On point 1, I've also thought about us having a free, automatic 1-hr promote for the original. However, the problem with any promote scheme like this is that there are numerous dupes every day, and I'd hate to see even more *promotes on the front page than there already are.

On point 2, I don't think anyone wants to see a queue spot of theirs occupied by a killed dupe.

And you didn't mention this but I'd like to say this to everyone anyway: if a video in the Top 15 is a dupe, *dupeof it right away, please. I know some say that we should leave it there for a little while so the original can get more votes when *dupeof is finally invoked, so the sentiment is nice. However, leaving a dupe sit in the Top 15 blocks a spot for another video that could be in the Top 15, but instead it stays stuck at #16, maybe never breaking in to the Top 15 because of the dupe. So please do the *dupeof right away, please?

*quality

Awarding xxovercastxx with one star point for this contribution to VideoSift - declared quality by chicchorea.

Yeah, I've let several videos slide for the 3 day duration it hangs on the front page, just so it could get more views, before dupeing them afterwards.

I've also been rather miffed before when one of my own awesome sifts make it big, but is then dupeoffed to a video with a shitty title and shitty tags languishing in some PQ with 3 votes. Here you go, crappy sifter, take my wife, please.

Perhaps we could make some sort of grace period, before a video is dupeoffed, depending on how old the original is - say, a day per year? And if the newer amasses many more votes in that time, it will dupeof the other way, to the newer more successful sift. If you sift something again rapidly after a dupe, it could be dupeoffed immediately, but if you post a dupe of a 3 year old video, then 3 days would have to pass before a dupeof would take effect.

I think this would encourage people to sift old gems again, to make them do better. The more I think about it, the more I like that idea.

It would obviously take some tweaking, since active members might get pissed at losing some of their old sifts, but I hate to have a good video dupeoffed to a user that has left videosift long ago, since it makes "herding" that sift much harder. On the other hand, competition is a good thing, I guess.

Dupeof all videos that are dupes. There's no cause for conflict. First to the Sift wins.

@blankfist but the sift in general loses that way.

>> ^gwiz665:

@blankfist but the sift in general loses that way.


I used to agree with you.

Now I disagree. Compromising on when to call dupeof is exactly the sort of thing that will lead to favoritism and special treatment of the "more popular" users on the site. We should be fair and dupeof all dupes.

I see your point here, and I don't want to encourage favoritism - it is an unintended consequence of having a kludge like this. That's why I want to make an automatic system to handle it, so it's the same for everyone.
>> ^blankfist:

>> ^gwiz665:
@blankfist but the sift in general loses that way.

I used to agree with you.
Now I disagree. Compromising on when to call dupeof is exactly the sort of thing that will lead to favoritism and special treatment of the "more popular" users on the site. We should be fair and dupeof all dupes.

@gwiz665, is this all about this video: http://videosift.com/video/Bill-Maher-Says-It-Again-somehow-it-is-the-clearest-yet

If it's a dupe, it should be dupeof. By trying to save people's feelings you could be hurting others. We should be very clear and unemotional about dupes on here.

@blankfist That video is a symptom of the problem. It's a dupe, go ahead and dupeof it. People's feelings are inconsequential next to the power of the force.

I just want to make a system where it pays off to contribute and where we don't have to dupeof things immediately just for the sake of it - I mean, who wins? No one.

Essentially, I makes me want to contribute less - and if I'm feeling that, many more feel that too. If people don't want to contribute, the sift is dead.

We do not have "Criteria" in place to constitute what is a dupe and what is not.

Its always personal justification it seems. One person sees it this way, another sees it this way and heads butt.

Calling dupes is part of sifting, but it has to be done responsibly and not with lame reasons.

How much extra content constitutes a non dupe ? ten percent more time or ten seconds more ?
do blue screens at the beginning have to do with content and time or just time ?

what if its the same video but the background music is different ?

We need like a ... "official" to make these sort of calls, not a self appointed one(s).

Thats my thoughts on the situation.

Dupes are painful when you like the video. It takes a lot of time (relatively speaking) to submit a video in a decent manner only to find it gone ten minutes later. Replaced by the original poorly written up video, with no thumbnail, no tags, and a misleading headline. All the same, I think it's a good idea to give the older video a promote of some kind.

@gwiz665, I don't see the controversy. I'm not sure what feelings are inconsequential to whatever force there is on VS. A dupe is a dupe. It's nothing personal. And certainly we shouldn't be encouraging people to not dupeof dupes, right?

I apologize becase I really don't understand why or how people's feelings could be hurt over a dupe, and why that should be cause for people to not dupef a dupe. This is just muddying what's a clear black-and-white rule.

A question... Why is the Siftbot not so great at finding dupes. Is it the tagging of the original video or just the fact that each video has a unique embed?

@gwiz665

Your class warfare ideals have no place in our communist siftopia.

One of the big failings among sifters is, I think, the idea of "my video". These are our videos and being greedy about who "owns" them, who gets credit for them, does nothing to help the community.

We're all disappointed to find out a video we were excited to post is a dupe. It feels a little like someone has taken something from you. This emotional attachment to videos has caused a fair amount of conflict here in the past. Let it go.

There's too much focus on "look what I did!" here and not enough focus on "check out all these awesome videos!". I see this largely as a symptom of the increased presence of competition and reward that has crept into videosift over its lifetime.

@BoneRemake

The criteria do have some grey areas but for the most part the rules are quite clear. It's not hard to imagine a case where a video falls into a grey area but in reality it's very rare that a video actually does.

What I'd like to see is the following...

Sometimes a dupe gets promoted without the promoter realising that it's a dupe. People then call dupeof on the video and you see a "Killed" video being promoted on the front page. In this case I'd like to see the remaining promote time from the promote transferred over the original.

