Except you are missing a huge huge part of what you linked:
> We conclude that the reviewing process for the 2014 conference was good for identifying poor papers
When it comes to peer review that is the actual goal. Have a filter that prevents bad things from getting published.
In an ideal world we would have a process that allows good papers to be published as well.
However I think we can all agree that is a secondary concern. Especially since pre-publish announcements are common anyway, so it isn't like no one is looking at papers that aren't published.
