Thanks to @david_picard , I can now formulate why I am for social media.
That is an instrument, where many things depends on you and how good you have done your job.
Writing a good paper is another such thing, but then you are dependent on (random) reviewer choice.
1/
That is an instrument, where many things depends on you and how good you have done your job.
Writing a good paper is another such thing, but then you are dependent on (random) reviewer choice.
1/
ArXiv is better than the conference in a sense that everyone can see and judge. But it also quite random: your target audience may not check the feed today. However, it is googlable, so not full failure
2/
2/
Now, if we add social media, then we can almost make sure (in long term at least) that target audience will see the paper.
Maybe they will not like it, but they will see it.
3/3
Maybe they will not like it, but they will see it.
3/3
I also admit, that this thread is from kind of privileged position:
1) I assume that you are not gravely dependent on paper acceptance, but was to deliver paper content.
2) it also implies that one have resources, mainly time, to build up the social media account.
1) I assume that you are not gravely dependent on paper acceptance, but was to deliver paper content.
2) it also implies that one have resources, mainly time, to build up the social media account.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
