[supermatt]

I’d be interested in the links to the published research!

If it’s actual research, I think the naming is fine. If it’s reading a bunch of “top 10 tips for looking great on webcam” then it’s not.

When I clicked on “why” I was expecting some actual information. As is, it just reads like an opinion piece IMHO

For example, you state an arms length as the optimal distance - but this would be different based on FoV, etc. There’s no real data I can see that would lead to make that statement.

[sodality2]

It's at the bottom of the page: https://checklist.video/checklist/#references

[jeztek]

Ah, okay I'm trying to understand your recommendation. Is it because not every tip has a research finding tied to it, which seems incongruous with the title? Or is it that the research finding doesn't explicitly tie to the recommendation?

Most of the tips do reference research findings, and you can find the reference by clicking on the subscript numbers or scroll down to the references section.

Some tips are more common sense and/or geared towards addressing a research finding. In the "arm's length" tip for example, the referenced paper discusses the importance of eye contact in computer mediated communications but doesn't explicitly say you should keep an arm's length to achieve the best eye contact. Was your expectation that the tip should link to research determining the optimal distance from the camera to achieve good eye contact?

[supermatt]

> Was your expectation that the tip should link to research determining the optimal distance from the camera to achieve good eye contact?

Yep, that would "back" the statement with research, otherwise it is conjecture. As mentioned, this particular statement is easy to dismiss given the wide variety of FoV on webcams - but other statements are equally unfounded.

To clarify - I like the site, and im sure it is useful to many, but its very misleading to state that it is backed by research when it isnt.