JpGU-AGU Joint Meeting 2020: Virtual
Post Meeting Survey Comments Q&A
Thank you for filling out the post-conference survey. A summary of the >800 responses to the multiple-choice questions was presented in the August issue of the JpGU Mail News; we also received many written comments. We will use this feedback to improve our annual conference in the future. We have also prepared a Q&A session that gives the background details and some relevant facts as a response to the main comments received from many people. We would like to express our sincere apologies for the inconvenience caused by the inadequate preparation for the online conference, including the system breakdown of the presentation platform, insufficient information gathering, and delays in communicating relevant information.
We will take careful note of the many comments and based on the experiences and lessons learned at this year's conference, we will make every effort to prepare more effectively for the next conference.
It is the responsibility of the JpGU to manage and supervise the operation of the Joint Meeting. Although the names of the platforms used in the following descriptions appear frequently, this is only an explanation of the system administration problems that occurred at the conference, and is not meant or intended to be an evaluation of the platforms themselves.

October 10, 2020
JpGU Meeting Organizing Committee
Q&A INDEX
1. Live (videoconferencing) Delivery (DFS (Discussion Forum Sessions), events, lectures, etc.)
Q1-1. Why am I having network problems, such as not being able to join a videoconference or not being able to hear the audio?
On the first day of the conference, the portal site was down due to a higher-than-expected volume of traffic. As a result, many people were unable to enter the DFS venue (video conference). This problem was solved by increasing the capacity of the server as soon as we were able. In some cases, problems with the audio system were due to the participants' settings or the network environment, but we were not able to fully grasp the extent of these issues and to resolve them during the conference.
Q1-2. Why did you choose to use Zoom for the web, which is responsible for a number of problems such as sharing screens not displaying properly, audio of videos not playing, and browsers being limited to Google Chrome?
The main reason for using the web-based Zoom was to eliminate the need to display and enter the URL (or ID) and password when connecting to a video conference from a portal site. This means these is no need to display the URL and password, which can be compromised (or accidentally compromised) in the event of a cyber-attack. In other words, the goal was to prevent cyberattacks and help eliminate free riders, i.e., participants who watch for free without registering. This was due to the fact that the portal site would allow click-and-click access to the videoconferencing venue, which would also allow us to create a user-friendly specification that would allow click-and-click access to the nearly 30 channels of the videoconference venue.
Unfortunately, due to schedule delays, the portal site was delivered by the contractor only a few days before the conference. As a result, we found out at the last minute that some of the problems found in the preliminary tests could not be fixed, and we were not able to make these problems known to the public. Next time, we will have enough time to prepare and inform the public of any problems, irrespective of the platform we use.
Q1-3. Shouldn't we consider using the Zoom application for DFS and sharing the URL and password with other participants to make it easier and more stable?
We are considering the possibility to solve the problem of free riders of Zoom by making the registration fee low or free for participants who only listen to Zoom lectures. For example, we may raise the abstract submission fee for those who want to present Zoom while charging a lower fee for registration, and sharing IDs and passwords among participants.
Q1-4. There was no list of DFS content available.
We had asked each session convener to submit details of the DFS content in advance, but due to lack of time and manpower in preparation, we were unable to publish the list of DFS content on the web in time. We will try to prepare a system to ensure that we can provide this kind of information next time.
Q1-5. The way the DFS was conducted was self-managed by the individual sessions, which placed an extremely heavy burden on the conveners and resulted in a large difference in the atmosphere for each session.
Holding DFS was a new endeavor for us and on reflection we recognize that the arrangements left too much to be decided by the conveners. If we decide to hold DFS again at the next conference, we will consider suggesting some specific options for the presentation format so that the convener can choose from them.
Q1-6. The DFS was held only in the morning, but I would like to see it held in the afternoon as well.
