This is an excerpt from the full video http://www.videosift.com/video/James-Lipton-interviews-Ricky-Gervais; a fantastic interview that I suggest everybody who voted for this one watches.

I guess it's not a dupe, but it still irks me that I didn't sift this very clip a couple of months ago, because of seeing the full interview was already up here

EDD your link isn't working because there's a ; at the end of the link. The full interview is really worth it.

excerpts are dupes

Not if the other one is long and/or it has a vastly different point to make. This is a precedent we've shown many times, for instance with Bill Hicks standup, where the full show has been posted, but individual jokes are allowed as well.

^ You said that in this discussion but it seems to me that Siftler did not agree.

Peoples' emotional attachment to their videos are preventing us from having clear, consistent and logical rules on dupes.

Ok, I'll take it here, if you want it.

It's all a gray area, because "duplicate" (="dupe") is being misused around all of the site. If it is a true duplicate, it is identical (except another flash player. This is not the way that people around here want to do it, however.

On this site, the definition is the following:
"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. "


That ruling has some interpretation: what does "content already on videosift" mean? If it means that any video that contains video that is also contained in other videos, then I believe that we as a site lose a lot of good sifts. Many, many sifts have been made that are excerpts of big shows - are they all to be removed, just because someone sifted a whole show? I say, that's bullshit. It's a loss for everyone involved in the site, the users, the sifters, everyone.

We have established earlier, forgive me for not having the reference ready, that if another video is tagged "long" and contains something not yet sifted, then you can go around the dupe rule. This is of course a gray area, since, if you post a 10:01 video and I post a 09:58 video of the same thing after mine should rightly be considered a dupe - it's different when you take a 45 min and 2 min clip though.

The main consideration is this, is X video considerably different that Y video? If it is, it is not a dupe and definitely shouldn't be.

I'm not trying to protect my own videos here, I have a few that would fall under a change of rules here, but I truly think that we as a video-community would lose if we instituted such a foolish rule.

I don't give a shit what siftler wants, if it's wrong. I will still voice my opinion and recite precedent if siftler decides to hypocrit his way around what rules we have established.

I'm an atheist myself but I hate most other atheists since they are arrogant cunts.

NEWSFLASH: Just because you figured out one thing in life but are still a loser in all other aspects, does not make you better than people who are not atheists.