This is the premier Visual Analytics forum and is very highly regarded internationally by the information visualisation and visual analytics communities. It is part of the IEEE VIS conference which attracts around 2000 attendees. This year, VAST had 157 submissions, among which 34 were conditionally accepted into the TVCG track, and 16 into the conference-only track

Rating:

This conference is welcoming to new attendees such as postgraduate students:
Referees for this conference provide high quality detailed feedback:
The conference program facilitates networking:
There is a culture of interaction and feedback following presentations:
The conference is routinely attended by top people in the area:
Overall, attending this conference is worthwhile:

CORE really missed the boat on this rating, it makes me wonder about what methods they are using. The conference attracts the best people in the field, it has many industry and government labs attending. It has the same processes and acceptance rates as its co-located companion conferences SciVis and InfoVis, which are rated A and A+ respectively. This C rating is complete nonsense.

Rating:

This conference is welcoming to new attendees such as postgraduate students:
Referees for this conference provide high quality detailed feedback:
The conference program facilitates networking:
There is a culture of interaction and feedback following presentations:
The conference is routinely attended by top people in the area:
Overall, attending this conference is worthwhile:

The rating of VAST is factually wrong. The conference is categorized as: Primary Field Of Research: 0802 - Computation Theory and Mathematics when it is about data analysis and visualization. The conference is held together with two other well ranked conferences (IEEE InfoVis ranked A+ by Core, and IEEE VIS ranked A), and it attracts more submissions that the two others, meaning that authors consider VAST as good or better than the two others. It is extremely important that Core fixes its ranking to avoid hurting the reputation of the conference when its value is so high.

Rating:

This conference is welcoming to new attendees such as postgraduate students:
Referees for this conference provide high quality detailed feedback:
The conference program facilitates networking:
There is a culture of interaction and feedback following presentations:
The conference is routinely attended by top people in the area:
Overall, attending this conference is worthwhile:

The ranking of this conference is certainly too low. I have compiled a spreadsheet with the conference's acceptance rates here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1xgoOPu28dQSSGPIp_HHQs0uvvcyLNdkMF9XtRajhhxU/edit#gid=898620899 (via: http://www.vispubdata.org). VAST has two tracks - journal papers (~21-22% acceptance rate in the last couple of years) and conference papers (~30% acceptance rate in the last couple of years). This is not a sign of a C-rated conference. You can also see the acceptance rates of the co-located IEEE InfoVis and IEEE VIS/SciVis conferences which are similar.

Rating:

This conference is welcoming to new attendees such as postgraduate students:
Referees for this conference provide high quality detailed feedback:
The conference program facilitates networking:
There is a culture of interaction and feedback following presentations:
The conference is routinely attended by top people in the area:
Overall, attending this conference is worthwhile: