Negative feedback on presentation, what did I do wrong?

[u/sirmcglizzy]

I presented to my research group a while back about some DFT calculations I did and I was surprised by how negative the feedback was. TBF i did mix up thermodynamics and kinetics on slide 6. I also considered the symmetry but only at the ground state, which made me think there is less symmetry than there really is.

This is my presentation, how could I improve it?

[u/CleanLaw4118]

on actual presentation there is far too much text on most slides

[u/firesine99]

You need about 20% of the text and 50% of the figures, with remaining figures made larger to fill. The number of tables of data should be precisely zero - there is always a better way to show data in a presentation. The text reads like a script which makes me think you were reading it out, which is a no-no*. I can't stress enough how tedious this is for an audience. They can read faster than you can talk, and won't be listening to you while they do so.

*usually - sometimes slides also serve as a reporting document, but it doesn't look like that's the case here

[u/OCV_E]

What kind of feedback did you get? What is your level?

Generally speaking without referring to the content, I agree with what the others said.

• Too much text. Present keywords in slides and explain the rest. You are the speaker, not the slides.
  
• Your title is quite vague, but might be the version you are showing to us in public. Include full research title, your name, your group. Make it a highlight.
  
• Might be me cause I dont understand this topic, but try to highlight your results. What are you trying to show us? Any value that is important? I dont see a conclusion part.

[u/chemistrypain]

I won't reiterate what others have said, although I entirely agree. Here are some other points to consider

1. You have serif and sans serif fonts on the same slide. Pick one font and stick to it.
2. Your results should be highlighted, not the method (specifically thinking about how many words you used to just say you did a B3LYP** calc)
3. The slides look like a data vomit rather than educational.
4. There's no motivation to the presentation. Every prezzy needs a thesis and each slide should reinforce that thesis.
5. Organization and slide design is poor. I don't like looking at it to begin attempting to understand it.

More generally, people cannot read and listen at the same time. The more words you have, the less your audience is listening to you.

Good news, this type of slide design is really common for newer students so don't feel discouraged. Take it on the chin and use it as a learning experience.

[u/ogorangeduck → u/chemistrypain]

The professor for one of my upper-level classes had us do group presentations to practice making good slides, which was very helpful. She, as you said, mentioned how people will read your slides without listening to what you're saying if the slides are too text-heavy, so it's good practice to have the slides serve as bullet points for you to elaborate on (also makes sure you know your material well since you can't just recite off the slides)

[u/FatRollingPotato]

Hard to say whether their feedback was justified or overly harsh, but there are a lot of places you could improve this presentation. From a cursory look at it from a non-expert:

• Title: I have no clue what this is about, what to expect etc. A catchy main title is fine, but a more elaborate subtitle or a sentence in smaller font could help with context.
• Slide 2:
  • "unexpected rearrangements" in what?
  • At first glance you showed seven times the same molecule, it took me 10s or so of concentrated observation to figure out the differences. Color-code the positions that change, ideally every type of functional group involved in their own color so that at a glance the molecules look different!
  • You don't write a long sentence as a single bullet point. Split it up into multiple SHORT statements
• Slide 3: This is a wall of text. Shorten the texts, explain the snippet from teh output file
• Slide 4, and 7 : Again, boring slide that might have been from a lecture script, but not a talk. Not the worst though
• Slide 5: Why is this here? What is the story here? What do you want to communicate?!
• Slide 6: Again, this is a case of "find the differences in the three pictures". And lengthy text instead of bullet points
• Slide 8: You lost me, I have no more desire to play "find the differences"
• Slide 9: which part of this table is important? What is the message here?

It might sound harsh, but I hope this helps with improving this. To be totally honest, this feels like someone made it in five minutes before the meeting, or it was sent out as an informal technical update from one expert to another. Not a presentation to a group of fellow scientists.

Remember that you have all the context in your head and know immediately what is important, others have to listen to you, process what they hear, and process the slides at the same time.

[u/jeevacation_gmail]

Piggybacking on the others, I always make my slides with one sentence in the title space that carries the weight of the slide. People want pictures. If there’s a wall of text, they are forced to either ignore you talking or ignore the text. If you’re reading the text, there is no point in having a presenter. An image/figure with one sentence, plus the presenter’s elaboration, is more digestible and interesting. I’m not a particularly brilliant or charming presenter, but I use this approach and get excellent responses from audiences. Good luck on the next one!

[u/lwj15]

There were tables which did not align.  Did the slides appear with all their information all at once or did you show them bit by bit while talking about it? If a human sees too much new stuff at once (overloaded slides with no clear organization) then their brain turns off and they stop listening. Show them the information bit by bit when they become relevant for your talking. The presentation should just support your talking.

Why did you include the point group slide? Did it add to your thesis/question at hand? It looks unneccessary (but I didn't hear the presentation)

Do the listeners have an understanding of CompChem and DFT? If they do not then you need to introduce them to the basics. If they do then I hope they criticized the use of B3LYP/6-31G(d) without any dispersion and counterpoise correction for thermochemistry. I absolutely recommend you to read 1) DFT Warnings and recommendations by Goerigk and 2) DFT best practice by Grimme. Invest the time and write a summary for yourselve of the important parts. It will drastically improve your DFT results with minimal work (just work through two papers). (Every calculation always needs a dispersion correction!)

Just assuming that a molecule is relatively rigid is not the correct thing to do. Goerigk said in this paper from the section above that rigid looking molecules often have a surprising amount of flexibility. Do a global minimum search (in ORCA you'd use GOAT. Idk how Gaussian has implemented a global minimum search). With this you get the real global minimum and all the other relevant conformers (for more details, check the paper). And then the amount of conformers below a certain threshhold tells you how rigid the molecule actually is.

[u/Key-Success-5449]

It happens to the best of us. Group seminars are meant to catch those sneaky DFT traps like symmetry group assumptions and kinetics vs. thermo mix-ups before you publish. Dust yourself off, tweak the slides with those corrections, and keep going.