52 responses

Summary

Please choose one of the following
QUEST funded researcher 13 25%
Member of QUEST partner institution 22 42%
Member of QUEST associated partner institution 7 13%
Other 10 19%
People may select more than one checkbox, so percentages may add up to more than 100%.

Conference Organization

How do you rate the information flow prior the meeting?
Very poor
Excellent
1 -
Very poor
0 0%
2 0 0%
3 6 12%
4 22 42%
5 -
Excellent
23 44%
How do you rate the meeting logistics?
Very poor
Excellent
1 -
Very poor
0 0%
2 0 0%
3 5 10%
4 22 42%
5 -
Excellent
25 48%
Additional comments
better internet connection next time , the rest was perfect. Ordered a taxi for the return trip (since I didn't want to wait 4 hours at the airport), which came 20 minutes late. I appreciated the opportunity to attend the early part of the workshop. I was particularly impressed by the community concept of QUEST, with which younger scientists are being educated and trained under the influence of senior and prominent scientists. I can see that a sound group of scientists (seismologists/geophysicists) who would take on and develop the future of the community is being constructed during the process. - internet access was not sufficient - desks needed in the conference room

Venue, Accommodation & Services

How do you rate the location?
Very poor
Excellent
1 -
Very poor
0 0%
2 0 0%
3 5 10%
4 19 37%
5 -
Excellent
28 54%
How do you rate the hotel services in general?
Very poor
Excellent
1 -
Very poor
2 4%
2 5 10%
3 17 33%
4 20 38%
5 -
Excellent
8 15%
How do you rate the lecture hall?
Very poor
Excellent
1 -
Very poor
3 6%
2 14 27%
3 18 35%
4 16 31%
5 -
Excellent
1 2%
Additional comments
Hotel food was not very good in my opinion. Lecture hall was not comfortable. It would have been nice to have tables or at least desks to place notes on. the loud A/C, combined with the low volume of the speakers was sometimes annoying. Also the „breakfast“ regularly made me lose consciousness at 11am Food was very good, but the room not worthy of a 4-star hotel: no air circulation (4 people sharing the room), bed too short. Friendly and helpful staff. Lecture hall was OK in general, but again the air unbearable: sticky & hot. Beautiful location of course! There could have been better internet access points (ie. in rooms and more in the sitting area of the hotel). Although lack of wireless in the conference room itself was at first frustrating, in the end, more people payed attention to the speakers. Internet access not easy to found Internet access was not adequate problems with a sound The location and hotel services were very good in general. However, the lecture hall was rather small, not so comfortable and the quality of the audio was not so good... Internet access is an essential necessity nowadays, and every one huddling around the hotel hobby for very faint wireless signal can be quite a scenery.

Scientific Program

How do you rate the spectrum of the scientific program?
Very poor
Excellent
1 -
Very poor
0 0%
2 2 4%
3 3 6%
4 27 52%
5 -
Excellent
20 38%
How did you like the session timing and lecture duration?
Very poor
Excellent
1 -
Very poor
0 0%
2 2 4%
3 3 6%
4 29 56%
5 -
Excellent
18 35%
How do you rate the time available for discussion during the sessions?
Very poor
Excellent
1 -
Very poor
0 0%
2 0 0%
3 8 15%
4 20 38%
5 -
Excellent
24 46%
How do you rate the ratio of research to training?
Very poor
Excellent
1 -
Very poor
0 0%
2 4 8%
3 6 12%
4 31 60%
5 -
Excellent
9 17%
How did you like the session focusing on parallel programming and GPUs?
Very poor
Excellent
1 -
Very poor
3 6%
2 7 13%
3 12 23%
4 18 35%
5 -
Excellent
10 19%
How do you rate the overall quality of the presentations?
Very poor
Excellent
1 -
Very poor
0 0%
2 0 0%
3 8 15%
4 29 56%
5 -
Excellent
15 29%
How do you rate the poster session?
Very poor
Excellent
1 -
Very poor
0 0%
2 2 4%
3 15 29%
4 23 44%
5 -
Excellent
11 21%
Please give recommendations for scientific topics on a future workshop.
More focus on inversions maybe. On my opinion a bit too much forward modeling throughout the whole week. Discussion to clarify the different names for very similar things. The next workshop is supposed to focus on HPC. After discussions with many QUEST students and others at Capo Caccia, it seems that a large majority would favor a focus on inverse problems: QUEST is about training and computational inverse problems, and the time of the second year seems especially tangible for the involved researchers. Any student who would want to learn more about these methods will greatly benefit, and if it is in 2 years, it might just be too late to really incorporate those topics into a research project. HPC should definitely be a part of all workshops, but a focus on it seems exaggerated. Looking at the various projects amongst QUEST researchers, only a fraction will directly be concerned with HPC in the real sense (cluster/parallel computing is of course essential to most projects, but doesn't need an entire workshop devoted to it). Global optimization schemes in practice One point would be to increase the training courses compared to the research presentation with lectures and practical exercises focussing on the lectures Some basic presentations on classical seismology (data processing, ray theory, normal mode theory, ...) might be useful for students. Joint school on industrial and deep earth inversion software. Other inversion or imaging techniques: receiver-functions, scatter imaging, array seismology etc.
Additional comments
Not enough space for posters. GPU programming module problems perhaps could have been avoided with some online instruction/preparation before the conference. thanks for the "best practices" mail, most people followed them and this did help! Poster session was way too short. I would propose to hold it over several evenings/afternoons next time. The HPC section was well intended and some parts worked well, clearly not the practical. I would suggest to only do practicals if the infrastructure is to be trusted (and tested!) completely. Session length was (also given the air issue in the lecture room) a bit on the long end. Three long lectures are borderline in terms of understanding and storing the information, I would think especially for new students. "There was way to little space between the posters, so one could hardly move between the different posters." Too little space for the posters "For the two hour lectures in the morning it would have been nice to have a quick 5-10 minute break in between. " " Parallel sessions on work package presentations were not welcome, as we did not get feed back from those attending the other sessions" It was interesting to observe, that on average, the presentations of the young researchers were much better than the presentations of the 'old guys'. It is difficult to balance training and scientific components because training should be at least half a day on one topic. Two-hour hands-on tutorials do not work. Thus I would not say that there was much of a training this time. I think the meeting organizers really made an effort to keep individual talks on time, but somehow some of the talks and discussions really dragged quite late into lunch hours.

