Vinnie Falco wrote:
On Sat, Jun 27, 2026 at 4:20 AM Andrzej Krzemieński via Paper-reviews < paper-reviews@lists.wg21.org> wrote:
Then I have mischaracterized. I aplogize. Appreciated. To your point though, I have now heard from multiple people that my abstracts are not informative. This is not the LLMs fault, but mine. The abstracts reflect what I think should be in an abstract. If multiple people are telling me this is not useful, then I can't ignore it.
The solution is to redefine the algorithm for how abstracts are generated. What should be in an abstract? You suggest it should have:
1. a compact summary of what the paper says 2. the reason that the paper exists
Is this correct?
Correct
On a related note... if all my abstracts are wrong, this means that I will have to update every published paper for August. The committee reception will be... interesting.
You can do that, but I do not think it is necessary to bump the revision only to change the abstract. This can be done in the next real revision when the contents of the papers need to materially change. Regards, &rzej;