A more general form of this question has been answered here for example, but I want to know what makes a good poster presentation in physics and/or engineering conferences.

Obviously the poster must be visually appealing as discussed in various posts here, but I have seen cases where the most stunning posters (looks really good and well-written) did not win poster prizes when judged by professors at the conferences. Can you give reasons as to why this happens? Are there some special conditions or requirements in physics/engineering for such presentations?

  • You say the "most stunning posters" did not win.. So, who chose these "most stunning posters"? If that is your opinion, you are entitled to it, but the judges made a collective decision based on their criteria not yours... The answers given seem relevant to all subjects... – Solar Mike Mar 21 '18 at 9:44
  • The academics and organizers usually choose the winning poster. At one conference, many participants I spoke to noted that there was one or more "stunning posters" - these ultimately didn't win any prizes. My question is: what criteria (other than the poster itself) do academics look for when judging a poster? I should note that I have mostly attended conferences (with poster presentations) in the UK and EU. – Medulla Oblongata Mar 21 '18 at 10:39
  • “The judges made a collective decision based on their criteria” - untill you ask the judges exactly what they were looking for at each and every conference which could / will be different at each then you won’t know - anything else is just a guess – Solar Mike Mar 21 '18 at 11:07
  • 1
    I don't believe that this is actually any different for physics and engineering than it is in general for scientific posters. – jakebeal Mar 21 '18 at 12:09
  • 2
    Some might suggest that a "good" poster and a "prize winning" poster, while not orthogonal, are not necessarily well correlated. – Jon Custer Mar 21 '18 at 13:48