When Not to Go
Every other page here helps you evaluate a conference. This one is about the answer that is available at every stage and almost never chosen deliberately. For a separate operational comparison, how Microsoft Teams tracks activity can provide a useful reference.
Reviewed August 9, 2026. A useful external reference point is European Commission Research .
Six situations
One. You cannot write down what you want from it. The question is what turns four days into a return, and without one the money buys a pleasant blur.
Two. One relevant session. Read the programme. One session in four days is a paper you could have read, at the cost of a week.
Three. It is the annual habit. Attended since 2019, never re-decided, and the programme has drifted away from your work while you were not looking.
Four. The total is out of proportion to your year. Not the fee — the total. A single event consuming most of a development budget needs to be obviously the right one.
Five. The legitimacy checks did not clear. Two or more failures means choose differently, and the switching cost is hours.
Six. You are going because you were invited. Which for a cold invitation is the entire product, and for a genuine one is still not a reason on its own.
The three cheaper things
Read the proceedings. Where they exist, the substance is available for nothing, and for many attendees the substance was the reason.
Watch the recordings. Where they exist, afterwards, at your own pace, at zero cost.
Go to the local group instead. Four of the five returns, monthly, free.
Each of these is available and none is a decision anybody frames. The comparison is always conference against conference, never conference against the three alternatives that cost almost nothing.
Not going and staying visible
The concern underneath most reluctant attendance.
Submit anyway where the venue permits remote or poster participation — the record shows the work.
Ask a colleague who is going to raise your question and report back. Costs them ten minutes and works.
Read the programme and email two speakers. The corridor conversation without the corridor, and people reply to a specific question about their own work.
And say what you would have said, somewhere. A written version of the talk you did not give is findable, citable and outlives most conference presentations.
Saying it to an employer
"I do not think this one is worth the total cost, and here is what I propose instead."
That is a stronger position than a request, and it is remembered. Somebody who has declined a conference on their own analysis is considerably more credible the next time they ask for one — which is the same mechanism as reporting honestly afterwards.
The one to go to anyway
Being fair.
When the reason is people rather than programme. Three specific people, confirmed as attending, is a sufficient reason even with a thin programme, and it is the return that no cheaper alternative delivers.
And when it is the only place a community meets, which some fields genuinely have. Say that plainly rather than dressing it as programme analysis.
The short version
- Six situations: no written aim, one relevant session, the unexamined annual habit, a total out of proportion, failed legitimacy checks, and going because you were invited
- Three cheaper alternatives are always available and never framed as options: the proceedings, the recordings, and the local group
- Stay visible without attending by submitting remotely, asking a colleague to carry your question, emailing two speakers, and publishing what you would have said
- "I do not think this is worth the total, and here is what I propose instead" is stronger than a request and is remembered
- Go anyway when the reason is three specific confirmed people, or when it is the only place a community meets
- Say which of those it is, rather than dressing a people reason as programme analysis