http://videosift.com/video/The-Problem-with-Jeggings and http://videosift.com/video/Even-More-Problems-with-Jeggings are not dupes.

http://videosift.com/playlists/bareboards2/Dupes-Made-In-Error didn't work.

>> ^Hybrid:

It's a shame it's not being added. An accidental dupe has just occurred that could have been saved by having a notadupe invocation called beforehand.


Ditto with http://videosift.com/video/The-Problem-with-Jeggings and http://videosift.com/video/Even-More-Problems-with-Jeggings are not dupes ...

http://videosift.com/poll/What-is-a-dupe

We took a poll. Overwhelmingly the results were that excerpts were not dupes. That a dupe is an exact dupe.

5 seconds of a 5 minute vid is not a dupe.

@dag, can we get an invocation of *notadupe?

The problem with the existing system is that once dupe is called, it is too easy to dupe something that is clearly not a dupe, by our own community determined rules.




>> ^chicchorea:

With all due respect and a goodly portion over that...an excerpt is a dupe.>> ^eric3579:
I'm pretty sure this is not considered a dupe. its a few seconds of a 4min 40sec video.
>> ^chicchorea:
WHA... dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/The-Dentist-Of-Jaipur

>> ^Pantalones:

It's not a dupe. This has a second camera angle that shows the scene of the shooting rather than just the audio.
As a local, this was appalling to watch. Dan Satterberg will need to prosecute W to win back votes from the left. Then again, his next election won't be until 2014. As for Seattle PD, it's wrong to assume all Officers are this reckless, but if there are enough rotten apples, it might make sense to look at the tree.


Good call probe, Not dupe. My fault.

I hear ya. It's kind of like people mistake the Sift for Twitter in those moments. I'm only interested in the Obama speech, and that's it.

Nothing you can do, though. They're not dupes, they're just superfluous. The normal mechanations of the Sift should remove them over time.

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

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.

@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?

It's my understanding videos are not dupes if they show sigificant, different information. This is practically an edited version of the other video. The cameras are not even 10 ft apart. In both, as the ship crests, you can hear the same guy saying (in japanese) "Whoooooooaaaaa!"

That being said, I say let this suck up the votes it can before isduping.

I think they are different enough in context that they are not dupes, although I darn tootin initially thought Dupe. After thinking with my mighty brain I have ruled that action out.

Really?

...*discuss
>> ^spoco2:

No, not at all, there are many, many cases of videos here that are an excerpt from another video and are not considered a dupe. A clip from a comedy show vs the entire comedy show for example. The running time is 2mins diff, they are not dupes.

>> ^chicchorea:

"Yes, this is contained in its entirety in the other video"
Hence...a dupe by definition.>> ^spoco2:

Nope, don't think so. Yes, this is contained in its entirety in the other video, but that has another 2 mins at the end, and also it has all the guff around the screen that this doesn't. I think this is the better sift.



No, not at all, there are many, many cases of videos here that are an excerpt from another video and are not considered a dupe. A clip from a comedy show vs the entire comedy show for example. The running time is 2mins diff, they are not dupes.

http://videosift.com/video/AT-AT-Day-Afternoon was the original but why discarded and not duped?

it sucks to have to spoil this...but its a dupe http://videosift.com/video/Imaginative-Girl-Spins-A-Yarn (not duping right now to not spoil the promote for the moment)

btw: tshirts made by this girl are being sold for a good cause: http://skreened.com/capucine

"Welcome to "Capucine for Edurelief" T-shirt shop ! We have designed t-shirts with Capucine's original drawings and some of her favorite quotes. They are available in French or in English. All the proceeds from the sales go to Edurelief, a non profit organization who helps provide school books in Mongolia. So far, two libraries have opened in two schools, thanks to your support of Capucine's project. She says : "Merci" ! You can learn more about Edurelief here : www.edurelief.org"

Boo hiss, not dupe.