[lazyjeff]

Fair point, it's something I'm aware of and it's a bit intentional to counterbalance the "normalization bias" already done in other rankings, if that's what you meant by "account for differences".

To put another way, to count in a way such that a CVPR best paper is worth 28-fold a CHI best paper is also quite suspect. There's a rabbit hole you can go down to find the best conference to submit to where the submission-to-best-papers is low, to optimize for this.

PS: note that there's an upper bound to best paper awards, which is "< 1% of submitted papers".