How should I give a talk about my paper if I know it has a significant weakness? One of my papers was accepted to a conference.  There is this one thing that everyone asks about, including more than one of the reviewers, and other people I've talked to about my work.  The answer to the question is sort of disappointing, and substantially deflates the balloon of my work.  What is the best way to approach the question when people inevitably ask about it at the conference?

I don't think my advisor wants to talk about the thing, and he doesn't want to incorporate the reviewer comments that were about the thing, either.

Edit: To clarify, the question that people ask is something that most people ask out of curiosity, and it doesn't seem like a weakness until they know the answer to the question.  I think if they knew the answer to the question, the paper might have gotten rejected.
How should you talk about the weakness? Honestly.

This doesn't mean you need to dwell on it or undermine all the rest of this talk around your point.  But if you know about a serious weakness, you shouldn't be afraid to acknowledge it when necessary.

Yes, your work will appear less awesome as a result.  But which of these two scenarios would you rather have?


You show the work you did, acknowledge the weakness, and discuss how you think it would be best to improve the work in the future in order to achieve the overall goals.  You haven't solved the problem, but you've taken a useful step.
You claim your work has no weaknesses, and when people inevitably notice, they think that you are either too foolish to notice the weakness or too insecure and self-important to acknowledge it.


Your paper was accepted, despite the reviewers pointing out the weakness, and that means people must find something of value in it.  Focus on the value that is still there despite the weakness, and let that be the point on which you build.