Early Stage Researchers

This section should only be filled by early stage researchers at M.Sc. or Ph.D. level.
Rate the overall ability of the lectures to convey complex topics to the audience?
Very poor
Excellent
1 -
Very poor
0 0%
2 0 0%
3 4 8%
4 18 35%
5 -
Excellent
4 8%
How do you rate the benefit of this workshop for your scientific project?
Very poor
Excellent
1 -
Very poor
0 0%
2 1 2%
3 3 6%
4 13 25%
5 -
Excellent
8 15%
How do you rate the involvement of early stage researchers within the work package discussions?
Very poor
Excellent
1 -
Very poor
1 2%
2 5 10%
3 7 13%
4 5 10%
5 -
Excellent
4 8%
How do you rate the program on the complementary skills?
Very poor
Excellent
1 -
Very poor
0 0%
2 2 4%
3 1 2%
4 7 13%
5 -
Excellent
10 19%
Additional comments
The fact that the benefit of this workshop is for my project is low, is merely due to the specifics of my project than the workshop. It was the best part! The Ph.D. discussion! Thanks a lot for that! the discussion was held at a too elitist level I really enjoyed the PhD discussion it was really interesting to hear about the experiences of the top people in our field and reassuring to hear that it wasn't always easy!

General

How do you rate the social program?
Very poor
Excellent
1 -
Very poor
0 0%
2 0 0%
3 4 8%
4 23 44%
5 -
Excellent
22 42%
How do you rate the overall timing of the workshop program?
Very poor
Excellent
1 -
Very poor
0 0%
2 0 0%
3 7 13%
4 25 48%
5 -
Excellent
18 35%
Please give an overall rating for the whole workshop?
Very poor
Excellent
1 -
Very poor
0 0%
2 0 0%
3 3 6%
4 25 48%
5 -
Excellent
23 44%
Additional comments
Special dinners (conference dinner, sardinian dinner) were really not at all "special", and seemed only slightly better than the usual dinners (which were not very good to begin with). If a restaurant was available nearby that could accomodate the whole conference, that would have been much preferable. Boat trip + excursion was great! "Soccer pitch/tennis court was quite dangerous to play on. The schedule was a bit too filled. I think 2-3 hour lunch breaks, if evenings are filled with more meetings, should be daily practice. After all it is a training *network*, and exchange especially between new faces seems to be improvable. I observed that for the most part, people that do know each other tend to stick together. This loosened towards the end of the workshop, but having slightly more off-time might foster that. If not off, then slightly more time for the focus groups/work packages. The meeting was actually excellent! Just given the few critiques here forces me to rate it a 4. But generally I'd say keep the philosophy!" One of the best collaborative workshops I've attended. 6 days of workshop are maybe too much... "I have one complaint: PI was not giving tosts during social events. " - the workshop was a bit too long in my opinion Meeting like this is a great opportunity for bringing people with the same research background and interests together for some in depth training and discussions. So I would expect workshops of this caliber from QUEST in the future as well.
Number of daily responses
Delete
Duplicate
Edit
Delete
Duplicate
Edit
Delete
Duplicate
Edit
Delete
Duplicate
Edit
Delete
Duplicate
Edit
Delete
Duplicate
Edit
Delete
Duplicate
Edit
Delete
Duplicate
Edit
Delete
Duplicate
Edit
Delete
Duplicate
Edit
Delete
Duplicate
Edit
Delete
Duplicate
Edit
Delete
Duplicate
Edit
Delete
Duplicate
Edit
Delete
Duplicate
Edit
Delete
Duplicate
Edit
Delete
Duplicate
Edit
Delete
Duplicate
Edit
Delete
Duplicate
Edit
Delete
Duplicate
Edit
Delete
Duplicate
Edit
Delete
Duplicate
Edit
Delete
Duplicate
Edit
Delete
Duplicate
Edit
Delete
Duplicate
Edit
Delete
Duplicate
Edit
Delete
Duplicate
Edit
Delete
Duplicate
Edit
Delete
Duplicate
Edit
Delete
Duplicate
Edit
Delete
Duplicate
Edit