Since the conference was co-hosted with AGU, one of the reasons for holding the DFS in the morning was to take into account the time difference with the US. To accommodate the time difference with Europe, we have decided to hold some of the co-sponsored sessions with the EGU in the afternoon. Of course, we could have been a little more flexible in our approach, including the Japanese sessions. However, since we were asking for volunteer researchers from nine different university sites to manage the nearly 30 channels of videoconferencing, it was difficult to ask them to manage the conference on weekends and over long periods of time. If the conference is held online next year, we will look into the possibility of holding the sessions in the afternoon as well.
Q1-7. I couldn't figure out when, where, or what kind of event was being held, even though I looked at the program.
We are very sorry for the inconvenience. We have received many similar comments and we are well aware of the situation. This was entirely due to lack of sufficient preparation and staff time. For next year's conference, we will try to create a list of events and a clearer program list and announce it as soon as possible.
Q1-8. I think there was not enough time for lectures at DFS overall. Some sessions had no time at all for questions and answers.
All DFS had limited allotted time slots and it was left up to the conveners of each session to decide how to utilize the available time. This comment probably refers to those DFS that assigned most of the time to discussion. For DFS that mainly held oral presentations, we surmise that limiting the number of presentations to maximize the presentation time for each and limiting lecture time for each presentation to maximize the number of presentations were both considered. In the case of the latter case, the presentation time may have been too short or there may not have been enough time for questions and answers. In addition, limiting access to the DFS to only just before the start, and the greater than expected time needed both to prepare the start of the DFS and to switch over to the other sessions, contributed to situations where there was insufficient time. If next year's conference has an online component, we will consider ways to make the proceedings smoother, including whether or not DFS will be adopted.
▲Back to Q&A INDEX
2.View posters online
Q2-1. There were many problems with online poster browsing. Also, it was unstable at times.
AGU has been using the iPoster platform since 2017, and we decided to adopt it based on the fact that this was successfully employed to host more than 1,000 presentations at the AGU Fall Meeting 2019, and because this year's conference was a JpGU-AGU Joint Meeting. In this year's meeting, all the formal presentations were in poster format, and there was a desire to adopt some kind of advanced poster presentation system. However, the number of iPoster presentations (more than 4,000) this year has been affected by scheduling and system management problems, and this has caused a great deal of inconvenience to many people, including interruptions in viewing. Looking to the future, we will reconsider how best to proceed, with an emphasis on platform stability.
Q2-2. The response to bugs was very bad.
We did our best to deal with the problems in good faith, but due to the server being down, a significant number of display problems (about a hundred or more) occurred at once, and we were not able to keep on top of them. We will re-examine the structure and response methods of the organizing committee and the secretariat to ensure that in the event of a glitch information is communicated and shared promptly with adequate support.
Q2-3. I couldn't leave comments on iPoster, and I couldn't discuss on it sufficiently because of chatting problems.
We are very sorry for the knock on effects from the server going down and the system being reset that caused system management problems. We will strive to improve the process by which comments can be left in the future. We place great importance on facilitating possibilities for more active discussion in future similar presentations.
Q2-4. The search function is difficult to use, and I could not find my desired iPoster. Also, I have to search for other iPosters from the beginning every time I visit them, which is very difficult to use.
We recognize that your suggestion about the search function of iPoster is an area for future improvement.
Q2-5. Will I be able to cite my presentation, including the preliminary draft, regardless of whether the individual iPoster is available in the future?
Yes, you may cite the content of your talk in an appropriate manner, with the author's name, title and conference name. However, some abstracts may be withheld or deleted at the author's discretion, so we think it is more appropriate to cite an abstract that can be viewed online for a long time. If you would like to cite an iPoster, please contact the author for more information on appropriate ways to cite it.
Q2-6. When we used a new platform such as iPoster, we were not able to use the functions of iPoster because we did not have enough time to prepare for both presentation and browsing.
