Featured Streamer List - Page 16

On November 03 2011 01:52 templar rage wrote:


Well, the difference between 17 viewers and 200 is 183 afaik. And, at least the first day he streamed, Hayward had 2k+. I never watched, so IDK if that was also an anomaly or not though. He doesn't stream often, so there isn't really a large sample to go on.

And if you read the news post (not the OP of this thread), it says that a particular stream does not need every single one of the factors listed. That's pretty moot though, because he's listed under the "Other" category, whose requirements are simply "Notability" and/or "Content". I think an NBA player streaming SC2 is pretty notable, don't you? If he was listed as a "Player", I can understand your argument because I would agree he doesn't qualify for that category. But he's not, he's listed as "Other", so it's fine because he fits perfectly into that category.

I guess you can argue that the system itself is flawed, but under the current system, I don't really see how you can argue against Hayward's inclusion.

On November 02 2011 10:05 Peas wrote:


I dont quite understand it either. It seems to overvalue accomplishments and undervalue popularity, but not consistently. O.o.

On November 03 2011 01:56 cerka wrote:
While I agree on the premise that there were too many featured streams a few days ago I fear that by making the threshold to become a "featured streamer" higher we are creating a self-fulfilling prophecy. The easiest way for these streamers to gain notoriety is to be a featured streamer, which inherently attracts more viewers because their names are plastered across the sidebar of TL. I totally understand why this was done, but I would like to offer a bit of a compromise. You could create a group of 4 streams or something, and put them under a new section besides featured and nonfeatured, for a test run. With this section, give each player a week and transition through the nonfeatured players. That way if no one featured players are streaming, some TL viewers will migrate to these streams. This could perhaps help our lesser known (but still amazing) players to gain reputation in the scene and some new fans.

Obligatory ThisIsJimmy Shoutout <3!

On November 03 2011 02:07 Fuhrmaaj wrote:


Specifically, I mean I don't understand what value "high average viewer count" or "good results" are. I would just like to know before a tournament begins, what rank a streamer needs to achieve to get featured. Similarly, What number of viewers does a streamer need to maintain in order to be featured? I just find the whole thing ambiguous.

On November 03 2011 02:07 Fuhrmaaj wrote:


Specifically, I mean I don't understand what value "high average viewer count" or "good results" are. I would just like to know before a tournament begins, what rank a streamer needs to achieve to get featured. Similarly, What number of viewers does a streamer need to maintain in order to be featured? I just find the whole thing ambiguous.

On November 03 2011 02:06 Peas wrote:


200-17 is 183? Reaaallllly? You must have used one of the forbidden, evil, calculator things O.o. I'm not going to bother explaining the point I was trying to make there, I think it's rather self evident.

If the only criteria for getting featured under the Other category is notability, then yes, i think the system is flawed and that category is ludicrous. I have stated clearly, and I believe logically why average viewership (assuming consistent enough streaming) should be the deciding factor above everything else. I would love to hear, and am open to a good argument against this. So I will be waiting.

On November 03 2011 02:34 templar rage wrote:


So, basically, you want average viewership to be the only factor? Because by saying "should be the deciding factor above everything else", that's what you're implying. I just want to be clear on your stance there, going either way.

Assuming you're answering that question in the affirmative, notice how they are "Featured" streams. It isn't a list of the most popular streams (or shouldn't be, or else rename it that), but a list of those streams that are determined to be the best amongst all those out there. And tbh, viewer count isn't a huge factor in stream's quality. Personally, I think that the new system puts too much emphasis on viewer count.

Just as an example, I'll cite an argument I provided earlier about vVvTitan's stream (which is now de-featured) deserving to be featured. He only draws 100-200 viewers on average, but his stream is one of the best Zerg streams out there IMO. He provides high-level commentary on all his games, and unlike a lot of players, it's more like he's casting his games. Most players just kinda throw out a comment here or there about a game, but Titan is almost always talking about what he's doing. He is always vocalizing what he's doing (even if it's trivial) and why he's doing it.

Those are the kind of streams I think need to be featured, and the fact that his tournament results aren't particularly good (he's made runs in the open bracket at MLG, but never made pool play or anything) means he's not really that popular. However, that doesn't change the fact that his stream is one of the best (especially for educational purposes). Viewer count is a pretty poor metric for judging a stream's quality IMO (at least taken in isolation, or even weighted as heavily as it appears to be). While a lot of viewers probably does indicate that a stream is good, that doesn't mean that because a stream doesn't have a lot of viewers, it's bad.

tl;dr - I think that the current system (which, although you criticize, ironically appears to be majorly derived off of viewer counts) is just a popularity contest, and that wrongfully excludes a lot of streams who are as good, if not better, but get snubbed because they're not as popular. If you want it that way, then the "Featured" list needs to be renamed to the "Popular" list. Viewer count is a perfect metric for popularity, but not quality.

