Glimesh Startpage Stream's

We should not show automated 24hr streams on the Startpage anymore. With the actual solution, “normal” streaming has only a small opportunity to appear on that page because of the 24hrs/52weeks online time …
I am not worried about a stream with content, but automatic music or gambling streams are neither creative nor real content. In my eye’s a music stream means a DJ who performs live and interacts with viewers. If new streamers arrive at Glimesh and do their second or later stream, they may be disappointed that They are not shown on the Startpage but two or three automated streams are shown. I`m not talking about the Chicken Channel - that one is very nice and LIVE! Talking about “humanless” channels …

As much as I enjoy the occasional SmashBets, I agree that 24hr streams shouldn’t be featured on the homepage. It gets tedious to see the same ones over and over. No offense to those channels but it’s kinda bad form to hog the homepage with a 24hr automated stream. Glimesh is about engagement and personally I feel said channels would benefit more from having limited but consistent streams. I know I’d be more inclined to use SmashBets if it was a case that it’s only on for like 3-4 hours a week. Same goes for MegaRadio. ChickenNuggets is just wholesome but still, shouldn’t be on the homepage on the same principal. They each dominate their respective categories so I wonder if Glimesh could just reach out to them and sincerely ask them to toggle off the homepage appearances, at least until their categories see a bit more content.

From a technical standpoint, I think a more likely solution would be to track the last time a channel was on the homepage and then favor showing channels that haven’t been on the homepage for a while (I do something similar with the auto host feature). Currently, the homepage channels are updated every hour and we could also consider changing that to every half-hour so there is even more opportunity to hit the homepage.

From a community perspective, I don’t think it serves us well to exclude “less interactive” streams from the homepage because there is still an audience for those channels and they deserve to have the same opporunities as everyone else.

5 Likes

I think having a timestamp tracker of when the channel was last featured is probably the way to go.

Without knowing the technicalities of how it currently works, the idea is that we could then use to exclude that channel from the front page for the next week (or whatever arbitrary value we make it).

Obviously there might be times where we might then struggle to ‘fill the spots’ if all live channels had been featured within that time frame. So we might have to set it low (24 hours) and increase and channel variances increase.

Honestly, just a straight sort should work – sort by last featured ascending and then by the random number column. Yes the 24 hour channels will still dominate during low streaming periods but the homepage will always have something.

Here’s the rub, in my opinion. As you point out the audience for those channels exist (Banjax has admitted to being one on occasion, for example). So they know said channels exist and I really doubt removing them from the front page is going to hurt anything.

As for opportunities, the fact that they’re 24/7 means they have a far greater chance of ending up on the front page and that might be taking away from a newer streamer who might get on the front page otherwise.

If there has to be a compromise (and there always is, since no one likes those… XD), maybe create a second subsection for the automated stuff, beneath the main channels on the front page. That way they can always be there (as they are now) and don’t impact the top channels, which would still feature live content.

I do like the idea of a weighted randomization based on time last featured. It would kinda suck though, if you are doing a 24hr stream, to have less chance of getting featured nearer to the end though…then again you could probably put in to get featured as an event in that case

Some people would argue that our current system is MORE fair - every hour you have the same chance as anyone else to get featured. Like playing the lotto, the more you stream/play, the more chances to “win”. Hour-to-hour you have the same chances as everyone else

1 Like

Honestly this is, in the big picture, a non-issue based on Cykotiq’s point now I think about it. It’s only proving problematic because we don’t have that many active streams. This will gradually sort itself out as the platform grows. It’s just a concern that if people checking out the site see the same channels over and over and over to the extent we have with the 24hr streams right now, then it’s gonna be interpreted as a sign that the platform is going nowhere which can be a major deterrent to prospective streamers.

That said, one idea could be to have the opt-in for homepage featuring on any channel be automatically disabled after being live for 24hrs to help balance out the increased chances of being featured such stream inherently possess. If it really matters to them they can keep re-enabling it and thus starting the 24hr timer again. Doesn’t even need to be 24hrs, could be 30hrs, 48hrs, etc.