Due to the urgency of holding the conference online, we postponed the date of the conference by seven weeks, but the preparation took longer than expected, and it is a major regret that the presenters and participants did not have sufficient time to prepare for the conference. In the future, we will try to ensure that we have sufficient time to adopt any new systems.
Q2-7. The system was down at the time of high school students' iPoster presentation.
Although this was a valuable opportunity for the high school students to present, we, the organizers, are very shocked by the inconvenience caused by the system malfunction. We organizers would like to express our sincerest apologies to everyone involved. We decided to extend the conference period to Sunday, July 19 to extend the iPoster presentation period, as well as to set Sunday, July 19 as a public day and set up a core time for high school student session chats to allow for a meeting between the presenters of the high school posters and any conference participants who wished to attend. In this way we secured an opportunity for communication. However, we received many comments that it was difficult to attend this part of the conference because it coincided with the period of final exams for high school students, which was very distressing. In the end, 61 presentations were made, and we were able to award the Outstanding Research Award, the Research Encouragement Award, and this time, a special Excellent Poster award (while we declined to select the Best Research Award due to the circumstances).
We are planning to take more steps to ensure the stability of the system next time if the conference is held online, and to avoid wasting this precious opportunity, we are considering to improve the conference by not setting the first day of the conference as the Sunday for high school students to participate.
▲Back to Q&A INDEX
3. Online Poster Creation and Presentation
Q3-1. Why did you choose iPoster as the primary platform for this conference presentation?
We would like to explain the background of the conference in some detail. First of all, in the midst of the popularity for telework and online lectures, we were concerned about the increase in the load on domestic and international networks, and about the instability of the connection due to the use of home lines as the main source of connection, and because the conference was a joint meeting with AGU, we had to deal with the time difference with the overseas participants. We judged that it would be difficult to ensure the fairness of the oral presentations, so we decided to designate all the presentations as poster presentations, which was a requirement as a formal record of the presentation. (In addition, there was the opportunity for oral discussion in DFS, which did not require a formal completion of individual oral presentations). We then explored what format would be best for the poster presentation, as it should be more than just a mere display of posters, but should allow for interactive communication with the participants. Initially, we were considering something as simple as posting a PDF poster to each presenter's space on the platform, but we also wanted to consider convenience in terms of viewing methods and interactive communication as far as possible.
AGU has been using the iPoster platform since 2017; at the 2019 AGU Fall Meeting, there were approximately 1,000 presentations, and even posters can incorporate video and audio, and use of the chat function allows for close interaction between presenters and participants. It was assumed that the two-way discussion could be carried out without delay. Since this year's conference was a joint conference with AGU, we had a series of preliminary discussions (remote meetings and e-mails) about the use of the iPoster system, and since mid-April, JpGU volunteers have been conducting a field test of the system.
After recognizing that the iPoster system can be used for the creation and operation of posters and sessions without any problems, including the burden of network connection for creating and viewing posters (which could be about 5,000), the usability of the user interface (including use of Japanese), the introduction of interactive communication tools such as chat, and the simple creation method, we decided to formally adopt the iPoster system for this year's conference.
However, due to the number of posters handled and the unexpectedly lengthy technical work involved in importing data in the format for the participant ID authentication system used by JpGU, it was not possible to provide sufficient poster creation and operation manuals and training opportunities to poster creators.
In addition, in the background, the surge in demand for global online academic conferences has had a significant impact on the operations of the companies involved, and we were not aware of the impact it would have on our schedules. For these reasons, we believe that the conference experienced repeated problems. We apologize for the repeated loss of poster data for some participants and for the inadequacy of communication tools.
From now on, we will try to provide a simpler, more stable, and easy-to-use method of session management based on the feedback from the participants, and we will provide instructions on how to use the system when there is sufficient time to do so.
Q3-2. Why did you want to use iPoster to have a two-way discussion, but it didn't work?
The organizers of the conference requested that the tools necessary for interactive discussions, such as video conferencing, be incorporated into the system from the beginning of the decision-making process, but due to delays in the process, we were unable to provide sufficient tools to meet their needs. Nevertheless, we recognize that interactive discussions are extremely important for poster presentations. If the next conference is to be held online again, we are reviewing the trends and operations of other conferences in order to provide an advanced presentation platform, and we will continue to deepen our discussions and make further improvements.
Q3-3. What is the management's response to iPoster's data management (loss of the posters themselves, inadequate search functions, and long periods of maintenance during the period)?
We recognize that the delays in data management and response have left significant challenges for us on the conference management side. In particular, some iPosters have repeatedly lost data, and this has caused a lot of trouble to the participants. We are very sorry for the inconvenience caused to the participants because we had to spend a lot of time investigating the causes of the data loss and taking measures to recover the data during the conference. From now on, we would like to carefully consider the stability and reliability of the system we have chosen.
Q3-4. Why didn't you set a poster core time for the poster presentations as you have for the regular event?
We considered setting up a common core time for the poster sessions, but we decided not to do so this year because of the time difference between Japan and overseas and the fact that people's working style differs greatly from person to person due to telework. However, as an alternative measure, we have decided to hold DFS, which includes both the oral and poster core time sessions. However, some sessions were held with DFS and some were not, and the content of DFS was left to the conveners, leaving the role of the DFS ambiguous. On the other hand, the iPoster was available 24 hours a day for the duration of the conference, and the conference management presumed this would allow discussions to be held separately at appropriate times. There should have been more specific and clear guidelines from the meeting management and the Program Committee for both the conveners and participants. If the next meeting is held online again, we will try to provide guidance as soon as possible so that you will feel comfortable with the presentations and discussions, regardless of whether or not DFS is adopted.
▲Back to Q&A INDEX
4. Portal site
Q4-1. The flow line of the portal site was confusing, and it was difficult to access the information we wanted.
In the future, we will link the portal site with the conference program to simplify the flow line and integrate and unify the information. We have also received many requests to improve the search function, and we undertake to improve that functionality as well.
Q4-2. It was difficult to gather information through the portal site because it opened just before the start of the meeting.
An unexpectedly long period of time was required for the design of the portal site's specifications, which resulted in a delay in finalizing the portal site's specifications and a delay in the opening of the portal site until just before the event. We apologize for the inconvenience this caused to the participants. From now on, we will make efforts to open the portal site earlier so that we can provide you with detailed information well in advance of the meeting.
Q4-3. There was a difference in the amount of information between the Japanese and English websites.
Due to the many issues discussed in here and the limited number of staff of the secretariat, it was not possible to put all the information on the English website in time. From now on, we will try to improve the English site to ensure that there is no difference in the amount of information.
Q4-4. It was necessary to devise ways to promote communication between participants.
We are aware that communication between participants in online conferences is currently a major issue around the world. In the future, we will consider a variety of platforms so that we can incorporate mechanisms to facilitate communication between participants in a convention of this size.
Q4-5. The recommended environment (Google Chrome) should be announced early and clearly.
Due to the last-minute discovery of the system's recommended environment, there was a delay in communication. From now on, we will do our best to disseminate detailed information about the meeting in a timely and easy-to-understand manner as much as possible.
▲Back to Q&A INDEX
5. Exhibition, Seminar, Workshop
Q5-1. I would like to know the number of accesses to the iPoster and the demographics of the visitors (high school students, university students, university faculty, general public, etc.).
The number of visits to iPoster can be found in the Statistics tab of MY SETTINGS after logging into iPoster. However, no further information is recorded. The Meeting Organizing Committee recognizes that this is an important consideration.
Q5-2. I would like to see the list of exhibitors on the right side of the Zoom channel list, but the link to the iPoster of each exhibitor would be better.
