The slap can be found here, not dupe though.

thats because your tags did not include the words Laminar, the other persons does, if you did, then magic wou ld of happend and siftbot could of done its job.

ALTHOUGH, the videos are not dupes, I was just showing that there is one on here, your seems to have an actual explanation.

In reply to this comment by Ti_Moth:
>> ^BoneRemake:

http://videosift.com/video/Laminar-Flow-Demonstration


Oops, sorry everyone didn't realise there was another laminar flow video, it didn't show up on the related videos when I posted it.

While these two are not dupes of each other either way, just a way to see it for us mortals is to mouseover the posted time, that will output the exact minute it posted ie.:

http://videosift.com/video/A-beatboxing-dog-There-is-no-more-to-say - May 6th, 2010 8:19am PDT
http://videosift.com/video/A-dubstep-dog-There-is-a-little-more-to-say - May 6th, 2010 6:54pm PDT

Beatboxing dog is older.

Ha, Ha... Never Mind - If only I'd watched them both first!
One is a Re-dub of the other - Not Dupes!

>> ^ctrlaltbleach:

Not dupe if you check out the other video it is a different video of the duo doing the same routine.
>> ^ant:
>> ^berticus:
http://videosift.com/video/Abbott-and-Costellos-Whos-on-First-Routine



dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/Abbott-and-Costellos-Whos-on-First-Routine



Good call.

Not dupe if you check out the other video it is a different video of the duo doing the same routine.
>> ^ant:

>> ^berticus:
http://videosift.com/video/Abbott-and-Costellos-Whos-on-First-Routine


dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/Abbott-and-Costellos-Whos-on-First-Routine

The reason why I submitted the longer clip was that I saw jabba the Hutt and scenes from the return of the Jedi in the longer clip. The shorter clip has just astronauts. The long video has stuff from the movie - that's why I have the 'Leia approves' in the title



>> ^Hybrid:

Hmm. I see your point, and it was my bad in not noticing that the times were different. I can never remember what the best call is for potential dupes like this - where the time differs, but the intention/message of the clip remains the same. What do others think? Perhaps it needs a discussion? In the meantime, I'll call notdupe
<div><div style="margin: 10px; overflow: auto; width: 80%; float: left; position: relative;" class="convoPiece"> mintbbb said:<img style="margin: 4px 10px 10px; float: left; width: 40px;" src="http://static1.videosift.com/avatars/m/mintbbb-s.jpg" onerror="ph(this)"><div style="position: absolute; margin-left: 52px; padding-top: 1px; font-size: 10px;" class="commentarrow">◄</div><div style="padding: 8px; margin-left: 60px; margin-top: 2px; min-height: 30px;" class="nestedComment box"> If you want to call this a dupe, is OK. However, this is the whole song, and the other is a 1 minute 39 second clip. So technicall tyey are not dupes (I didn't notice the other submission when I submitted mine).
</div></div></div>
<div><div style="margin: 10px; overflow: auto; width: 80%; float: right; position: relative;" class="convoPiece"> Hybrid said:<img style="margin: 4px 10px 10px; float: right; width: 40px;" src="http://static1.videosift.com/avatars/h/Hybrid-s.jpg" onerror="ph(this)"><div style="position: absolute; margin-top: 1px; right: 52px; font-size: 10px;" class="commentarrow">►</div><div style="padding: 8px; margin-right: 60px; margin-top: 2px; min-height: 30px;" class="nestedComment box"> dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/Kicking-Ass-on-the-Keyboard
</div></div></div>

Hmm. I see your point, and it was my bad in not noticing that the times were different. I can never remember what the best call is for potential dupes like this - where the time differs, but the intention/message of the clip remains the same. What do others think? Perhaps it needs a discussion? In the meantime, I'll call *notdupe >> ^mintbbb:

>> ^Hybrid:
dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/Kicking-Ass-on-the-Keyboard

If you want to call this a dupe, is OK. However, this is the whole song, and the other is a 1 minute 39 second clip. So technicall tyey are not dupes (I didn't notice the other submission when I submitted mine).

>> ^Hybrid:

dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/Kicking-Ass-on-the-Keyboard


If you want to call this a dupe, is OK. However, this is the whole song, and the other is a 1 minute 39 second clip. So technicall tyey are not dupes (I didn't notice the other submission when I submitted mine).

If it was just the last part with him singing, I'd be inclined to say not a dupe, since the intent of the two would be different (ie. I'm not gonna sit through 10 mins of blah blah, to see this one joke) but half of the video is not this joke/rap.

If you'd make the video start at the 1 minute mark and call it a brief, I'd say not dupe. (Or not dupe enough)

>> ^lavoll:
not dupe, sequel


Unfortunately it's the EXACT same video, sequel or no.

not dupe, sequel

Sigh. You can't be serious. Let me repeat this for you.

1) We both post vids and use the same title.
2) Mine erroneously is declared a Dupe, because SlipperyPete either did not watch both videos or did not care.
3) Longde replaces his embed with mine after people complain that they cant watch the video.

It is true NOW they are dupes, but that was not my doing and they were not dupes when you declared them a dupe. Longde replaced his embed.


Why cant you admit that you declared it a dupe without watching both videos? There is nothing to be ashamed of.

>> ^SlipperyPete:
It gets exposure, it gathers votes, and from what I've seen when a dupe is called the original doesn't get any kind of 'hotness' bump, so by invoking dupeof you're effectively removing a vid from the table entirely.


Hence the ability to promote. If you call dupeof on a video, nothing stops you from then promoting the original to get it more votes. Unless they are out of power points I suppose. I will do both, either put a link if the duper has the ability to dupe it himself. If then after a couple days it's still not duped, I'll invoke myself. If the duper cannot invoke, I will do it immediately most of the time.

Yeah I know, but it doesn't matter, since I don't have the necessary privelege for it to actually be invoked even if I did type it * dupeof...

In reply to this comment by demon_ix:
Almost, HaricotVert. It's dupeof=, not dupe of

*dupeof=http://www.videosift.com/video/Why-hasnt-Richard-Dawkins-converted-more-Atheists