To implement a Streamer of the Week, we will need to figure out a few things. I’m going to start with just listing them in this post, and can put my opinions in the replies along with everyone else. I’ll break it down to a few areas, please feel free to share your thoughts on any and all aspects.
A submission form/application
We will need a few basics here, such as a link to their twitter and Glimesh channel.
We can go for as much or as little as we want here, but the more info presented, the easier it will be for the team to make a determination.
What criteria are we looking for, or limiting factors?
Possible items - warnings/action taken against account, ToS breaking items in bio or social media, activity level (e.g. the 10 hours prerequisite for front page), account age, email verified, if they’ve been featured before/how long ago
A selection process
I’m guessing this would be random selection from the approved applicants
Are we limiting how often people can be selected, and if so, does that happen at the submission stage, the selection stage, all stages? How can we mitigate this issue if it arises?
I think it will be important to both handle each application with proper care and to have good records of who has been featured. I’m interested in seeing all the suggestions for the various pieces of this!
The GCT can access the homepage section of a users channel to figure out if they’ve completed 10 hours, so we could for sure use the same requirements as the homepage. We would also of course not retweet anything that violates our RoC or ToS.
Why not start with completely random, like the homepage, and what if for now we just made it so you can only be selected once? That would remove burden on us, and with only 52 slots in a year, it wouldn’t be a problem for a couple of months.
That would probably make it easier in the long run.
Additionally, would it help to add verbiage next to the front page trigger button mentioning that “by clicking this, you also agree to enter the ‘Streamer of the Week’ program (details here)” or somesuch? That might help to cut down on the workload as well.
I think the approach needs to ensure that what we share isn’t just a simple “this is my channel so you should follow me” we want to make it more than just something like a streamer retweet bot, it should be more of a showcase. We want these tweets to be meaningful and not just more links in a sea of stream links already flooding people’s timelines.
A bit about themselves
What they enjoy streaming
Some clips or images to represent their stream
Sort of like an streamer bio, rather than just a going live link.
I believe whatever we tweet, much like the events, the core content of it should be provided by the streamer but we should also state we reserve the right to not retweet anything that doesn’t meet specifications / tos / RoC etc.
A thought could be that perhaps we provide a template and the streamer just fills in the gaps where necessary if we feel that’s needed.
Alternatively the form collecting the data could just include everything we want in a tweet to be collected at point of submission.
That way we can not only make an informed choice based on things such as the 10 hours streamed but also pre approve the content to be tweeted out to make sure it meets standards.
I’m not sure tying home page feature and tweet feature tied together in such a way would be good. I can see there certainly would be a crossover but equally for fairness for all it should be an and/or situation so people can have the choice over some or all of what is being offered.
I agree with this, we are simply using that existing hour count to verify eligibility. It should 100% be an application process and not related to any other sections or opt-ins of Glimesh. We definitely want it to be a conscious, and hopefully thought out, action and not a byproduct.
I suppose it’s easier to retweet if they make it vs them sending something to us or us making just a simple image with their logo and words based on their submission
A submission form/Application
Genre of games that they enjoy to play
What brought them to Glimesh
Favorite thing about Glimesh
10 hours streamed minimum or whatever the time is to be shown on the front page
They have to be active in the community. A minimum of 1 day streamed the week that they’ll be approved? We may want to discuss how to quantify that. We don’t want people who’ve never streamed to just get promoted
*I agree with the whole warnings/actions against acc, verified email etc; tos breaking names lol
A selection process
Easiest would be to just have a list of people and pick randomly
Not sure if double checking eligibility once chosen is a good idea or not
Genre of games is too specific, we want to encourage all streamers to be involved in this, it would be better to have something more generic like “favourite thing to stream”
I think what brought them to glimesh or favourite thing could be good, but both just becomes more about “oh look at us aren’t we great” when the focus here wants to be on the streamer 100%.
I’ve also mused on this one, especially wth planning ahead, if someone signs up, and then stops streaming on the platform, we need to be able to track that. If we amended 1. A submission form/Application to ask about when they stream to Glimesh, this could perhaps make this easier to track, the last thing we want to do is retweet someone who has met their 10 hours etc but has since stopped streaming to the platform. Asking when they stream, even if it just narrows it down to a day, the GCT / Events team / Whoever can keep an eye during those days to check the content and check for that person still being active on the platform.
Yes, i think this is needed. People could be approved well in advance and due to the random selection it could be a month or two or even more before they are selected to be featured. In which time rules may have been broken, or they may no longer stream on the platform such as the above example.
Some points i feel we should consider beyond the above:
Where some platforms dont limit word count, twitter does heavily, we should be mindful of this is what we are asking the streamer to include in their tweet
I strongly feel we want to be sharing either a static image or a video montage from the streamer and not just their Glimesh page channel link, though their Glimesh link should absolutely be part of the description. We could maybe even ask streamers to just record a short say up to 90 seconds piece about their stream with them talking to the cam (examples for ideas here being the early events team posts with Kizime and ArtofCod) - if they want too, as an option.
We need a plan for re-reviewing. As part of that people would be likely well to be selected in good time, allowing the teams who are re-reviewing enough time to do so, while rule breaks can be checked pretty quickly, things such as “are they still actively streaming” may not be as easy to re-review.
There should also be a process to more generally re-review the list of approved/disapproved applications as an overarching process.
There needs to be a way of relaying data on the applications over to the teams assessing approval, the teams reviewing the information for the tweets etc. and a way to communicate this approval/disapproval effectively. - sidenote, it may be that the easiest way to do this is the events team work in tandem with the GCT to collect data, approve, disapprove etc, and then the events team select randomly and pass this to marketing for them to schedule. From an ease of accessing and relyaing information perspective.
I urge us to be careful in not accidentally expanding this idea to a point where it becomes unmanageable. Currently we’re not even at 1 streamer of the week post, so spending serious time thinking about what happens in 2-3-4 months probably is a bit out of our view at the moment.
Talking about relaying data around to different teams also seems like a bit much, in reality we’re all one Glimesh team and there’s not much reason to split things out so concretely. Events passing it on to GCT, passing it on to marketing, passing it back to events, just seems complicated. Would it make more sense to just put someone in charge of this and let them handle it end to end?
Putting someone in charge to deal with it end to end would be the best way to ensure the data goes round where it needs to be passed round yes, i wasn’t saying it needed to be concrete just merely stating that there needed to be a way of making sure it was flowed round where needed, if the way to do that is to put one person in charge to oversee everything then sure, that entirely solves that consideration.
That said, with the exception of the “overarching process” all the points i made were here and now considerations to my mind, to put in place for this to go forward and have the best possible content get out there from this idea.
However, I also accept this could all prolong the project, so I guess long as we continue to build and refine on it over time, my main feedback would be what i discussed earlier here:
I think in terms of metrics and stuff, outside of just checking that person is actually still an active member of the platform, Paco and Your initial 2 responses covered i think everything