On November 03 2011 02:24 Ghanburighan wrote:


ProTech streamed a PM from Liquid'Nazgul where Nazgul stated that one needs an average of 300 viewers to be safe. Someone could check if I remember correctly in the vod.

On November 03 2011 02:44 Peas wrote:How in any way, shape, or form, did I say viewership should be the only factor? I said it should be the deciding factor, that is, the most important factor. When considering streams with similar or equal viewership, then all sorts of other factors can and should be brought to the table.

I urge you to read my posts throughout the last several pages to understand why I think average viewership should be the most important factor. What does stream quality, or the notoriety of a player, or anything else matter if a stream draws no viewers? What does it matter if a stream is good if no one watches it? What does it matter? Streaming is a service to the fans, and the featured streams should reflect what the fans want (i.e viewership numbers).

Also, notice the edit I made (re: BW streamers) in the post you were responding to.

On November 02 2011 01:40 tree.hugger wrote:

I think posts like this prove that this system is working actually. If a streamer is missed or deserves to be re-featured, than that streamer's viewers will make their voices heard as you're doing. I think it adds a good element of competition to what was originally something of a lifetime appointment.

On November 03 2011 03:37 templar rage wrote:


But what do those other factors matter if viewer numbers is by far the most important thing? If there is a particular factor in any list (for anything, not just this) that is much more important than all the others, then why even have the others in the first place if they amount to nothing in comparison? That system only works if all the factors are weighted equally.

And I disagree with your opinion of what the featured streams should be. Your idea is basically just a "Popular Streams" list, not a "Featured Streams" list. The difference IMO is that a featured stream is a spotlighted stream for some reason, and popularity is only one of those potential reasons. Should popularity be a factor? Absolutely. Should it be the only one (or even the main one)? Not a chance. I'm not against a popular streams list, but it's not the same thing as a featured list, and the difference shouldn't be ignored.

And for the record, I only quoted that post to make that jab about 200-17 = 183. If you actually read my posts (maybe take your own advice?), I was responding specifically to your arguments about Gordon Hayward's status as featured.

I'm done with this argument, because to be honest, I couldn't really care less at this point. I think we both agree on the fact that the "purge" needed to happen, but we disagree on the new requirements. And nothing you say is going to convince me to agree with you on the viewer count thing. I don't doubt the opposite is true as well, so this argument is now pointless.

On November 02 2011 15:09 Torte de Lini wrote:

Ugh. No, he's not on a majorly famed team (unless you consider CS: S a very important game, in which case, he's on the arguably best CS: S team around). He draws at least above 150 and he offers everything that grows a community: coaching, interaction, uploads replays of all his games against professionals he consistently beats (and not one time or another, he's beaten idra more than 3 times, we're talking without fail or problem, he's beaten him on all sorts of maps via ladder).

On November 02 2011 15:09 Torte de Lini wrote:
Why is inKa refeatured? I understand the reasons are confidential, but you have someone with significantly less achievements [in comparison] (was previously with EG, then went to Lz and then QxG where he achieved the same as he did back with EG), same number of viewers (220 I believe is the number he achieves, by all means correct me) and about the same level of notoriety but he gets (re)featured?

Is it because he asked his Twitter followers to spam the boards begging him to be refeatured (good for them, really loyal!)? I don't understand now and I'm really confused. We have three Montreal Protoss players: one who doesn't really talk to us (kiwikaki), TT1 who's now teamless and equally as uncommunicative and the underdog who practices and beats both consistently: Attero. One's teamless, one's going to WCG Korea and one is retiring considering he can no longer make a living off his passion (which he was doing marginally before).

I'm not angry, just heavily disappointed and discouraged. He offered all the key points except he didn't draw in the traffic TL is looking for (which is coincidentally the same numbers some other featured people have been drawing in all day today [not necessarily a fair comparison, but it's to set a point]).

Ugh. No, he's not on a majorly famed team (unless you consider CS: S a very important game, in which case, he's on the arguably best CS: S team around). He draws at least above 150 and he offers everything that grows a community: coaching, interaction, uploads replays of all his games against professionals he consistently beats (and not one time or another, he's beaten idra more than 3 times, we're talking without fail or problem, he's beaten him on all sorts of maps via ladder).

I know I sound like a broken record and the idea of "if we do it for him, we'll have to do it with everyone else" is probably a high likelihood, but I urge you to reconsider or at least, as someone suggested, give a probationary 2 weeks.

On November 03 2011 06:19 TT1 wrote:


i know ur looking out for ur friend n all but stop spreading false information plz : ]

On November 03 2011 06:45 ProCrastination wrote:
Maybe if TL invites her back she will start streaming again