Reviewer
Reviewer role is someone who gets the dubious privilege to watch the video from start to finish and decide if it is good enough or needs fixing. We just ask that they really watch it all and not get bored and stop watching. This person will be most likely to have time as soon as it is published. It may be days before the presenter or the video crew get a chance to QA it.
Anyone can review a video. Ideally, a reviewer is someone who is interested in the topic of the video enough to watch it start to finish and is eagar review it promptly.
If someone decides it is good and clicks Approve, it will then be released to the public.
If it needs fixing, it will be fixed and a new version posted. This may take only a few hours for simple problems or days for something complicated.
- The title is wrong. (Spelled wrong, title of a different talk, text is chopped off because it is too long and doesn't fit. etc.)
- There is 10 min of break in the middle. Or the end. Or the beginning.
- No sound. Sometimes the connection from the PA system to the recording system goes out.
- Bad sound. Sometimes the connection from the PA system to the recording system goes bad.
- Someone says "oh, please don't include that in the video?"
- Someone gives out someone's phone number, password.
- The video looks like this:
- The video sounds like that above image
- The video is missing some sound:
- There is no video, maybe not even a page about the video. (This can happen if a video violates policy, or a flying saucer full of internet cats eats it.)
These are examples, not an exhaustive list. If you see something that you think should be fixed, then we will hold off releasing it and look into it. We may decide it is OK, or as good as it will get and release it anyway, but this is how we catch the problems that can be fixed.
This does not block or slow down videos being released by the producers. It helps them out by parallelizing and increasing the attention each video gets as it travels though the pipeline. Videos get released quicker and problems get addressed sooner. It also does not interfere with a presenter's request to hold off or never release a video.
Don't worry about a burden of responsibility. If this bit falls apart, it doesn't break anything and the video will get processed eventually, which has been working pretty good for years.
More fluff: I want to emphasize that each reviewer should only be responsible for one talk. The reviewer only has one job: to catch any mistakes that might happen to this one video. This one video should get their complete attention. "All the videos" is an unreasonable task as it requires discovering what the actual set of videos is, which typically has edge cases like: Opening comments, Lunch announcements, committee meeting, and that thing someone schedules at the last minute.
For the Comp Sci folk: Having a 1:1 relation between reviewer and video is O(1) complexity, as where anything else is O(n) complexity. (This may not be exactly accurate, but it gets the point across.)
The video processing system will give both the presenter and the reviewer the same emails and options, so presenters should not be their own reviewer. We want a 2nd set of eyes. A great candidate is someone who was encouraging you to give the talk.
If you are a presenter who needs some level of control over the process of your video being released to the public, then you should ask not to have it released until you personally approve it. We can accommodate this, and something of this nature does deserve a 2nd person to help out. In the past the reviewer role has been assigned to a person from the company legal department.
You can designate others to review your video. Inform the conference committee of the name and email. Both you and they will get the email when your video is ready for review.
Presenters should ask their social network:
Who wants to review my talk video before it is released to the public? A private screening at the cost of being responsible for watching and assessing pass/fail/critique which is easy compared to the task of preparing and delivering the presentation.
If there is a talk selection committee, a person advocating for a talks acceptance is a good candidate to be the reviewer, or to find a reviewer. If the talk involves a subject that has some sort of community, someone from the community who is not able to attend the live event is a good candidate to be the reviewer. Provided they are limited to just one video.