
Microsoft Research Details Room2Room Project – Life-Size Telepresence - vyrotek
http://mspoweruser.com/microsoft-research-details-room2room-project-enabes-life-size-telepresence/
======
vyrotek
Source paper:
[http://research.microsoft.com/pubs/262648/Room2Room_CSCW2016...](http://research.microsoft.com/pubs/262648/Room2Room_CSCW2016.pdf)

~~~
detaro
then submit that, and not some blog that doesn't add content.

 _Please submit the original source. If a post reports on something found on
another site, submit the latter._

[https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)

~~~
vyrotek
Did you click the link? The page I submitted contained an additinonal video
demonstration which I found far more interesting than the original source PDF.

Additionally, I didn't think it was appropriate to directly link to a PDF
download. Generally, readers don't expect that.

~~~
detaro
MSR page for the video would be here:
[http://research.microsoft.com/apps/video/default.aspx?id=262...](http://research.microsoft.com/apps/video/default.aspx?id=262649)
, but they hide the link to the paper surprisingly well :/ (bottom right)

So yeah, your link makes more sense than I assumed, sorry.

~~~
vyrotek
Thanks for finding that. I literally searched the source of the blog article
for the video src url and then searched the PDF hoping to find some match
pointing to a more authentic source.

~~~
detaro
Yeah, I knew the MSR page and that you have to basically start at their front
page. Because of course you can't just remove the file from the paper URL and
get an overview or something like that, that would be to easy...

It seems to me like the internals of their content management system are
showing through and making it complicated. "Oh, a video? That's something
completely unrelated and a stand-alone artifact"

FWIW, I think submitting papers with a [PDF] in the title is fine, because
many people seem to start in the comments anyways, but that's just my opinion.

