Proven facts of  and, etc. (they are the same) have no information about who creates the ranking (at least I cannot find it) except providing an email from I have sent them one email but never got reply.

2. It has no data and no explanation about how they ranked the conferences. My own opinion is: it inserted some conferences among other well known conferences (ICCV, CVPR, AAAI, etc). Why do they do this? You guess.

3. My archive data show that it ranked a conference (name omitted) to be top tier in Feb 2007. Well, this conference was first in March 2007. How a conference became top tier before its conference date is for your imagination.

4. I did see paid google to be put in the first page when people search for ranking. We can always guess why a ranking site wants to promote itself even by paying money.  This site is playing catch-up in the ranking competition hard and when you google "" (with the quote) you will see how many threads they posted on various forums.

5. acknowledges, which in turn acknowledges, which in turn acknowledges (a nice ring).

The quality of its ranking is up for your own judgment and I do not have any interest to continue my investigation of who is behind it.