I'd also like to see the general "hotness" and hotness from any quality invocation transferred over to. There's a reason videos are posted multiple times - because they are sift worthy, therefore hotness and promotes should be transferred IMO. Otherwise the original may remain unnoticed, despite a really "hot" dupe.

Everyone keeps talking about hurt feelings. Since I am often in the middle of these dupe kerfuffles, I must assume that ya'll are talking about me.

Let me be clear. My feelings aren't hurt. Yes, I get attached to "my" wording, and "my" shiny new star, and "my" sometimes buttload of votes. I feel sad that a little triumph, a tiny little triumph, turns out not to be so.

But I honestly am thinking about the Sift as a whole. The Sift is a better place when there are good quality videos. That Bill Maher one, when it was duped -- 75 votes went to the original sifter, with only 4 duplicate votes (those of us with bad memories who hadn't realized they had already seen the original -- and that includes me). That means 75 new people liked a quality video. 75! This is only good for the Sift.

I have been very clear that I don't have a problem with duping after a currently popular duped video has run its course. I'll do it myself, "take away" my own shiny star, great title, and little mountain of votes. I'll wave a fond and sad adieu. But I will do it so the Sift isn't cluttered up with duplicates. That is the real issue, right? We don't want to be YouTube. I love this site and want it to be the highest quality.

No hurt feelings here, I assure you.

As for the idea that a dupe is keeping off another "new" vid from being in the Top 15 -- I can see that. All I can say is caca occurs -- caca if the dupe is immediately booted off because it is successful, and caca that a dupe takes up a spot that could go to another vid. Choose your caca of choice, that is subjective and everyone brings their life experience to the choice. Sometimes things really are either/or with no compromise possible. Make a choice and go with it.

@xxovercastxx Red menace! I'm here entirely for the bragging rights, showing good videos is a byproduct of that. After I've gotten my crown, there isn't much more to gain, so now I sift more rarely and just things I like myself. There is to little systematic focus on "look what I did". If the sift promoted that more, like games do, like reddit does, like many other places do, then it would get bigger. I'm certain of it. We need more competition and we need more reward, it will cause growth and it will better the sift for all of us! I'm a single blue fish in an otherwise red sea, ach!

If you don't like that argument, and you're a commie, then you might appreciate that there is a pragmatic element to not having videos not be linked to dead users, in that live users actually go around and fix their videos when they go dead. Furthermore, if the point of sifting is to show videos to more people, then we should be able to repost as much as we like - dupeing only takes the video away from views, especially if it's to an old post - then the video vanishes for people who don't know what to look for.

@BoneRemake over the years a lot of unwritten rules have sprung up from discussions

for instance:
* It used to be that if any video that wholly contained another newer video, then the newer video was considered a dupe - that's not changed to include that if it's "significantly different" then it's not a dupe. That's a big grey area right there.

* If an original video is long and the newer video is not, then - within reason - you should not dupe it, because the newer is likely significantly different in that it focuses on a single event or small part of the other video

* if the newer video is posted by me, then I kill you!

* If a video is discarded, you can bring it back with promote, this is a bad thing, since it fucks around with dupes - while the video was discarded, it was "legal" to post the video again and fair game. But if you promote the old one, then suddenly there's an older version lying around - in that case the old version is actually killed and the newer stands.

@blankfist:
It's simple:
more views = good
more votes = good
dupeof -> no more views, no more votes ->bad
dupeof -> clean up sift -> good
dupeof = bad+good

I'm sure you get my point, but just to spell it out, the video loses by being dupeofed quickly, because it does not get exposure - this is more relevant with old posts, like the one referenced earlier, because a lot of younger sifters might not have seen it at all - a promote does not do the same as just letting this one ride the wave of votes and then dupe it afterwards. Viewer win, the original poster wins, the new poster wins (top 15/1 achievement) and who loses?

Ok, kids - it's time to turn your 'computers' off and go outside for a bit. Let off some steam. We've had a big day, let's not spoil it now.

A dupe is a dupe. Roll credits. Fade out. The end.

Now click my avatar ------------------------------------------------------------------->

@bareboards2: I'm not talking about you when I talk about hurt feelings. I'm not talking about anyone specifically, actually.

@gwiz665: I'm not sure modeling ourselves on xbox live or reddit is something we ought to do. Personally, I like that there's a forum that I can peruse without being assaulted by "n00b fag!" comments.

The thing about unwritten rules... they're not rules. You've been claiming since you joined up that excepts of long videos are allowed and aren't dupes. Clearly it's a rule you'd like to see in play, but it's also not a rule as of now. Excerpts are dupes no matter how long the original is. By all means campaign for that rule change; I bet you could drum up support pretty quickly; but don't keep telling people that rule is already in effect when it's not. You're just confusing new members and then they get upset when their post is discarded.

n00b fag!

We have established in earlier discussions that it is a rule, so don't go around confusing new members by saying it's not. Just because whoever writes this stuff down has dropped the ball, doesn't mean all of us have to suffer. This is not legal territory, just because it's not written down, doesn't mean it's not there.

By your logic, because we have this http://videosift.com/video/Star-Trek-TNG-Live-Stream-24-7 all TNG clips are dupes of it. And that's quite frankly idiotic.

This does seem to have devolved to -- we oldsters have decided how it shall be. Any new folks who have new ideas aren't to be considered.

I get that it can be annoying to have worked on a set of rules for a long time, I mean really worked hard at it, and then have someone(s) come along and want to rehash stuff that you had finally settled.

