Weak Survey as Poster? My question is related to the fact that at a specific conference, if a submission is rejected then the reviewers may instead recommend that it be presented as a poster session.

Specifically, consider a paper that has no technical contribution. Rather, assume that it is a superficial survey of the main topics included in a scientific domain, i.e. This new domain should take points A, B, C, etc. into consideration, and some of these points may use technologies D, E, F as solutions. Not much literature surveyed and no results by the author included.

Now, it is my understanding that poster sessions are normally works in progress. My questions therefore are:


Can weak surveys fit as poster sessions? Is this normal or unheard of?  
Using the case described in paragraph 2 above, have you witnessed papers of the same quality presented as posters at conferences? Most importantly, is this acceptable behaviour?


Thanks in advance.

Edit: In response to the discussion between xLeitix and O.R. Mapper (thank you both, honestly), I believe my use of the word superficial is a little vague. Let's for example take the combination of two large domains: virtualization and the automotive industry. Instead of the author surveying specific works integrating these two techs, let's assume the author takes the following broad and hence superficial approach:


The author mentions and discusses a few of the major considerations involved in virtualization.
The author mentions and discusses a few of the major considerations involved in vehicular networks
The author mentions a few of the major considerations involved in integrating virtualization and vehicular networks together.
The author ends the paper by discussing how some technologies may address some of the aforementioned issues. The solutions are not in themselves surveyed extensively, but more so:


"This person did this, that one did that to address X, etc.", without any deep or insightful comparisons.
"To address this issue type 2 hypervisors may be more useful", no evidence backing this claim.
etc..



Very brief, the paper is useful in that it groups together eloquently quite a bit of information, albeit, not in an informative way for the expert, but more so for a person starting their research in a similar domain. Hence, my dilemma; the paper would make a great article in a technical magazine, but not as a conference paper. Perhaps as a poster it would be stimulating and beneficial to the authors and for non-experts interested in the domain (possibly stimulating inter-field synergies etc.).

I have not seen something like this before, but I am not seasoned; hence, why I ask if this is acceptable, or even normal.

Note: The example given is fictional.
Now, it is my understanding that poster sessions are normally works in progress.


Not quite. Poster sessions normally readily accept work in progress. However, I have yet to see a poster session that requires the presented work to be in progress, or unfinished.

The reason why you normally see much work in progress on poster sessions besides few finished results is that authors who have complete, final results will rather aim for something more reputable than "just" a poster, by trying to publish a regular conference paper.

However, it is completely acceptable to present final results on a poster, if you deem a poster to be the best way to draw benefit from your results (e.g. get in touch with other researchers).

EDIT: As explained by the updated question, the "final results" are actually just final for a very early step in a research endeavour. It seems that they are meant to show a direction into which future research could proceed.

This kind of statements, especially when it refers to the future research that the author would like to start, is rather common on posters. Like this, posters serve two purposes:


On the one hand, they show a small contribution. Even though they are comparably abstract and superficial, the early conclusions on how several aspects can be combined and thus lead to new research questions may provide a good overview of the new topic to other researchers. In this interpretation, the content of the poster is a newly discovered research question that is possibly interesting to other people beside the poster author.
On the other hand, they serve as a request for comments on the author's work. Poster sessions are perfectly suited for finding opportunities to let experienced researchers have a look at one's work and provide comments or enter into a discussion with them. In this interpretation, the content of the poster is a kind of a research proposal.