Talk:Microsoft Research/Archives/2012
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Published work at SIGGRAPH
Historically, Microsoft has performed well in having research papers accepted at the prestigious ACM SIGGRAPH conference, having contributed since 2002 on average 14% of the papers published.
| Year | Total papers | MSR Papers |
|---|---|---|
| 2008 | 90[1] | 13 (14%)[2] |
| 2007 | 108[3] | 14 (13%)[4][5] |
| 2005 | 86 | 16 (17%) |
| 2004 | 83 | 10 (16%) |
| 2003 | 83 | 11 (10%) |
| 2002 | 67 | 7 (11%) |
| Total | 517 | 71 (14%) |
| Mean | 86 | 12 (14%) |
Research or Development?
It happens frequently in the popular media that, when some scientific judgment is needed, news people ask someone from Microsoft Research to comment. I wonder if that's a reasonable thing to do. Microsoft Research may welcome the opportunity to be portrayed in the press as research experts, but, judging from the WP article, they are actually the development department of Microsoft. Are there any notable discoveries from Microsoft Research that would qualify them as commentators on scientific questions ? I gather from the article that a lot of research celebrities are now employees of Microsoft Research, but, to my knowledge, they all made their great discoveries before they became Microsoft employees.--84.177.93.17 (talk) 21:03, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
This can easily be answered by loking at the percentage of MSR's personnel presence in all the major CS and CG journals / conferences. It's very strong.
Also, among the celebrities, I'd add Jaron Lanier. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.21.41.163 (talk) 23:41, 9 July 2011 (UTC)