I hope those of you who keep saying the same thing thing -- this is how it is, a dupe is dupe, we have written rules -- can take a second to think about how it feels on our side of the fence. Something isn't working with the rules for us, we're bright and interested and care about the Sift, eager to help make it better -- and we are met with this .... brick wall of "this is how it has been, therefore this is how it shall always be, and maybe I'll insult you a little bit in the process."

I guess this is human nature -- Old Guard versus New Guard, stick in the mud oldster versus over eager noobs who haven't been around enough to know their ass from their elbow -- every group has this dynamic. It doesn't make it any more pleasant when we all play our parts to realize we are a cliche.

I remarked to gwiz privately that I thought it interesting that he and I were the only ones who had bookmarked this Sift Talk. I thought it was because we were the most invested in change, so we wanted to follow this closely. That was a more telling observation than I realized at the time.

I generally dont need to bookmark stuff, I just know where everything is.

I feel the same way about what you said @gwiz665, thats where you get into the messy bits, how much more content vs how much more time, content/intent etc etc, you cannot just say a shorter version of a longer version is a dupe, because thats when everyone hops into a burlap sack with a fresh Dook, and tries to come out smelling like roses.

Its just not good business saying a 3 min clip from a 40 min or 20 minute or even 15 minute bit clip is a dupe. Now I say good day to you sir.

A dupe is a dupe. A partial clip is not a dupe (precedence has been set in the past). This is not a dupe of the entire Bullshit! show:

Well!

This is said as if it is the rule.

I just was duped on a partial clip. It started 8 minutes in on a longer vid.

I was told very clearly that I was wrong, that any duplication is a dupe.

This matter needs to be cleared up, it seems to me, and codified in writing. If we can get agreement.

There are folks who love to dupeof and isdupe, and they do it quickly. I would really like this to be resolved so it doesn't happen to anyone else again. If indeed there is consensus that a short clip of a longer vid is not a dupe.


>> ^blankfist:

A dupe is a dupe. A partial clip is not a dupe (precedence has been set in the past). This is not a dupe of the entire Bullshit! show:

@bareboards2, if your clip was shorter (or longer), then there's reason to assume it isn't a dupe.

Didn't someone mention your video and the original video were exactly the same in length and content? That would be a dupe. But if your vid was shorter (or longer) then precedence has been set in the past that that doesn't necessarily constitute a dupe.

Some examples: 1. The same event but shot from a different angle is not a dupe. 2. A segment of a larger piece is not necessarily a dupe. Likewise, a longer segment of a shorter piece isn't a dupe.

Vote for the not a dupe!

Different vid -- happened on the same day though.

It was a 7 minute segment that started at minute mark 8 on an existing TED talk vid.

It was doing well, too, and was duped into oblivion.

Under your understanding, it was not a dupe. Under someone else's understanding, it was.

It was definitely a short segment of a much longer, more general talk. I was shocked that I was duped away.


>> ^blankfist:

@bareboards2, if your clip was shorter (or longer), then there's reason to assume it isn't a dupe.
Didn't someone mention your video and the original video were exactly the same in length and content? That would be a dupe. But if your vid was shorter (or longer) then precedence has been set in the past that that doesn't necessarily constitute a dupe.
Some examples: 1. The same event but shot from a different angle is not a dupe. 2. A segment of a larger piece is not necessarily a dupe. Likewise, a longer segment of a shorter piece isn't a dupe.

I didn't watch it. If it wasn't a dupe, it shouldn't've been dupeof'ed.

Not sure where people are getting the definition of a duplicate confused. An excerpt isn't a duplicate. A duplicate is a duplicate.

Maybe we need an invocation of "notdupe."

The person who duped me doesn't agree with you or gwiz. The person who isduped that particular vid is a self-described noobie who was trusting the first call of dupe. (I asked her -- this is what she told me.)

This is all tempest in a teapot. And. We are here because we like to do this.

Having a "notdupe" invocation could slow down the dupe process if there is a difference of opinion. Right now, all it takes is two people with a similar wrong notion (or innocence and trust) to knock out a perfectly good vid.

If it really is a dupe, it will get duped. If it isn't, it won't.




>> ^blankfist:

I didn't watch it. If it wasn't a dupe, it shouldn't've been dupeof'ed.
Not sure where people are getting the definition of a duplicate confused. An excerpt isn't a duplicate. A duplicate is a duplicate.

The whole purpose of the isdupe invocation was to ensure we had a double-check system whereby two people confirm the video is in fact a dupe. Apparently the process of duping is nearly irreversible.

That aside, I'm confused at what you're implying, because if we're still talking about this video: http://videosift.com/video/Bill-Maher-Says-It-Again-somehow-it-is-the-clearest-yet?noredirect

Then it appears to be an identical dupe of this one: http://videosift.com/video/Bill-Maher-on-Religion

Which video are you talking about?

wow, that was a mistake...

>> ^blankfist:

A dupe is a dupe. Roll credits. Fade out. The end.
Now click my avatar ------------------------------------------------------------------->

@blankfist

http://videosift.com/video/Julia-Sweeney-meets-Two-Mormon-Missionaries?noredirect

A six minute excerpt from a 18 minute original. The excerpt starts at the 8 minute mark.

You can see my astonishment that this was considered a dupe. And someone had to work really hard to find the dupe. There was serious effort put into duping this.

>> ^bareboards2:

And someone had to work really hard to find the dupe.



How so? There are only 5 Julia Sweeney videos on this site.

Anyways, that mormon video is clearly a dupe of the longer one.

See, @blankfist, it isn't nearly as settled as you think it is that a clear excerpt of a longer vid is a dupe or not.

Certainly the person who duped my excerpt thinks it is a dupe. Campion thinks it is a dupe. You don't. Gwiz doesn't. Bone doesn't. And I don't.

