
Best Papers in Computer Science up to 2011 - asciident
http://jeffhuang.com/best_paper_awards.html
======
btn
This list has been posted a number of times before [1], with this version
having the loosest title. To be more precision, this is a list of best paper
_awards_ given at _selected conferences_ based on _reviewer scores at the
time_ , and only _since ~1996_.

[1]: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2051437>
<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1702977>
<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1619156>
<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2351416>

~~~
DanielRibeiro
Nice, and some of them with the same URL! Guess Hacker news has a more lax
_duplicated_ posts policy when it comes down to old submissions.

Which is good, as it allows great stuff reaching a broader/newer audience. On
the other hand, it can be abused...

------
mtraven
Jeeze, this is a great resource, why all the nitpicking? Thanks to Jeff Huang
for assembling it.

------
jules
This is missing whole fields, like programming languages. Perhaps we can
expand the list here?

~~~
sb
IIRC, expanding with programming languages (PLDI, CGO, ISMM, OOPSLA, etc.) was
already discussed when this link was first mentioned on HN. Unfortunately, it
seems to not have been done yet...

Anyways, PLDI has the "Best of PLDI" papers from 1979 to 1999
([http://www.informatik.uni-
trier.de/~ley/db/conf/pldi/pldi200...](http://www.informatik.uni-
trier.de/~ley/db/conf/pldi/pldi2004best.html)) and they establish the most
important paper 10 after its publication. AFAIK/IIRC OOPSLA/SPLASH does this
now as well. I think it's good, but it would also be very interesting to know,
whether there is an intersection between the set of "Best Paper" awards and
the set of "Most important/impact" awards.

~~~
raphman
I guess "Lasting Impact" awards are a much better metric than "Best Paper"
awards. There is evidence that best paper awards are not actually indicative
of a paper's future impact (if defined as the number of citations):

 _Judging quality remains a difficult task for the initial reviewers, but also
for the best paper award committee. Despite its honest efforts, the best paper
award committee has not selected papers that are cited more often than other
papers. In other words, the best paper award committee did not perform better
than random chance. From this viewpoint, Desney Tan’s claim that “The Best of
CHI awards represent the top one percent of research submissions to CHI”
appears too optimistic._

[http://www.bartneck.de/publications/2009/scientometricAnalys...](http://www.bartneck.de/publications/2009/scientometricAnalysisOfTheCHI/index.html)

My own rant on this topic:
[http://raphaelwimmer.wordpress.com/2010/11/10/best-paper-
dem...](http://raphaelwimmer.wordpress.com/2010/11/10/best-paper-demo-poster-
awards-considered-harmful/)

------
dhruvbird
Surprisingly, Google isn't in the list of companies in SIGIR (Information
Retrieval).

------
adamdecaf
Some of the papers look to be behind a paywall, what a shame.

~~~
rohitarondekar
Try searching for the title on <http://scholar.google.com> ― I've found quite
a few papers that were behind pay walls using it.

[EDIT] I've not found the papers listed by the OP but other papers in the
past.

[EDIT 2] Oops the OP in fact has linked to Google Scholar. My bad. :)

~~~
rohitarondekar
[EDIT 3] Ah in the search result, on the right there should be a link like
"[PDF] from ethz.ch".

------
alephnil
I found this quite biased towards recent papers. Almost all papers was
published after 2000, and not a single paper before 1990. Many of the best
papers was published in early days of computer science, but not a single one
of these was on this list.

~~~
bentoner
It's not a list of the "best papers" in computer science. It's a list of which
papers won the award for best paper at particular conferences.

------
csmt
Thanks for assembling this list!

