Good conferences and bad conferences are a topic over lunch this noon. What is good or bad in conferences? That is the question. Sounds like Hamlet. Good reputation? Good record of publication in journals? Presentations of high quality? What is the quality in presentations? I have a simple belief on this issue: you can find somebody whom you would like to keep in touch with always in good conferences. Even if they are small conferences or not so appreciated in the community, somebody you would like to see again is the key to go with the place. Too naive? Too simple? I don't think so. I finished my undergrad at an institute believed as the best in my country. But, I hate to return there although I got top 5% or better score in my record. At Chicago, it was an Illynois' Spartan university that is hard to survive a pile of assignments. I really would go back to the time, because I found friends for my life. I got my PhD at the second-best-line school, but I still go with a supervisor of the thesis, because I really appreciate his comments and supports. Conferences are same with this kind of my feelings on schools. I get together in IEEE SMC since 2010, because I enjoy to be with friends around me there. The Conference has own history. For some times the quality might have been discussed, but after re-birth or back to the origin it revived with new comers. That is the life cycle of orgamization. Conferences are not the exception. If you have somebody to get together there, it is the place to be there. Don't you think so?