Who knows how everyone else feels about it.

Now what do we do? There is a clear and profound difference of opinion on this.


>> ^campionidelmondo:

>> ^bareboards2:
And someone had to work really hard to find the dupe.


How so? There are only 5 Julia Sweeney videos on this site.
Anyways, that mormon video is clearly a dupe of the longer one.

Video analogies are fun !
**hint- Dag is the guy in green **

Precedent...an interpretive error repeated, popular or otherwise? Nothing but slippery slopes here.

Plenty of precedents on this matter...and a plethora of interpretive variance by very experienced and intelligent individuals and groups alike.

A dupe is a dupe is a dupe(.)(?)(!)

An excerpt is not a dupe? So, let's see now. Someone posts an hour and a half video. One hundred Sifters divvy it up with little to no overlap and the resultant flood of videos are viable for submission? A line or a paragraph out of a speech or a dissertation is illumination of a specific point, contextual coloring by isolation from the whole makes it a viable and independent submission? Every video sifted is ripe for dissection and resubmission?

How about spatial variation on the same incident? Two vantage points represented by two recorders of the said incident that are spatially side by side separated by inches is or is not a dupe? Yeeha! What degree(s) of separation of vantage therefore might be considered variant enough? Certainly ninety degrees or more in any plane, right or not? That can get interesting.

What about footnotes, subtitles, added music, added commentary in what language(s) or the lack thereof, color added or subtracted, graphic artifices added or subtracted, different playback speeds resultant in different timestampings or video lengths, or additional dubious footage before, during, or after an incident of note? When do these variances qualify for independent submission and *nondupe/*notadupe status? The initial citing and often repeated criteria by the implementors of the dupe invocation of adding substantive comment at once a blessing and bane due to the inevitable interpretive dance that ensues.

The points regarding ownership, identification, current or active status or lack thereof of submitters, and competition are salient and contributory to the exacerbation of the problems.

The issues can be more simply laid out and have been innumerably. The first submission is sacrosanct whether submitted one second ago or five years ago and the submitter active, inactive, alive.... Submissions are not the submitters' property or they would/should be banned for selflinking. Votes, rankings, comments and such accolades are desirable for most here but are they or should they be the only reason to be present and contributing here? Not providing substantial additional content, what is hard or hard to take about that? Is the meaningful content of the video represented on the Sift already in another's submission?

Dupes take up Sifters' queue space and detract from the site. New Sifter's have not seen a video? So what? I have been to every PQ under the 500 mark save certain new arrivals having moved up quickly. If a noob or otherwise is so inclined, there is the archived videos of the Sift to by enjoyed, appreciated, worshipped...but not served up again by another submitter intentionally or unintentionally.

I do not believe I have added anything new to the tableau of discussion. It has all been said here before somewhere sometime. Better perhaps...certainly more succinctly. It is fairly simple to implement using the guidelines originally cited. Personal interests and desires serve and do so quite capably to obfuscate. Significant additional content, present or no, dupe or not.

Change...acceptable...inevitable. Have at it and good luck. Truly. The above cited proposal of promoting and transferring promotion to the original of a dupe is interesting. The specter of abuse is always lurking, however. Grace periods and fanciful or imaginative interpretations serving to hold onto votes or position are problematic.

Mistakes...I've made them. Fortunately they were minor except to the submitter at times and easily rectifiable. I have seen one dupe that was consummated, deemed erroneous and caught by the invokers themselves, and fixed by lucky760. Hard feelings, hurt feelings, disagreements, outrage, and more over duping(s). Yes. Actionable? How many so far and how often? That may be telling. If there were more wrongful dupes, truly wrongful, there would be more attention from on high I think.

Is there a real or perceived lack of original videos to submit or must the bones of successful or unsung videos be picked over imaginatively in order to derive some benefit of participating?

Yes, as well, the system of checks is imperfect. Some dupes are inevitable. However, I submit the are a few here that seem to manage finding dupes on a regular and consistent basis. Ant, pardon me sir, I have seen dupe his queue's capacity and otherwise one or two daily for good periods. He unfailingly was and is a gentleman about it when a dupe occurs often upvoting the dupage comments. He almost never dupes for an extended period of time now. Others are ongoing, some struggling some gracefully confronting the phenomenon. I duped once and only once. Granted, I am possibly to probably the least of those represented here but diligent titling and tagging has proven an antidote to the plague. I have seen cases that I felt almost certain dupes were intentional using imaginative titles and tagging or a lack thereof.

Too long...I'm sorry.

>> ^gwiz665:

We have established in earlier discussions that it is a rule, so don't go around confusing new members by saying it's not. Just because whoever writes this stuff down has dropped the ball, doesn't mean all of us have to suffer. This is not legal territory, just because it's not written down, doesn't mean it's not there.

So am I supposed to read all comments on the site every day in order to figure out what the rules are? If people disagree about what the rules are supposed to be, who do I believe? Do I have to count for and against and go with the majority?

Idiotic indeed.

It's one thing to follow precedent where the rules are vague or completely silent, however the posting guidelines clearly state that excerpts are dupes.

A duplicate video is one which contains content already on VideoSift in a published, queued, personal queued, or dead video submission. Minor changes in content, like a few additional insignificant seconds of video or alternate background music, will still be considered dupes. The only exception to this is if the change in audio makes a significant difference to the video content.

For example, let's say you post a 1-minute video which is an excerpt of a 15-minute video that I posted previously. You've got 1 minute of "content" there. That content is, in fact, "already on VideoSift in a published, queued, personal queued, or dead video submission".

There's no room for debate about what the current rule says. It's right there in black and white for anyone willing and able to read it.

