on the committee really liked one, but it wasn’t enough to float it up high enough to make the cut. So it may not have been unanimously rejected. Apart from that, I don’t know what else to say except I’ve been in your shoes. I know exactly what you’re feeling.
Rejected Me: I don’t even know how close I came. Can’t they publish the final rankings or comments?
Committee Me: That’s an interesting idea, but one with a lot of complications. First, this is done by committee, so it could be one member writes glowing comments but the other two rate it low enough that it doesn’t make the cut. You end up with great comments and a lower ranking. To me, contradictory feedback is worse than no feedback. Another problem is that we simply don’t have time to comment specifically on each abstract. It’s hard enough to try to rate them all fairly. I even went so far as to make sure I wasn’t hungry, tired, or mad about something before reviewing a chunk of abstracts because I wanted to be in an equal frame of mind across them all. (Proof there’s a rational basis for doing so.) Also, if we posted complete rankings, we’d get a lot more questions from people wanting to know why they were ranked so low. It’s the committee’s job to rank abstracts, not to publicly defend the rankings. Sorry.
Rejected Me: This still sucks.
Committee Me: Yes. Yes, it does. I hope I’ve helped a little.
Rejected Me: A little.
I hope I’ve helped a little. Hang in there.
Dude, this is really well done. I think a lot of people take it really hard when they do not get accepted. I will send them here if they do. 🙂
Thanks, Mark. I’m glad you liked the post, and I hope it softens the blow for whomever you refer to it.
Don’t feel bad. I can never work out how that committee works. I’ve had many accepted over the years but the one that was knocked back this year was the same session that was voted best session in the Sql Sat tour down under.
Regards
Greg
Thanks for your comments, Greg. It’s hardly an exact science, and it’s not too surprising some very popular sessions from other events get left out.
Man, really good words. I am feeling the same. It is my second year that I try and nothing.
Just some points :
My native language it is not English, and I have some grammars errors. I believe that this could be count too. This year A weel good known name did the Abstrac Review for me, so was my Abstract ? No.
I believe to be contributing to long time with Powershell and SQL Server community in the world, as well as several people. Did we could not have a chance?
“Try to remember this is the world’s largest SQL Server conference ” ..Sure..But it is not all about community ? I saw someone talking in twiiter “Why do you want to speak at SQLPASS? For your own advertise blablabla” No It is for passion,and the Summit and SQLBITS are the biggest events of SQL Server. Who would not want to speak at these events? fortunately I had the honor to speak at SQLBITS. And now, after this chance, even I will not be selected in the next, I will go and keep trying because they give to me an opportunity.
I got many DM´s from the WW SQL Server community saying that they wanted to watch my session. Was my content ? I dont know, but looks like not was.
Well, so after think about it, I realize that are some stuffs that are just not for you. In my case Speak at Summit it is not for me, and I will keep living with this 🙂
Good words Man…unfortunately in case, the Committee Me said “You already know the answer. Stop trying in here. There is a lot of SQLSAT´s , SQLBITS and other events that you can try”
Just Saying 🙂
Hi Laerte,
Thank you for your comments. I understand how you feel. It’s hard when all you want to do is share what you know and the opportunity to do it at the Summit isn’t offered. I want to address a few points you made.
“…I have some grammars errors.” << I don't think your abstract's grammar has to be flawless, but it should definitely pass a basic spellcheck. Selected abstracts are published in print and online by PASS in event guides. How would it reflect on them to have a guide with obvious typos? They have to keep the standard for writing high. If you're concerned about grammar, ask a native English speaker to review it before submitting. "But it is not all about community?" << It's a community event, but one that people pay to attend. PASS is obligated to make sure the content is worth the price of admission. That means choosing a lineup of community-delivered sessions that are diverse, current, and have potentially high appeal. SQL Saturday is more about community and local speaker development. "fortunately I had the honor to speak at SQLBITS." << A lot of speakers with outstanding reputations and extensive speaking histories were rejected last year and surely will be again this year. Having a solid background as a speaker helps, but the abstract still has to be excellent. "the Committee Me said "You already know the answer. Stop trying in here."" << I completely disagree. What the committee said (apart from whatever reason(s) for rejection you got) was they chose the best mix of sessions the could, and that yours were not chosen. That's all. And I say keep trying, keep refining your speaking and abstract writing skills. You will break through. I hope that helps.
SELECT
Session
, Score
FROM (
SELECT TOP 10
Session
, Score
, Ranking=ROW_NUMBER() OVER (ORDER BY Score DESC)
FROM Abstracts
ORDER BY Ranking DESC
) AS Picks
WHERE Session=’Mine’
ORDER BY Ranking DESC
0 Rows Selected
Because you guys do not publish your rankings, you do not use the opportunity to get valuable feedback from the community and improve your procedure.
From the outside, the selection process looks opaque, and some of decisions look arbitrary. This might turn off some aspiring speakers more than just rejection.
Last year there were abstracts I was very excited about, and they were not selected. Some of the abstracts that were selected over the ones I wanted, well, they looked irrelevant to what I need to get my job done. I did not go to the 2011 Summit, getting my training from other venues.
I know quite a few people who used to go to PASS Summits, can afford it, but stopped doing so.
True, we don’t publish final rankings, but that doesn’t mean we don’t ask for feedback. We used the results from the attendee survey earlier this year to help guide our decisions. We got valuable information about what sub-topics, levels, and speakers attendees were most interested in seeing.
Last year, there were abstracts I was excited about seeing that ultimately weren’t chosen. That’s going to happen every year. I don’t know if we’ll do it this year (haven’t heard), but last year some alternates were offered a chance to become regular sessions through a community choice vote. Between that, the survey, and the opportunity to serve on an abstract committee, I’d say PASS is very much interested in outside opinion.
Thanks for your comment.
Well written however I find it hardly ok when it comes to new speakers vs. experienced speakers.
What I mean by that is that it is the game of who’s first, the chicken or the egg. How a new speaker (who has presented in local events) will gain experience in such events if it never gets picked?
I grant you, as a speaker I need to practice on local events to gain some experience but is not the same to present for 20-30 people than for 300. That kind of experience you get only by… well, presenting to 300. Where? Only events such as the Summit provide that scenario.
There should always be certain slots reserved for new speakers, that way, at least there will be a chance.
Just my 2 cents after being rejected 3 years in a row. (btw, not doing it anymore).
Cheers!
Jose
Hi Doug
First of all, sorry to hear you did not get your session in there. Also, kudos to you for seeking knowledge by going on the committee. Writing a post like this takes balls of steel.
Second, For the last 5 years running I have presented at both PASS and BITS nearly every time and am not sure I know exactly what makes an abstract get through the filters either. The reason I dont know what makes a good abstract is that the blindness works both ways: i dont know what gets rejected and why.
However, if you are willing to share some examples of your rejected abstracts I will be happy to provide feedback on how to improve them. Maybe this could help? PASS could even consider having some form of “presenter” mentoring to scale the production of good sessions and abstracts.