> But I was also pretty appalled at the question asking at the end of each talk.
Almost without exception I've always felt like this. It is often downright embarrassing to witness how the speaker has to stay interested and answer irrelevant or extremely niche questions in front of an audience. It is so bad that I really wonder why anyone, audience or speakers, would ever want to have an Q:A after a talk. Yes it can of course be frustrating if the speaker omitted something important or just should clarify something but even in those cases it is seldom the case that such issues would even surface during an Q:A.
Yes, an Q:A with insightful questions could spark a really interesting discussion and really take the whole talk to the next level - but that is so seldom the case that it just can't be worth it, yet everyone insists on these Q:As.
Whenever I've given a talk anywhere (usually barcamps and similar smaller events), the Q&A has always been the most interesting part both for me and the audience.
To the point where my Q&A's usually take up much more time than the talk that sparked them. There was even a time once when the discussion became so interesting we ate up the whole next session as well.
The point of a Q&A, for me, is to really find out what about my topic interests the audience so I can give more relevant information than I could when just delivering a dry talk without the back and forth.
But maybe I have a weird talk style since I usually ask a lot of questions of the audience as well, which primes them to pose better questions later on (or during the talk itself).
It is often downright embarrassing to witness how the speaker has to stay interested and answer irrelevant or extremely niche questions in front of an audience.
The speaker has no such obligation.
The speaker should consider the audience at large and politely defer niche or obtuse or self-serving questions.
Though I personally feel this would be perfectly acceptable, the speaker might come off sounding like a jerk to some people.
I have the same problem when teaching class, and I usually say, "That's a good question, but talk to me about it after class." Switch "class" to "the talk," and you can probably get the same effect.
A designated asshole is nearly mandatory, especially for mixed technical audiences and issues where someone can have an [opinion on the bike shed](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parkinsons_Law_of_Triviality).
Most people can't fill this role because they don't like conflict or have a reputation to protect (real or imaginary) but conferences should always assign a moderator to play the jerk.
I think part of being a good speaker is knowing how to handle the - for lack of a better word - hecklers; the people who ask questions meant to show their expertise, or show they know something. A good speaker should be able to keep these people from disrupting what might otherwise be a Q&A session.
Almost without exception I've always felt like this. It is often downright embarrassing to witness how the speaker has to stay interested and answer irrelevant or extremely niche questions in front of an audience. It is so bad that I really wonder why anyone, audience or speakers, would ever want to have an Q:A after a talk. Yes it can of course be frustrating if the speaker omitted something important or just should clarify something but even in those cases it is seldom the case that such issues would even surface during an Q:A.
Yes, an Q:A with insightful questions could spark a really interesting discussion and really take the whole talk to the next level - but that is so seldom the case that it just can't be worth it, yet everyone insists on these Q:As.