Now, to be clear, I've got no problem with people campaigning for rules changes and/or clarifications; I feel like I've been doing just that since the day I signed up; I just don't support this particular rules change. I'll still follow it if it's adopted. I would just ask that we take a little time and make sure we're very clear in rewriting that rule if we do. There will be sticky spots if we allow excerpts:

How long does a video have to be before we allow excerpts? *long?
How short does a video have to be to count as an excerpt? Certainly a 9:30 excerpt of a 10:00 video is not desirable? *brief only?

>> ^campionidelmondo:

>> ^bareboards2:
And someone had to work really hard to find the dupe.


How so? There are only 5 Julia Sweeney videos on this site.
Anyways, that mormon video is clearly a dupe of the longer one.


I disagree. We let a lot of videos stay that are shorter cuts of longer videos on here. It's subjective, I suppose, whether or not portions of longer vids are seen as dupes, but the agreement tends to be that if it's not an identical dupe then it's not a dupe.

If you posted an awesome ten second football goal but I posted the entire two hour game a few minutes before, would you think it's fair for me to dupe yours?

@blankfist

Fair? Fair is not in the equation. It would be correct.

"It would be correct."

No offense intended @chicchorea, I know you are sincere and passionate about this subject, but it is hard for me to read that sentence in anything other than a strict German accent.

This place is supposed to be fun, not a regimented and rigid response to rules, isn't it?

Does it have to be so... perfect? Can't we bend? Can't we play?

And yes, I think that fair is in the equation, like @blankfist said. I want to be fair. I want to be playful. I want ease.

...and I envision you sitting in your sandbox you share with your kittycat with bubbles floating out of your cranial orifices, grabbing your pigtails, turning red as you puff your cheeks and hold your breath.

but I digress.



>> ^bareboards2:

"It would be correct."
No offense intended @<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/chicchorea" title="member since October 15th, 2009" class="profilelink">chicchorea, I know you are sincere and passionate about this subject, but it is hard for me to read that sentence in anything other than a strict German accent.
This place is supposed to be fun, not a regimented and rigid response to rules, isn't it?
Does it have to be so... perfect? Can't we bend? Can't we play?
And yes, I think that fair is in the equation, like @blankfist said. I want to be fair. I want to be playful. I want ease.

I assure you that is not the case. Although I am rather farty.



>> ^chicchorea:

...and I envision you sitting in your sandbox you share with your kittycat with bubbles floating out of your cranial orifices, grabbing your pigtails, turning red as you puff your cheeks and hold your breath.
but I digress.
<em>>> <a rel="nofollow" href='http://videosift.com/talk/Accute-Dupitis?loadcomm=1#comment-1183709'>^bareboards2</a>:<br />
"It would be correct."<br> <br> No offense intended @<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/chicchorea" title="member since October 15th, 2009" class="profilelink">chicchorea</a>, I know you are sincere and passionate about this subject, but it is hard for me to read that sentence in anything other than a strict German accent.<br> <br> This place is supposed to be fun, not a regimented and rigid response to rules, isn't it?<br> <br> Does it have to be so... perfect? Can't we bend? Can't we play? <br> <br> And yes, I think that fair is in the equation, like @blankfist said. I want to be fair. I want to be playful. I want ease.<br></em>

Aren't we all....
>> ^bareboards2:

I assure you that is not the case. Although I am rather farty.

I was the "noob" that *isduped a second time, and started this.
I joined 6 months ago, and I thought duplicate meant a post of a video already posted, part and parcel. Obviously this is not a clear rule to new or old members.

I had seen this whole talk on TED's site not too long ago, then a few days later I saw the clip from it on the sift. I left a comment (nothing to do with this topic) to someone, and kept an eye on the post to see if the person responded. Not knowing then that the whole video was already posted on the sift until the first dupe was mentioned.

I don't do much housekeeping around here. So I thought...what the hell, pick up a mop and help out.

I am not happy I took away bareboards points, especially if I made the mistake to cause it. If I did not make a mistake, I'm not thrilled I re-started such a firestorm.
As it stands, it is unclear. And I am unwittingly caught up in it.

I admit, this has made the idea of housekeeping even more unappealing, lol...and I don't plan on doing anymore. Just keep enjoying the animations!!

>> ^bareboards2:

This place is supposed to be fun, not a regimented and rigid response to rules, isn't it?
Does it have to be so... perfect? Can't we bend? Can't we play?

Generally speaking, yes, but rules are still required and rules that are either not followed, not understood, or not enforced are useless.

To some people (just check out some of the old Siftquisitions) fun means discarding other people's videos, downvote sprees, and malicious re-tagging.

Other times 2 people who both have 100% good intentions have completely opposite opinions on how things should be done. Rules need to be agreed upon for consistency and fairness.

@blankfist asked whether it was fair that @campionidelmondo's highlight be considered a dupe of the full game, but there is no element of fairness in that question. If cdm and I both post highlights and both are declared dupes, then yes, it's fair. If only mine is declare a dupe, then it's not fair. Fair just means the rules get applied uniformly to everyone. Whether or not everyone likes the rules is a separate (but still important) issue.

>> ^xxovercastxx:

blankfist asked whether it was fair that campionidelmondo's highlight be considered a dupe of the full game, but there is no element of fairness in that question. If cdm and I both post highlights and both are declared dupes, then yes, it's fair. If only mine is declare a dupe, then it's not fair. Fair just means the rules get applied uniformly to everyone. Whether or not everyone likes the rules is a separate (but still important) issue.


I know you think you're being clever right now by playing semantics, but I promise you I meant a lot more than just being fair in regards to whose videos get discarded.

