A couple of little questions about the Sift...
This is my first Sift Talk post, so I hope I'm not bring up issues that have already been discussed. These are just a few little things I've always wondered about on videosift:
1. If you are not the creator of the video, but you are the uploader,is it appropriate to submit it to videosift? I recently lost a rare Tom Waits live video to the dreaded dead, and I had the thought that it might be worth it to back up videos to our computers that, if dead, would likely be hard to find again.
This could also be useful if you see something cool on another video site not supported by VideoSift, or a non-flash video, and you wanted to share it on the sift. If this were allowed, you could download the video, re-upload it to your supported video site of choice, and post it to the Sift.
2. A suggestion: the embed code validation button is one of my favorite things about 3.0, but don't you hate it when you think your embed code is valid, but it's actually a dupe? I think it could be cool if every time this happened we could submit that code as a duplicate code, and then the Sift would recognize it as a dupe the next time someone went to submit it. For example, say I want to submit video A. The embed code is valid, but when I go to submit it the possible duplicates page show me that my video is a dupe. If there was a feature that stored alternate embed codes, this wouldn't happen to the next person who comes along and tries to submit video A.
Being able to see a list of alternates would also save us a lot of time *undeading videos, and if there was a "View Alternate Sources" button, we could see other places to find the video if say, youtube was running slowly (when I had dial up, videos used to load faster on Google Video for some reason. Don't know if this is true for anyone else).
3. Just a little one: is it redundant to tag words that're already in the video description the same way it's redundant to tag words already in your title?
Again, I'm sorry if this has been hashed through before. I just wanted to put it out there.
1. If you are not the creator of the video, but you are the uploader,is it appropriate to submit it to videosift? I recently lost a rare Tom Waits live video to the dreaded dead, and I had the thought that it might be worth it to back up videos to our computers that, if dead, would likely be hard to find again.
This could also be useful if you see something cool on another video site not supported by VideoSift, or a non-flash video, and you wanted to share it on the sift. If this were allowed, you could download the video, re-upload it to your supported video site of choice, and post it to the Sift.
2. A suggestion: the embed code validation button is one of my favorite things about 3.0, but don't you hate it when you think your embed code is valid, but it's actually a dupe? I think it could be cool if every time this happened we could submit that code as a duplicate code, and then the Sift would recognize it as a dupe the next time someone went to submit it. For example, say I want to submit video A. The embed code is valid, but when I go to submit it the possible duplicates page show me that my video is a dupe. If there was a feature that stored alternate embed codes, this wouldn't happen to the next person who comes along and tries to submit video A.
Being able to see a list of alternates would also save us a lot of time *undeading videos, and if there was a "View Alternate Sources" button, we could see other places to find the video if say, youtube was running slowly (when I had dial up, videos used to load faster on Google Video for some reason. Don't know if this is true for anyone else).
3. Just a little one: is it redundant to tag words that're already in the video description the same way it's redundant to tag words already in your title?
Again, I'm sorry if this has been hashed through before. I just wanted to put it out there.
18 Comments
gorgonheapI'll take comment number 1. The reason VS wont "store" videos is for legal implications. I doubt that Dag would want Viacom to bring a 2 billion dollar lawsuit against VS for copyright infringement. If you have the space to store them on your own PC then I don't know anything about it, and will deny your very existence. I don't know about a self-link issue for dead video fixes. That's a discussion fireball waiting to explode.
nazdoroviaSorry, should have been more clear. Not the *actual* alternate videos. The video urls/embed codes. Or is that still questionable?
MarineGunrockThis thing is simple. At no time are you to submit a video that you uploaded. Ask someone else to do it. I will if you want.
2.) I think that it's a great idea to store alternates that we could sort through to fix deads.
legacy0100Sorry to take over your thread like this, but I'm trying to avoid opening up yet another thread just to ask my own question.
So I'm gonna post my question here, hope you guys understand.
Question 4. how long must you wait between each dead video fixes until you are awarded with another star?
I know it's frowned upon, but I know that many of you have abused it in the past to get to your ranks (tee hee!) and I just want to get that dang gold star and get it over with!!
MarineGunrockOne week is the refresh time.
nazdoroviaThanks for the offer, MG! I didn't have anything in mind at the time, but I'll remember that.
nazdoroviaOh and legacy, feel free. No offense taken.
MarineGunrockI think you misunderstood me. You can ONLY get a star once per week. Fix all you want, but you will on;y be awarded a star every 7 days.
Hint: If you click "Fix embed code" You will see a message on the next page saying "You will not be awarded..." if it's too soon.
arvana1. There is absolutely no submission of self-uploaded videos on the site -- mainly because this would be the thin edge of the wedge that would degrade the quality of submissions.
2. I think that's a fantastic idea. Duplicates happen to all of us, and having them stored as backup embeds in case of deading would save quite a bit of time and effort.
3. I believe that searches include the description, but I'm not really sure about that one.
karaidlHOW DARE YOU ASK QUESTIONS! WE WILL NOT TOLERATE YOUR CURIOSITY!
Krupo#1's been answered quite well - don't submit your uploads
#2 is a *quality suggestion - why has no one recognized that yet? I love it.
#3 is correct - try your hardest to use tags that have words other than the title.
Some veteran users still repeat the exact same words in title and tags, though I suspect it's mainly due to laziness when sifting up a vid. I'll often ignore a vid if the title doesn't attract me, so a good title is key - use the tags for the less appealing but equally descriptive words if possible.
Funny karaidl
siftbotAwarding nazdorovia with one star point for this contribution to Sift Talk - declared quality by Krupo.
legacy0100Thx to ND and MG. I shall plan my dead link fixes meticulously... God I'm evil!
MUHAHAHAHAHA!!
youdiejoeon question 1
We have a group on YouTube that all sifters are invited to join to pool their own uploads so others can post it for you.
http://www.youtube.com/group/videosift
nazdoroviaThank you Krupo! youdiejoe, that's good to know (*resists the urge to poet/knowit*)
and karaidl, that made me laugh.
Grimm#3 is it redundant to duplicate words in the tags that are in the title? Depends on the word or words...since the tags can be used for quick searches. If I put the tags "mr show,david cross,bob odenkirk,funny" then that will allow a quick search for all "Mr. Show" videos, "David Cross" videos, and "Bob Odenkirk" videos. Doing a search for all the videos with the word "funny" is to generic of a search so I would leave that one out.
choggie"I think that it's a great idea to store alternates that we could sort through to fix deads."....along these same lines, wasn't there someone doing something like this before??http://www.videosift.com/talk/Please-Inspect-Baggage-Before-Entering-Train(lilitu..*sni *snif..I lifed the poor girl for scarred!")
lucky760Re: #3: It used to be just redundant because clicking on tags was totally useless before version 3, but now I find it totally reasonable to have terms repeated, primarily because I often find myself trying to click on a specific term to do a tag search. If I see it in the title and I want to do the search but it isn't contained in the tags I'm forced to waste time constructing the url for the tag search I want.
For example, if after watching Conical Glass Illusion whose tags are "conical, glass, demonstration, trick, experiment" and I wanted to search for "illusion" videos, instead of just clicking the tag, I'd have to either initiate an advanced search or go to my address bar and type http://videosift.com/tag/illusion both of which are enormous wastes of valuable time.
So, everyone, please don't hesitate to put valuable terms in both title and tags. Also, please don't remove redundant terms from the tags of others.
[edit]
While we're talking about tags, everyone should be aware they can and should put spaces between words in a single tag. If you don't, two tags like "office, space" for an Office Space video cannot be clicked to find other vids.
Discuss...
Enable JavaScript to submit a comment.