Since the list of Zoom channels is located on the conference portal site and the exhibitors' iPoster gallery is relatively easy to access, the link from the exhibitors' banner ads is linked to the exhibitors' websites. On the other hand, the exhibitors' website, which can be accessed from the home page of the conference portal site, provides a link to the JpGU exhibitors' iPoster. The exhibitors' website within the conference portal site provides all the information about the exhibitors, such as exhibitor searches, quiz rallies, and a list of 30-second commercials, as well as links to the exhibitors' websites and iPoster. From now on, we will make every effort to make the site more accessible and convenient for you by making it more well-known and user-friendly, so that it can play the role you have come to expect.
Q5-3. It was very difficult to get information about what is happening when.
All information about exhibitors was posted on the exhibitors' website within the JpGU meeting portal site, however, we have not been able to provide sufficient services to participants in terms of access and information posting. We will make every effort to make the website as convenient as possible in the future.
Q5-4. I thought the quiz rally itself was good, but I felt that the number of participants was low.
The quiz rally was intended to encourage exhibitors to access the online poster. However, there was not enough publicity about how to participate in the quiz rally, with only about 5% of the convention participants participating. Winners of the prizes donated by exhibitors and individual members were selected by lottery, and we are currently in the process of sending out the prizes one by one. We will continue to make every effort to reach out to as many participants as possible and to encourage them to visit our website by organizing quiz rallies and other events.
▲Back to Q&A INDEX
6. Registration fee
Q6-1. Why did you set the registration fee to be equivalent to an early bird discounted day pass for the usual on-site meeting?
The registration fee for the online event is based on the fact that few people would attend from morning to night for the duration of the event, based on previous overseas events. In anticipation of this type of participation, we felt that the registration fee should be lower than the usual full-day local ticket fee. Specifically, we believe that the existing one-day ticket and early bird discount (14,300 yen for members and 7,700 yen for students) are appropriate for this year's event, and we have decided to set this as the price. The annual operating expenses of JpGU are supported in no small part by your registration fees. Thanks to the participation of many people, we have been able to keep the financial impact to a minimum, and we plan to hold the conference again next year.
Q6-2. It seems expensive considering the glitches that have occurred with video conferencing and online posters.
Since we have to charge a registration fee, which is not cheap, we have to do the best we can to meet the requests we received in the questionnaire (to enhance two-way communication, to set up a place for oral discussions, etc.) and to prevent participation by those who did not pay the registration fee (free riding) as much as possible. We adopted a convention system and built a system to make the conference as simple as possible.
As a result, there were issues related to inability to access the portal site and join video conferences, the need to restore the iPoster data due to the failure of the server handling the online poster system, etc. We greatly regret the resulting inconvenience to the participants.
From now on, we will make careful preparations and build a system for sharing information to ensure that the conference is held to the satisfaction of all participants.
Q6-3. Wouldn't it be preferable to raise the submission fee and lower the participation fee?
Raising the submission fee, and thus the registration fee, could make the conference system simpler and more robust, especially if we don't have to worry about the free-riding problem of holding the conference online (i.e., participating without paying the registration fee). Also, holding a conference primarily funded by submission fees might fit in with the direction of open science (in fact, the open science concept of Creative Commons is recommended in the EGU's presentation requirements). We will discuss this concept along with ideas on how to best organize a scientific conference looking forward to the future.
▲Back to Q&A INDEX
7. Overall Convention
Q7-1. Online meetings have the advantage of allowing people to connect from their workplaces or homes despite the corona epidemic, and are good for preventing infection and saving time and money. However, it does not function as a "place of exchange" as well as on-site meetings, and needs to be improved.
Several people commented that while there is more information available digitally in this online conference, there are fewer opportunities for human interaction and networking than in the on-site conference. This seems to be an issue not only for this year's conference, but for all online conferences. From now on, the Meeting Organizing Committee will pay close attention to trends in Japan and abroad and consider how we can provide an attractive and flexible "place for exchange" while taking full advantage of holding the conference online.