Have you never sifted a video that was a portion of something larger? Do you not see how that would not be considered a dupe?

Please, I am not trying to be obtuse and I realize you were not asking me but you would please elucidate? Perhaps define fairness as you mean as well?

Respectfully, as to playing with or at semantics, applying literal or standard meaning is what I did, and I perceive xxovercastxx did as well. Avoiding an issue? Rather simply breaking it down and answering plainly. Playing at? I feel at a loss. Hence my request.

As well, your illustration, if you are saying that since an excerpt is shorter, not the same length as the original that is is technically therefore not a duplication; then can you not see how you are playing at semantics?
>> ^blankfist:


I know you think you're being clever right now by playing semantics, but I promise you I meant a lot more than just being fair in regards to whose videos get discarded.
Have you never sifted a video that was a portion of something larger? Do you not see how that would not be considered a dupe?

What it comes down to is that there isn't just one way to define what's a dupe and what isn't. These things have to be decided on a case-by-case basis, which of course opens up room for errors and disagreements. Luckily it all just concerns online videos and not nuclear power plants, so I believe we should be able to live with the consequences of those errors.

>> ^blankfist:

I know you think you're being clever right now by playing semantics, but I promise you I meant a lot more than just being fair in regards to whose videos get discarded.
Have you never sifted a video that was a portion of something larger? Do you not see how that would not be considered a dupe?


It's got nothing to do with being clever or playing semantics. You asked if it was fair and I said it was so long as it's applied uniformly. That's my opinion and just because it doesn't match yours doesn't mean I'm playing head games.

Have I ever sifted an excerpt? I think I have. I forget what it was about but it was a news clip and someone had posted a more complete copy a few days earlier. I didn't find it when I did a pre-submission search. Mine was given the dupe treatment, as it should have been.

>> ^AdrianBlack:

I was the "noob" that isduped a second time, and started this.

In truth, you tried but didn't end up having anything to do with the dupe processing of bareboards2's video. @therealblankman was the one who ultimately *isduped it.

Also, bareboards2's sift didn't start this discussion. In fact, this post had nothing to do with ambiguity or disagreement in the definition of a dupe until boneremake's comment about "criteria".

I'm sure he will take offense at this comment and leave me another pseudo-insulting gibberish PM.

>> ^campionidelmondo:

What it comes down to is that there isn't just one way to define what's a dupe and what isn't. These things have to be decided on a case-by-case basis, which of course opens up room for errors and disagreements. Luckily it all just concerns online videos and not nuclear power plants, so I believe we should be able to live with the consequences of those errors.


No! No! This is the internet and it's serious business!

Ha, see...*puffs up and struts noob-ness*
>> ^xxovercastxx:

>> ^AdrianBlack:
I was the "noob" that isduped a second time, and started this.
In truth, you tried

I am only as insulting as you make me.

does that make sense ?

I love you overcast, I really really do !

Now I get it....

it want to be choggie when it grows up.

choggiejr, idn't it cute, lil bonerless? Awwwww....
>> ^BoneRemake:

I am only as insulting as you make me.
does that make sense ?
I love you overcast, I really really do !

I see no one took my earlier advice...

Fair has everything to do with it, because we are not a legal entity. We do things a long way on a video by video basis.

I will argue that the reason all these exceptions, precedents and so on aren't directly written into the FAQ is that @lucky760 and @dag have better things to do and let the community drive the rules as much as possible. The wiki was supposed to contain all of these, since we all can edit them, but it just disintegrated in all the blithering chatter of "can I post about this user and that user" perez hilton bullshit.

The FAQ is not a holy book! There are exceptions and it seems to me, that if people don't know what the exceptions are, then they shouldn't preach what is the right way and what isn't.

>> ^gwiz665:

I will argue that the reason all these exceptions, precedents and so on aren't directly written into the FAQ is that @lucky760 and @dag have better things to do and let the community drive the rules as much as possible. The wiki was supposed to contain all of these, since we all can edit them, but it just disintegrated in all the blithering chatter of "can I post about this user and that user" perez hilton bullshit.
The FAQ is not a holy book! There are exceptions and it seems to me, that if people don't know what the exceptions are, then they shouldn't preach what is the right way and what isn't.

But how is anyone to really know what the rules are if they're not written down? I'm not saying the FAQ is a holy book and it can never change; I'm saying it should reflect the rules that we decide upon.

While I (obviously) disagree that we should allow, or even encourage, people to post the same shit over and over again, what's more important to me is to have a clear rule. I'd rather have rules I dislike than to not be able to tell what the rules are.

Last time I looked at blankfist's poll, the overwhelming majority want a much looser definition of what a dupe is.

*angry fist shake* You win this time, Batman!

Since we're obviously going this way, I'd say let's work on making a clear rule and getting the FAQ updated. I don't want to hear that @dag and @lucky760 have better things to do than update the FAQ; it's part of the job they volunteered for.

Also, as soon as I get home I'm going to start posting dupes with minute time differences. I should be able to get my crown by the end of the week.

I agree. Rules need to be written down. Blankfist did a great service by starting this poll so we could stop arguing about what the rule is.

Now we know. I think. I don't know the protocol for calling a vote completed.

And yes, we have now codified Gray Area. I can see that will frustrate some folks. And it is a huge relief to others.

And so we negotiate.

It's not as if we are super busy people who don't have time to waste on a stupid website, right?


