*dupeof=http://www.videosift.com/video/TDS-Jon-Stewart-And-Lou-Dobbs-Extended-Interview

The other two are not dupes as it is now, since dix's post is only the first part. If dix's post had contained the whole thing, either in a playlist or in one continuous video, all three of these would have been dupes.

It's '*dupeof=', not '*dupe of'

In reply to this comment by HaricotVert:
dupe of http://www.videosift.com/video/Why-hasnt-Richard-Dawkins-converted-more-Atheists

Almost, HaricotVert. It's dupeof=, not dupe of

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

Essentially the same as http://www.videosift.com/video/Elmer-Fudd-finally-gets-his-revenge-on-Bugs-Bunny except this has the intro and much higher quality, so I'm not dupe-killing this one.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'volumptuous, not dupe, glenn beck, scott levinson, acorn, mic, off' to 'glenn beck, scott levinson, acorn, mic, off' - edited by volumptuous

Different camera angle, better quality, more concise... I say not-dupe.

Meh, close call. I would probably say not dupe. This is, however, much closer to dupe than others I've seen dupeoffed before.

The fact that the other account is not used and that we cannot replace that embed with this one also speaks in your favor.

These are not Dupes at all, Yes, a seal gets thrown in both of them but they aren't the same. One has two other whales in the background, the other has none. Two completely different shots. Completely different.

And what's with those Panda people bashing Whales, that just makes no sense. Save the whales, save the pandas, save some change so I cam buy some M&Ms

I think both of those have horrible music latched on to them, which detract significantly from the viewing experience. Thus, not dupe. But yes, "other is long" don't apply.

>> ^gwiz665:
C is obviously a poor solution, because of the obvious unfairness factor ("what about MY video??").

But this is the only non-destructive option which restores any data and allows for potential future fixes. It's the only one that makes sense to me (as far as the given options go).


A will restore the main function of the sift, by sorting / sifting the videos again, but creates a double-vote effect where someone has voted twice (before /after 3/11).

This is by far the most potentially destructive, because it specifically allows voting twice on vids. This goes both ways too - downvotes as well as upvotes. Do you really want people having the option of downvoting your barely sifted vids again? Do you want top 15 vids getting even that much more attention when their vote counts are already skewed?


B will lose the original sortings, but not dupe-votes.

I think it loses more than just the original sorting, but it is probably the "safest" path.

Burd, try to read his posts again.

What's happening is:

the votes cast after 3/11 stays

a) the votes before 3/11 will be restored, but only the total counts. Individual voter names will not be restored, dummies will be used.

b) vote counts are not restored. It stays like it is now.

c) lucky/dag manually restores some votes, complete with names.


C is obviously a poor solution, because of the obvious unfairness factor ("what about MY video??").
A will restore the main function of the sift, by sorting / sifting the videos again, but creates a double-vote effect where someone has voted twice (before /after 3/11).
B will lose the original sortings, but not dupe-votes.

I'm guessing you are already getting this, and you don't follow why A isn't just done, is that correct? If it is, then there are downsides to A too, so I, for one, think it is a good idea to ask the community, which solution is the one we should use.

A is by far the best, in my opinion though.

http://www.videosift.com/video/Roadsign-In-Texas-Warns-Drivers-Of-Zombies-Ahead

Not Dupe - This is a smaller clip

I think this is hilarious, you know someone was driving home, saw that and shouted "I knew it! I Knew It! Now Who's Crazy?!"

Not dupe. It's not just Bobby McFerrin; this one has sound effects as well, which contribute greatly to the video. I think it's valuable to have both versions on here, since it shows the process such a *shortfilm can go before coming to the big screen. If you want good sound you can watch this one, and if you want animated boobs you can see the other one. Everybody wins.

*return

not dupe... this is a concert of it: http://www.videosift.com/video/Rick-James-Super-Freak

I agree that the music adds to this. It is synced to the video. I say not dupe.

On another note, don't give LSD to cats. It acts as a neurotoxin to them. They die.