Like I posted before here [1], it is interesting to see that Microsoft is on top of the best-paper award list with 43 points, and MIT is third on the list with 30 points. IBM and Google are way further down the list, just to name a couple.<p>This is why (imo) Microsoft deserves much more credit than it gets. Especially compared to Apple, which isn't even to be found on this list.<p>[1] <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10964174" rel="nofollow">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10964174</a>
A list of best 10 year old papers/test of time awards would be really useful for finding the high impact papers in a field. It's surprising how often best papers have very little impact down the line.
It's always funny to see the complete disconnect between "best paper awards" and papers that actually end up being important.<p>Not to remove any credit from the undoubtedly great work that it takes to get on that list. It's just that we're kind of bad at evaluating stuff in general and scientific work in particular.<p>Let's not forget that more than one good paper has received the "we are sorry to inform you" letter. An article in IEEE by Simone Santini in December 2005 even made fun of that - I recommend reading it for light hearted laughs.
but I think this list is more interesting --<p><a href="http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/stats/articles" rel="nofollow">http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/stats/articles</a>