Three reviewers assessed my paper and all of them rejected it (weak reject), and to be honest I am not so mad about the rejection. One of the reviewers gave really good feedback and his arguments about rejecting it were correct.
But: The other two reviewers gave comments that were really wrong. For example one of them said that my paper was short, but my paper had exactly the maximum allowed number of pages. Also his English was terrible and he was saying that the paper was written in bad English. I am not a native English speaker but my supervisor is, and he corrected all of my mistakes before submitting the paper.
Also the third reviewer made some claims (referring to my citations) that were wrong (so he didn't even read the papers that "supported" his arguments). I took the time and reread all of the papers that he referred to and all of his claims are false.
Lastly all of the reviewers gave completely different reasons for rejecting the paper which also seemed really weird to me.
I was thinking to complain to the conference but my supervisor suggested we shouldn't because we would just waste our time.
So my question is shouldn't peer reviews were public and is there any good reason that they are not?