>> ^xxovercastxx:

>> ^gwiz665:
I will argue that the reason all these exceptions, precedents and so on aren't directly written into the FAQ is that @lucky760 and @dag have better things to do and let the community drive the rules as much as possible. The wiki was supposed to contain all of these, since we all can edit them, but it just disintegrated in all the blithering chatter of "can I post about this user and that user" perez hilton bullshit.
The FAQ is not a holy book! There are exceptions and it seems to me, that if people don't know what the exceptions are, then they shouldn't preach what is the right way and what isn't.
But how is anyone to really know what the rules are if they're not written down? I'm not saying the FAQ is a holy book and it can never change; I'm saying it should reflect the rules that we decide upon.
While I (obviously) disagree that we should allow, or even encourage, people to post the same shit over and over again, what's more important to me is to have a clear rule. I'd rather have rules I dislike than to not be able to tell what the rules are.
Last time I looked at blankfist's poll, the overwhelming majority want a much looser definition of what a dupe is.
angry fist shake You win this time, Batman!
Since we're obviously going this way, I'd say let's work on making a clear rule and getting the FAQ updated. I don't want to hear that @dag and @lucky760 have better things to do than update the FAQ; it's part of the job they volunteered for.
Also, as soon as I get home I'm going to start posting dupes with minute time differences. I should be able to get my crown by the end of the week.

>> ^xxovercastxx:

>> ^gwiz665:
I will argue that the reason all these exceptions, precedents and so on aren't directly written into the FAQ is that @lucky760 and @dag have better things to do and let the community drive the rules as much as possible. The wiki was supposed to contain all of these, since we all can edit them, but it just disintegrated in all the blithering chatter of "can I post about this user and that user" perez hilton bullshit.
The FAQ is not a holy book! There are exceptions and it seems to me, that if people don't know what the exceptions are, then they shouldn't preach what is the right way and what isn't.
But how is anyone to really know what the rules are if they're not written down? I'm not saying the FAQ is a holy book and it can never change; I'm saying it should reflect the rules that we decide upon.
While I (obviously) disagree that we should allow, or even encourage, people to post the same shit over and over again, what's more important to me is to have a clear rule. I'd rather have rules I dislike than to not be able to tell what the rules are.
Last time I looked at blankfist's poll, the overwhelming majority want a much looser definition of what a dupe is.
angry fist shake You win this time, Batman!
Since we're obviously going this way, I'd say let's work on making a clear rule and getting the FAQ updated. I don't want to hear that @dag and @lucky760 have better things to do than update the FAQ; it's part of the job they volunteered for.
Also, as soon as I get home I'm going to start posting dupes with minute time differences. I should be able to get my crown by the end of the week.


But precedent has been set in the past that if something isn't a duplicate, then it's not a dupe. If it has a few extra seconds that offers nothing new (very subjective), then it's a dupe. If it's a longer or shorter portion of another video that can be said to offer something new (also very subjective), then it's not a dupe.

I made the poll to hopefully put an end to people making their own rules about the dupeof invocation. We all know the FAQ is ambiguous, but those of us who've been on here for a while should understand that precedent has been set from past discussions on the matter, and that's as good as a rule.

There is no precedent set. At this point, every variation or deviation seems to be or is deemed a precedent by some or someone.

As to the poll. I commend Blankfist and for that matter anyone here who spends the time, attention, and energy to lend sense and resolution to this matter. But, respectfully, what victory. Five to one, ten to one, a hundred to one is meaningless to whether I or anyone else dupes a video.

xxovercastxx and dag cited the basic tenets from the posting guidelines.

"A duplicate video is one which contains content already on VideoSift in a published, queued, personal queued, or dead video submission. Minor changes in content, like a few additional insignificant seconds of video or alternate background music, will still be considered dupes. The only exception to this is if the change in audio makes a significant difference to the video content."

Albeit brief, I find it rather clear, not perfect and all encompassing, but elegant in it's conciseness. Any attempt to codify this past that is going to be at once daunting and unpopular with someone(s). As it stands, the overriding principle for me is, is it a dupe as described, does it have significant additional content as to not be a dupe.

The analogies of one second, ten seconds, one minute or two out of however long is reducing to the absurd as well. Reaching far and long. There are other exceptional considerations mentioned in the past but not discussed here. The poll hinges on one and arguably not the most trenchant or supportable. But popular and all settling per the poll.

Also, believe it or no, I do not dupe every one that I or others find. There are those here that could verify conversations, private, that plead additional content, etc. Some are consummated anyway, some are not. I, and I believer most if not all whom invoke *dupeof do so with cognizance of the investment someone has made but with awareness of the principles and realities that fomented its inception.

There is not generally the same attention given to other invocations. Certainly not recently or as often.

Precedent is a laudatory concept. However, this is not the legal system where precedent is published and therefore established. Consensual agreement is not precedent. Popular among a vocal few or many is not precedent even though they think or wish it to be. Incidental or errant but unaddressed application or misapplication is not precedent. Proof. What is to befall those that disagree or do not subscribe to the "precedent" as described and voted on in the poll. There is tacit recourse that has been enacted in the past here for abuse of the invocation but remote in time. As it stands, sans official codification to the contrary there will be today, tomorrow, and thereafter the same dissatisfaction and discussion meaning little.

Now I am going to compete with xxovercastxx for that crown.


