Then we will need additional development effort in alignment with @ponder, to make it return to the source code and interface. What you are seeing now are incomplete attempts from @gandhiano and me to remove them.
I’ve asked the Manchester local group if they’d like subcategories,
suggesting some possibilities. I’m still awaiting an answer.
@yala, sub-categories were like keywords: they were linking professional expertise of people (e.g. reviewers) with content of sessions - a bit like economics, biology, art. that way every reviewer was supposed to be assigned a set of these subcategories, and every submission (session, paper) was to be given a selection of them and then through any overlap we could secure that reviewers feel confident in expertise to review.
You could chnage their name, but itis best not to remove them altogether. this was written in the original written description before Malmo conference in gitlab.
Okay, so you think it’s best to revert our changes for Malmö, for which we (incompletely) removed subcategories, and return to the Budapest design. How would you like them to be called, seen from a (bi-)annualy conference perspective?
@yala, about subcategories, my suggestion would be to simply rename them ‘keywords’ and let them perform the original function. But that is an opinion that @mark should confirm for usefulness and @yala for feasibility - see what is easiest and work around that