1 Like

I want to add here that I really, really dislike the idea of changing anybody’s settings for them. Especially for something that is opt-in and touches on discoverability.

To weigh in on the entire situation, as Banjax and Cykotiq said it is an issue that will sort itself with more growth and activity. We have to be very careful about what we do here because it’s getting into the land of “equality for everybody… except those streams.” I don’t want it to eventually lead to a situation where it’s somebody saying “Well, those streams where people just draw shouldn’t be featured” because why not, we’ve already shown that we will differentiate the “value” of a stream for who gets on the home page right?

Well I was kind of thinking of it as a rebalancing for equality. It applies to all streams. It does specifically effect the 24hr streams in particular but in fairness they have an inherent advantage for discoverability so I felt it was worth suggesting. It does feel wrong to suggest an automatic setting change, especially that it’ll only really come into play on such are particular stream setup but it’s not really hindering in any way I don’t think.

But here’s another idea…what if we just had a “Non-stop” or “24/7” category to accommodate these streams? That way when they show up on the homepage it’s less likely to be overrun by multiple 24hr streams.

1 Like

I support this idea …

wouldn’t that have the opposite effect and draw MORE attention to them by giving them a dedicated section?

I dunno :man_shrugging:

Not if You show that category only if there are no live streams online/there is still a place on the start page and all live streams are served…

I don’t think anyone was suggesting that. You may as well paint the walls purple if you did.

wouldn’t that have the opposite effect and draw MORE attention to them by giving them a dedicated section?

Other sites do something similar with other streams. I’m sure there’s a way to make it work. The question is how much of an impact would it be overall.

I don’t think we should be targeting to remove any specific types of streams from the homepage entirely, nor singling them out into their own section. It goes DIRECTLY AGAINST our ethos of treating all streamers equally. This is a case of “all streamers are equal, but some are more equal than others”

I think if we can make an algorithmic change like @MemoryLeakDeath suggested that would be better. Even a 4-6hr stream doesn’t need to be featured more than once per stream.

Having streams who were recently featured, be less likely to get featured again makes sense for discoverability and has the desired effect of reducing (not eliminating) how often long-running streams show up on the homepage. It’ll likely still display them during off-peak times so we won’t ever have to worry about not having enough streams to show. They will still be randomly able to appear during on-peak times too, just far less often

This shall always be our guiding principle - but in my personal sight, a 24hr music stream that is available at all known streaming platforms is not what I would call a “streamer” - it`s is a service …

1 Like

Honestly I can see it being a legitimately useful category to have that could be appreciated by everyone. But I do confess it could also be problematic and thus is not a great solution. I just think that it’ll help prevent such streams from dominating multiple spots on the homepage which I believe in turn addresses the issues so it was worth mentioning.

1 Like

In general, this isn’t a bad idea; I would, of course, make exceptions for events or charity runs, but that can be fine tuned.

The problem is, though, for a 24-hour service, what qualifies as the “1 hour per day” or whatever? That technically would still be better odds than a person who streams daily at 4 hours a day.

I think the problem is essentially one of “equality vs. equity”. We just need to figure out which one will be better overall. If we can make the above work, sure, but only if it turns out to be fair for everyone involved.

(and that being said, has anyone tried to reach out to the channel owners and get their opinions on this? They might be open to changes, they might not care, or they might get defensive about it - but I would like to see some input from them.)

I think it is reasonable to give events organized via the events team a dedicated spot on the homepage for the length of the event.

It is true their odds are greater, but with the algorithm weighted more towards new channels and channels that haven’t been spotlighted for some time I suspect the 24 hour streams will get pushed more and more towards low streamer count hours.

EDIT: to add…
There is a potential drawback to sorting by longest time since on homepage – new streams that have just hit the 10 hour requirement will dominate the homepage if there is a group of them live simultaneously. Similarly, if there is a large group of streamers that stream very infrequently they will have priority treatment over more consistent streamers.

So my proposal is by no means an optimal solution with no drawbacks.