Wrg to your reference: One wonders why the "modest tweaks" weren't used in the original paper - indeed because they weren't known or weren't possible. The way

Wrg to your reference: One wonders why the "modest tweaks" weren't used in the original paper - indeed because they weren't known or weren't possible. The way you should interpet these meta-analysis is "researchers are motivated to attribute improvements in performance to 'the interesting bit' and they will run baselines without applying similar tweaking effort to them" The progress in the field can in some sense be indicated by the huge improvement in the 2006 method due to the "tweaks" discoverd since.