There’s something I’ve been thinking about for a long time, especially after applying to talks, getting selected, getting rejected, speaking at conferences, and also helping organize community spaces.
A talk not being selected does not automatically mean it’s a bad talk.
I know that sounds obvious, but when you’re the one submitting a proposal, it rarely feels that way.
When a talk doesn’t get accepted, it’s very easy to read that as a judgment of your skills, your ideas, your experience, or even your worth as a speaker. I’ve seen people assume that rejection means they’re not good enough, that their topic isn’t valuable, or that they should stop trying.
But in reality, talk selection is usually much more complex than that.
I wanted to write this because I’ve seen this process from different sides. Not only as a speaker, but also from the side of organizing meetups and conferences.
As a speaker, I’ve had talks selected at events like GitHub Universe 2025, GitMerge 2025, React Bay Area 2024, Atlanta Developers’ Conference 2024, React Summit NY 2023, and freeCodeCampBA 2020.
I also speak from experience on the community side. I’m currently Vice President at Niñas Pro, I’m a Women TechMakers Ambassador, and I was an organizer at JSConf Chile. Being part of those spaces has helped me understand how proposals are read, how programs are shaped, and how often a decision has more to do with context than with quality alone.
That’s exactly why I wanted to write this post.
Because many talks do not get selected for reasons that have nothing to do with being “bad.”
1. Sometimes there are just too many proposals for the same slot
This is probably one of the most common reasons, and also one of the easiest to miss when you’re applying from the outside.
Sometimes your talk is solid. Sometimes it’s even one of your best ideas. But a lot of other people submitted talks for the same kind of space.
That can happen when many proposals are competing for the same day, the same audience level, the same format, or the same topic area.
An event is usually not selecting talks one by one as isolated pieces. Organizers are building a full program. They’re thinking about flow, balance, variety, and how sessions work together.
So even if your talk is good, it might not get selected if there are already too many proposals in that same area.
This doesn’t mean your talk lacks value.
Sometimes it simply means the schedule filled up before your proposal could fit.
2. Sometimes the idea is good, but the proposal doesn’t explain it clearly enough
This happens a lot.
A person may have a great topic, useful experience, and something genuinely valuable to share. But when they fill out the CFP, the proposal itself doesn’t make that clear.
And clarity matters a lot.
When someone reviews a talk proposal, they need to understand things like:
- What is this talk actually about?
- What specific problem or idea does it focus on?
- How will the topic be approached?
- What will the audience leave with?
If those things are not clear, it becomes harder to evaluate the session fairly.
This is one of the biggest lessons I’ve learned over time. Having a good idea is not always enough. You also need to communicate that idea in a way that helps other people understand its shape.
A lot of proposals are not rejected because the speaker has nothing interesting to say.
They’re rejected because the submission leaves too much room for guessing.
3. Sometimes the title and abstract don’t do justice to the talk
I’ve seen this many times.
A talk can have real potential, but the title is too broad, the abstract is too vague, or the description sounds unfinished. When that happens, the proposal may not reflect how strong the actual talk could be.
This matters because the title and abstract are often the first impression.
If the title is unclear, people may not understand what the talk is really about.
If the abstract is generic, people may not understand why it matters.
If the description explains the topic but not the value, the proposal can end up sounding flatter than it really is.
That doesn’t mean the speaker is weak. It doesn’t even mean the talk idea is weak.
Sometimes it just means the proposal needs more work.
4. Sometimes the proposal says what the topic is, but not how it will be approached
This is another big one.
There’s a huge difference between naming a topic and shaping a session.
For example, saying “I want to talk about accessibility” is not the same as explaining whether that talk will be a case study, a technical walkthrough, a beginner-friendly introduction, a reflective talk, or a practical guide based on real implementation work.
Organizers often need to understand the angle of the session.
They need to know:
- What lens is this talk using?
- Is it practical or conceptual?
- Is it beginner-friendly or advanced?
- Is it based on experience, research, demos, or lessons learned?
- What exactly will happen during the session?
When a proposal doesn’t answer that, it can feel underdeveloped even if the topic itself is interesting.
Sometimes the problem isn’t the idea.
Sometimes the problem is that the submission doesn’t explain the approach.
5. Sometimes the audience or scope is too unclear
Another reason talks may not get selected is that the proposal doesn’t make it clear who the talk is for.
That creates friction immediately.
Is it for beginners? Mid-level developers? Senior engineers? Students? Community organizers? A general audience?
If that isn’t visible in the proposal, it becomes harder to place the talk in the program.
The same happens with scope.
If a talk tries to cover too much, it can feel unrealistic.
If it is too broad, it may sound shallow.
If it is too open, reviewers may struggle to understand what the real takeaway will be.
Some of the strongest talk proposals I’ve seen are not necessarily the most ambitious ones. They’re the ones that know their boundaries.
They know what they are about, who they are for, and what they want the audience to walk away with.
6. Sometimes a talk is not rejected because it is weak, but because other talks were easier to program
I think this is something more people should talk about.
When organizers review proposals, they are not only asking whether a talk is interesting. They are also asking whether it fits into the real structure of the event.
They’re thinking about things like:
- Does this complement the rest of the lineup?
- Does it fit the slot length?
- Can we clearly communicate it to attendees?
- Does it add variety to the program?
- Is it ready enough to schedule confidently?
So sometimes two good talks are being compared, and one gets selected because it is easier to place in the overall event.
That does not mean the other one was bad.
It often means one proposal arrived with more clarity, more structure, or a more obvious fit.
And honestly, that distinction matters a lot.
7. A talk is always being selected in context
This is maybe the most important point in this whole post.
A talk is never selected in the abstract.
It is selected for a specific event, with a specific audience, in a specific year, under specific constraints, and alongside a specific set of other proposals.
That context changes everything.
The exact same talk can be rejected by one event and accepted by another.
Not because the talk changed.
Because the context changed.
Maybe one conference already had too many talks on similar topics.
Maybe another event was looking for exactly that perspective.
Maybe one meetup needed beginner-friendly sessions.
Maybe another wanted advanced technical case studies.
Maybe one conference had limited space.
Maybe another one had room for more experimentation.
This is why I think rejection should be interpreted much more carefully.
Not being selected is often not a final verdict on the quality of a talk.
Sometimes it just means it wasn’t the right fit for that event at that moment.
8. Sometimes a proposal has a good idea, but it still needs development
I think this is one of the healthiest ways to look at rejected talks.
A proposal can absolutely have a strong idea and still not be ready yet.
That can look like:
- A valuable topic with a very broad abstract
- A strong experience that hasn’t been shaped into a clear narrative
- An interesting angle that isn’t fully explained
- A useful talk that doesn’t yet show what makes it different
- A good concept that still needs a sharper title, structure, or takeaway
That doesn’t mean the idea should be thrown away.
Sometimes it means the talk needs one more round of thinking.
One more rewrite.
One more pass at making the value visible.
A lot of strong talks are not born as strong proposals. They become strong through iteration.
What usually helps a talk proposal feel stronger?
From my experience both as a speaker and as someone involved in organizing community spaces, these are some of the things that make a proposal easier to evaluate.
A clear title
A strong title helps people understand the topic quickly and accurately.
A concrete abstract
It should explain what the talk is about, what it covers, and why it matters.
A visible angle
Why this topic, from this perspective, by you?
A defined audience
Who is this talk for?
A clear takeaway
What should people learn, understand, or be able to do after the talk?
A realistic scope
Can this topic actually be covered well in the available time?
Enough detail to imagine the session
Can someone reading the proposal understand how the talk would likely unfold?
Why I care about this
I care about this because I’ve seen how discouraging rejection can be.
I’ve seen people stop applying after one or two no’s.
I’ve seen people assume they were not good enough.
I’ve seen people give up on ideas that could have become really strong talks with a bit more iteration or a different venue.
And I honestly think we need more honest conversations about this.
Sometimes a talk is not selected because the topic was overrepresented.
Sometimes because the schedule filled up.
Sometimes because the abstract was unclear.
Sometimes because the proposal didn’t explain the approach well enough.
Sometimes because the audience fit was not obvious.
And yes, sometimes a talk really does need more work.
But those are not all the same thing.
That distinction matters.
Final thoughts
If you’ve ever had a talk rejected, I hope you remember this:
A rejected talk is not always a bad talk.
Sometimes it’s a fit issue.
Sometimes it’s a clarity issue.
Sometimes it’s a timing issue.
Sometimes it’s a programming issue.
Sometimes it just needs a better title, a stronger abstract, a more defined scope, or a different event.
That doesn’t make the idea worthless.
And it definitely doesn’t mean you should stop submitting.
Some of the best things I’ve learned as a speaker came from rewriting proposals that didn’t get selected the first time.
Sometimes the next version is the one that opens the door.
And sometimes the talk was good all along. It just needed the right context to be seen.
Top comments (0)