>> ^blankfist:

>> ^xxovercastxx:
>> ^gwiz665:
I will argue that the reason all these exceptions, precedents and so on aren't directly written into the FAQ is that @lucky760 and @dag have better things to do and let the community drive the rules as much as possible. The wiki was supposed to contain all of these, since we all can edit them, but it just disintegrated in all the blithering chatter of "can I post about this user and that user" perez hilton bullshit.
The FAQ is not a holy book! There are exceptions and it seems to me, that if people don't know what the exceptions are, then they shouldn't preach what is the right way and what isn't.
But how is anyone to really know what the rules are if they're not written down? I'm not saying the FAQ is a holy book and it can never change; I'm saying it should reflect the rules that we decide upon.
While I (obviously) disagree that we should allow, or even encourage, people to post the same shit over and over again, what's more important to me is to have a clear rule. I'd rather have rules I dislike than to not be able to tell what the rules are.
Last time I looked at blankfist's poll, the overwhelming majority want a much looser definition of what a dupe is.
angry fist shake You win this time, Batman!
Since we're obviously going this way, I'd say let's work on making a clear rule and getting the FAQ updated. I don't want to hear that @dag and @lucky760 have better things to do than update the FAQ; it's part of the job they volunteered for.
Also, as soon as I get home I'm going to start posting dupes with minute time differences. I should be able to get my crown by the end of the week.

But precedent has been set in the past that if something isn't a duplicate, then it's not a dupe. If it has a few extra seconds that offers nothing new (very subjective), then it's a dupe. If it's a longer or shorter portion of another video that can be said to offer something new (also very subjective), then it's not a dupe.
I made the poll to hopefully put an end to people making their own rules about the dupeof invocation. We all know the FAQ is ambiguous, but those of us who've been on here for a while should understand that precedent has been set from past discussions on the matter, and that's as good as a rule.

@chicchorea, precedent has been set. It has been for a while. Believe me, this isn't the first time the "dupe" conversation has reared its ugly head on here. You've only been here for over a year, but for some of the other members who've been on here for much longer, they know better.

The general consensus is that if a video shows enough of a variance from the original then it's not a dupe. For instance, if you sifted the dramatic chipmunk but with the audio changed to lounge music, it would NOT be considered a dupe even though the length is identical to the original dramatic chipmunk video. The same goes when sifting a shorter clip of a longer source. If there's enough of a change or if the change adds something different, then it's not a dupe.

Regardless, the poll will be our official 'go to' resource for squashing any dissenting opinions regarding what is and what is not a dupe.

I have been on the books for a year and a half. I have been around here lurking for almost five years for hundreds of hours.

Precedent such as it may be called respective to significant content is acknowledged by me repeatedly in what I have commented. The overall scope of the precedent of nebulous variance to which you and others here, however long here, amounts to little other than wishful thinking and is not shared by all represented in your poll or not.

While I have and have had respect for much you have said here and elsewhere, I care not for your tone or its inferences that time here has conferred upon you some superior ability or powers of disernation exclusive to time onsite.

Polls here and elsewhere can be and sometimes are useful. As has been noted here and elsewhere as well, they can be and often are little more than circle jerks. Thus, popular and satisfying to those participating but less so to repugnant to those observing.


>> ^blankfist:

@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/chicchorea" title="member since October 15th, 2009" class="profilelink">chicchorea, precedent has been set. It has been for a while. Believe me, this isn't the first time the "dupe" conversation has reared its ugly head on here. You've only been here for over a year, but for some of the other members who've been on here for much longer, they know better.
The general consensus is that if a video shows enough of a variance from the original then it's not a dupe. For instance, if you sifted the dramatic chipmunk but with the audio changed to lounge music, it would NOT be considered a dupe even though the length is identical to the original dramatic chipmunk video. The same goes when sifting a shorter clip of a longer source. If there's enough of a change or if the change adds something different, then it's not a dupe.
Regardless, the poll will be our official 'go to' resource for squashing any dissenting opinions regarding what is and what is not a dupe.

@chicchorea, you misread. I didn't say time grants any of us superiority. I said those who've been here long enough to remember the dupe debates should know better. That is, they should know we've time and time again reached a consensus that duping partial videos is bad form.

So here are some stats.

@chicchorea became a probie on 10/15/09.

Gold Star level, 100 stars, are needed to attain the power of duping.

I don't know when chic attained gold star, but certainly it took some weeks or months.

Chic has a 101 Level Dupe Badge.

101. I don't know how many dupes it takes per level -- is it five dupes equals a badge? FAQ doesn't say. Any way you slice it, that is a lot of duping in a very, very short period of time.

What does this mean?

It means that the Sift has been kept clean of a lot of dupes due to chic's efforts. We definitely would have been youtube messy without his outstanding efforts. Thanks, chic!

What else does it mean? I don't know. I have my opinions. I have shared them with chic privately.

I think these unemotional statistics have meaning, though.

I apologize for my thin skin.

However, please know that I have read exhaustively both video submission threads and Sift Talk threads. I dare say all of the Sift Talk threads through the evolutions of to the current generation of the invocation. That having been said I not unmindful of the issues and perceived precedents.

If they are all encompassing, well established and regarded as you posit, then why are the seconds of my initial invocation representative of all levels of seniority of membership? Additionally, missing many dupes and I do and must, find ample representation of the same criteria of selection mirrored again by the complete strata of membership. Certainly, if I am mistaken, unaware, or just recalcitrant, why do others not adhere to the precedent you proclaim and am I and others not censured?

You, and others here, seem to perceive a solid, cohesive, and save for a few mavericks of insufficient time and hence experience who are mucking up the place, pervasive unassailable consensus. I submit you reassess. There is disagreement and dissention and the powers that be are not quashing it in favor of your "precedent." dag himself apprised the poll regarding excerpts.


>> ^blankfist:

@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/chicchorea" title="member since October 15th, 2009" class="profilelink">chicchorea, you misread. I didn't say time grants any of us superiority. I said those who've been here long enough to remember the dupe debates should know better. That is, they should know we've time and time again reached a consensus that duping partial videos is bad form.

@bareboards2, thank you...I think.

Ha! The Dupe Debates. I love it.

http://i.qkme.me/br7.jpg

I'm just plain old not duping anything anymore. I already have a job.