[GRANT] Idle Educational Content #1

[emixprime]

@DenisDevcic

Why is the deadline so late - in a month an a half from now? You have to account that the people after elected need to actually write the article, then there’s some sort of quality control and feedback that needs to be given (and articles probably given back for improvements), then the SEO optimization of the article, and finally uploading the article (assuming that by then there’s actually an infrastructure on the website that supports blog posts, and that’s something that needs to be done simultaneously as the first article is being written) → I’d encourage to start sooner, because that’s a continuous process. We need to have new articles being created on at least weekly basis, starting ASAP.

The deadline was set at over a month to give users time to create edu content.
In particular, as explained in “how to apply,” the user announces firstly which topic and category is choosing; once he has finished creating the content, the user edits his first comment adding the content he has completed (all this within the deadline).

People then will not be elected first: the Pilot League will judge the content once it is received and will select the most appropriate ones.

@DenisDevcic

As mentioned above, what would the supporting infrastructure be like? i.e. where would the articles be published? Fine you’ll have the articles ready and what do you do with them? Like an educational hub (and evergreen content - example with categories and subcategories in the blog section), or via a simple blog section? What would the filters and tags be like for that content? That needs to be accounted for, as the creation of the content hub or blog section probably needs to undergo discussion, proposal and grant BEFORE the first article is written. There’s also the Coinbase example and my favourite the Binance Academy content hub example. This all needs to be thought of before the first article is written, because the alternative is improvisation, and short-term solution which greatly increases a chance for mistake in later development, as well as long-term costs.

As mentioned in the “scope of the work” and also in “rules for written content,” for this grant, the infrastructure will be Idle’s Gitbook, following a similar structure to Sushiswap’s Gitbook.
I personally like the idea to create and have an Idle Edu Hub, but there’s also the goal to modify the current Gitbooks, so that’s why this grant is focusing on this platform.

@DenisDevcic

I think we should simultaneously be writting the more broad content (banal example “What is DeFi”), especially with the potential CEX listing and insurgance of new people. That also opens up another channel via which we can reach new IDLE users.

For this grant, we are focusing on receiving educational content that explains Idle protocol; at the moment, there’s this need. For future Edu Grants, we can list general topics that help new users in the DeFi world as well.

@DenisDevcic

“How to apply” - From my experience in growing brands via content marketing and coordination with the other parties, there are 2 more things that need to be factored in: 1. The writer should give their deadline as it’s an important factor for accepting that writer. 2. What about quality control? What if someone just writes total gibberish, or just copy/pastes an existing article? What if it needs to be sent back for an upgrade be it because it’s not structured well, it isn’t well written (ex. too long sentances, spelling mistakes, too high reading level), doesn’t use enough photos to break up the monotony of long-form content, etc. → I suggest to add the deadline as a requirement, and that the writer first needs to send an outline (heading titles (h2) and a 1-2 sentance explanation of that title), which needs to be approved, and then the writing can begin. After the article is written, it can be sent back for improvements if deemed not high enough quality (but with specific feedback and instructions how to improve the article)?

I think you misunderstood the application and selection process. In “rules for written content,” you can read that “Articles should be original and unique,” “Articles found plagiarized will be rejected.”

The Pilot League will check every content before choose which to select, and then if the chosen content needs few more changes, they will be made after the deadline; in the meantime, the content has been selected and only after all the changes (if necessary) made by the author on the content, he/she will get the reward.

@DenisDevcic

What happens if even after that the article is not good enough as someone just does a very bad job of it? Do we have that scenario covered?

We thought to leave an open application on certain topics that have not yet been covered after this grant, so in the scenario in which despite continuous adjustments can not get to adequate content, that topic covered in the content will be available to anyone who wants to create the edu content for that.

It could possibly be available again to another author who was not chosen in comparison with the previous author (the one who failed to finalize the content despite various adjustments).

---

By the way, I appreciate your comments and feedback, but this thread is the official grant where we can collect applications, so I ask you to write your tips or feedbacks either in the official discussion where this grant has already been discussed or in the Idle telegram/discord groups; otherwise, this thread would become again a discussion post