I got invited to speak at a webinar talking about a relevant topic in cybersecurity( I am primarily a software engineer and I also stringing along the lines of cybersecurity to complement my skillset). The webinar went okay but the views on YouTube wasn’t that much (its about 40 views right now), the LinkedIn post by the organisation as well didn’t generate much engagement . Are YouTube views a measure of evidence strength? As a criteria under OC2
Hi @Faith_Sodipe From what I have seen with applicants who appeal rejections, one common reason is when their application does not clearly align with a single discipline. For instance, being both a Software Engineer and a Product Owner, or in your case trying to balance Software Engineering with Cybersecurity, can sometimes make the application look less focused.
In terms of YouTube, one webinar video with low views usually is not considered strong evidence. What carries more weight is a well insightful and focused YouTube channel that consistently provides insightful content, educates people in the field, and shows strong overall engagement across multiple videos. Also, you typically need at least 2 unique pieces of evidence in one category. That said, I would suggest using a structured Youtube channel (Not a Youtube video) as supporting evidence, while another piece that clearly shows external recognition and contribution.
All the best.
1 Like
Thank you @Raphael . The organiser of the webinar is a nationally recognized outlet and they have other contents around digital sector development
Great! But the number of views and LinkedIn engagement does not show that the organizer is popular nor recognized. That said, for the GTV, the focus really needs to be on you, your individual recognition, impact, and contributions rather than the profile of the organizer.
1 Like
No, this webinar is not suitable evidence for OC2 (Voluntary Contribution) and would likely lead to a rejection of that criterion. There are two main reasons for this, both critical.
1. The “Online-Only” Rule (Mandatory Rejection)
The most important issue is a mandatory rule in the guidelines.
According to Guideline A.4 (OPTIONAL CRITERION DETAIL):
OC2 Voluntary – only unpaid, in‑person community work (e.g. conference keynotes, offline mentoring, organising meet‑ups). Online‑only or employer‑sponsored items are rejected.
Your webinar is an “online-only” activity. Therefore, under the current rules, it is explicitly rejected as evidence for OC2, regardless of its content or view count. Tech Nation wants to see evidence of contributions that involve a physical presence and direct community engagement.
2. Evidence Strength and Impact (The YouTube Views Question)
To answer your direct question: Yes, metrics like YouTube views are absolutely a measure of evidence strength.
Even if the webinar were eligible (for instance, if it were a recording of an in-person keynote), for the TALENT route, the expectation for impact is very high. An assessor would likely view 40 views and low social media engagement as evidence of low impact, which would not support a claim of being a “leading talent.” For the Talent route, you need to demonstrate significant reach and influence.
Use the Webinar in Your Personal Statement: While it’s not strong enough for a formal evidence piece, you can and should mention the webinar in your Personal Statement. It demonstrates your passion for cybersecurity, your willingness to share knowledge, and your proactive nature. Frame it as part of your journey to complement your software engineering skills.
Thank you for the feedback. So can This can be replaced by a physical panel talking about my expertise ?
Replacing the webinar with a physical panel is the correct move. It directly addresses the core requirements of the guideline that made the webinar unsuitable. The physical panel is valid, but its strength for a TALENT application will be judged on its verifiability, scale, and prestige. Focus on gathering evidence that proves not just that you were there, but that it was a significant event where you shared your expertise with a substantial audience.
Hi @Faith_Sodipe if there’s not significant enough engagement it’s best to not use this as primary or strongly highlighted evidence as TN does consider engagement numbers as a determinant of impact.
1 Like
It is definitely more than just speaking on a panel. A panel can showcase your expertise, but for it to hold weight, it should meet certain criteria:
-
Industry Relevance & Prestige - The panel should be industry focused or recognized as a top tier event.
-
Selective Invitation - The fact that you were chosen to speak should highlight a strong selection process, not just an open invitation.
-
Demonstrated Impact - It is not only about talking about your own expertise (As in: I have, I did, I can, I will ) but sharing insights that contribute to or impact professionals in the field.
-
Audience Reach - The number and quality of attendees matter, as it reflects the level of people that were impacted
All the best
1 Like
Thank you very much @Raphael @plusminushalf @pahuja for the feedbacks. I will make another topic with the evidences I currently have in the coming days and I will appreciate feedbacks on that as well.
1 Like
Hello, can you point me to where its stated that online activities are rejected?
It refers to mentoring. I think mentoring is one of many activities that can fall under OC2. Teaching a technical class for example isn’t mentoring, being a judge at a tech event isn’t mentoring, curriculum development isn’t mentoring, etc