Q7-2. I felt that the hurdle to ask questions for each presentation was higher in the online session than in the on-site session. I was dissatisfied with the fact that we do not know who has seen our presentations and to what extent they have been viewed. We need to devise the know-how of holding the conference online to increase the level of satisfaction.
We received many comments mentioning the difficulty of communicating adequately between the presenters and participants at the online conference, that it is harder to ask questions than at the on-site conference, and that it is difficult to know who was interested in the conference. This seems to be an issue not only for this conference, but also for all online conferences. We will consider the problems and improvements to be made while keeping a close eye on trends in Japan and abroad, in order to create a more interactive and stress-free presentation format.
Q7-3. The online meeting was held within a short preparation period, and could have been made simpler. Participants need time and experience to get used to the online environment.
As pointed out, given the lack of information on how to manage large-scale online international conferences, on reflection, it would have been better to have decided on a simple and reliable method of holding the conference as early as possible, thoroughly verified the best way to implement it and communicated better. For future meetings, we will build on this experience and the lessons learned to examine and prepare for a secure and more reliable hosting system.
Q7-4. We put too much emphasis on security and increased network and browser restrictions, resulting in a platform that is not easy to use. In this difficult situation, it would have been better to leave it to the conscience of the participants to hold the conference online.
We apologize for the inconvenience caused to the participants, including problems with the system and its usability. From now on, we will continue to examine and prepare for a secure and reliable system while ensuring the security of all participants.
Q7-5. I would like to see a stable cloud service outsourced from the private sector, instead of being run by volunteer researchers, so that the participants do not feel stressed. I would like you to make sure that the conference is prepared and the system is validated from the perspective of the participants.
The Japan Geoscience Union has made every effort in the past to keep the conference participation fee as low as possible, despite the fact that the conference is held every year on the scale of an international conference. Even so, we are well aware of the frustration of those who complain that the fees are much higher than those of regular meetings of domestic societies. However, as with other domestic conferences, we have been able to keep the conference participation fee as low as possible through the dedicated efforts of the limited secretariat, meeting organizing committee and other researcher volunteers, who are dedicated to keeping the participation fee as low as possible, when it would have been necessary to set the same level of participation fee as for international conferences. The online conference this time may be said to have exposed the limits of management by such a volunteer system. Going forward, we will strive to ensure safe and reliable operation from the perspective of all those who participate in the meeting, regardless of whether the meeting is held on-site or online. Different members have different ideas about the pricing and balance of the registration and abstract submission fees, as well as the introduction of systems and systems necessary for the operation of the meeting. We will continue to consider these issues in light of the opinions we have received and future global trends.
Q7-6. There were no details of the program for the sessions and others, and there was a lot of confusion in making plans for participation. It is a problem that information on preparations, problems, etc. is shared too slowly. We need to improve the method and structure of information dissemination, such as the meeting website and official social networking accounts. I want information to be centralized.
Real-time information sharing should have been an advantage of holding the conference online, but due to the limited staff of the secretariat, we were not able to establish an adequate system, which unfortunately resulted in a delay in information sharing and confusion. In addition, the list of all programs and details of the DFS sessions was not available in time to improve the readability and accessibility of the list and provide detailed information. From now on, we will consider how the meeting should be organized and managed, including the integration of information and the prompt provision of official information.
Q7-7. I would like to express my respect and gratitude to the executive committee, the secretariat, and everyone involved for their efforts to hold the event despite the difficult circumstances of the corona crisis. I am glad that the event was held rather than cancelled. It was a difficult operation, but we believe that online seminars will be necessary even after the event returns to normal. I hope that the next time the event will be held with careful preparation, taking into account the advantages and disadvantages learned from this year's event.
We will do our best to make the most of the many comments and encouragements we have received from the participants of this online conference, and to make the online conference, which was held in the midst of unprecedented corona disaster, a valuable experience for the future development of earth and planetary sciences. We would like to ask all the members for their continued support and cooperation to the Japan Geoscience Union.
▲Back to Q&A INDEX