I'm not sure how you intended this .. I saw the mention of "100-gold star sifters who want a pool of worthy videos" but I was digging through old sifts tonight and would love to see this promoted:
http://www.videosift.com/video/Johnny-Cash-Hurt-1
Thanks for considering it. Sorry if I misunderstood what you had in mind.



In reply to this comment by Krupo:
>> ^dag:
^ that's an interesting idea. It makes me think that we could also somehow reward members for "resifting" old gems.


*cough*
http://www.videosift.com/playlists/Krupo/Videotopromote
*cough*

I welcome all suggestions.

>> ^dag:
^ that's an interesting idea. It makes me think that we could also somehow reward members for "resifting" old gems.


*cough*
http://www.videosift.com/playlists/Krupo/Videotopromote
*cough*

I welcome all suggestions.

>> ^fissionchips:
Before I gained promote powers I somehow got the idea into my head that the promote invocation was only allowed for posts six months old or more. Even though that's not the case I now use that as a guideline. I think it serves the sift well.


This used to be true. Wouldn't be a bad idea to bring back that limitation for published vids.

Something we *SHOULD* bring back is the "CLASSICS" tab which was a collection of all promoted vids. Why'd we take that out, anyway?

52 star points a year just for repromoting something older? I don't know about that. Given that it's only Gold-100's and above that can promote anyway, this seems like a way to give the people at the top of the heap an extra hand up. That's especially true if you consider that they probably sifted those older videos in the first place. Maybe if we do this, we should make a rule that you can't repromote an old post if it belongs to you. It seems a bit much that people might be able to pick up a ton of star points and a bunch of votes on their old videos for nothing more than shameless self-promotion.

In reply to this comment by kronosposeidon:
>> ^dag:
^ that's an interesting idea. It makes me think that we could also somehow reward members for "resifting" old gems.

And that gives me another idea: You know how we can fix dead videos any time we want, but can only receive one star a week for doing so, correct? Well how about we do something similar with promoting old videos. Let's say if you * promote an old video, let's say at least 6 months old, then you get a star, but you can only receive one once per week. Is that possible, and would that be a good idea?

>> ^dag:
^ that's an interesting idea. It makes me think that we could also somehow reward members for "resifting" old gems.

And that gives me another idea: You know how we can fix dead videos any time we want, but can only receive one star a week for doing so, correct? Well how about we do something similar with promoting old videos. Let's say if you * promote an old video, let's say at least 6 months old, then you get a star, but you can only receive one once per week. Is that possible, and would that be a good idea?

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

^ that's an interesting idea. It makes me think that we could also somehow reward members for "resifting" old gems.

*dead

resift: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_oaSZxd9jOY

*kill, resifted
http://www.videosift.com/video/Lockpicking-workshop-Your-possessions-are-not-safe

I think we've asked Dag/Lucky in the past about this and the answer was that the searches would then bog down the database, slowing the site.

Discards are fair game for resifting, but you just ran into an unusual case. Besides, sometimes it takes many many tries to get something sifted.

Case in point: http://www.videosift.com/video/Fuck-it-If-Unicorn-planet-made-it-this-can-too
Exact same video was sifted 17 times before it was finally able to keep from being downvoted out (knickers twisted twits).

*kill, resifted

I think it's better to leave the system as it is and let the PQ overtake the discard pile itself eventually.

This is too much monkeying about to save a small percentage of discarded sifts that might be resubmitted when in time all would be covered under the PQ system.

Edit - As for people who manually discard their own posts, I think its a fair risk/reward factor, in that if you let the video expire and get PQed it could be resifted if a duplicate posting is attempted, but you lose that previlage if you manually discard/kill your own post. This stops people from massing videos in PQ.

Those are some very good suggestions Farhad [edit: your comment deserves its own post], however they don't directly address the problems you mentioned. As long as there is open registration and a lack of top-down moderation (two features that are key to the operation of the site), those trends will continue.

I agree that we can come up with a better name for the new tab. "2nd Run"? "resifted"?

http://www.videosift.com/video/2-Elephants-1-Cup
this is a resift....

er.. but the video is gone now. who will resift it?

*kill it to resift it.

I too have had problems with discarded videos. I didn't realize that I cannot trigger the *requeue command when it's in the discarded pool, and have to make an identical submission if I want to resift it without the *save ability.

I just don't like the fact that I can't do anything about discarded videos, because till recently I've been *discard-ing my own videos left and right, thinking that I can resubmit them easily at a later point. But now I find out I cannot do so without asking a gold member. Like this one: http://www.videosift.com/video/Get-that-kid-off-my-ice-you-little-wankers


I say give the ability to *requeue your own discarded posts. And keep the *save powers to gold members, since this way it keeps the previous votes and allows you to save other people's sifts.