You're right about alot of crap being sifted. However, at the same time alot of great videos don't even get 10 votes and are left to rot in people's personal queues. I don't see how raising the queue escape limit will increase the quality of sifts. You can see crap videos getting 50+ votes on a regular basis.

i agree, raising the bar to 12 votes will actually work against those rare gems. basically, it all comes down to one simple question: cat farts - yes or no?

Stop begging, stop self-promoting, stop probies voting.

Also, I think balance could be improved by brief videos staying in the queue one day, and long videos three.

Honestly the best way to start the actual quality control of VS is to start using Downvotes as much as we use Upvotes.

"start using Downvotes as much as we use Upvotes."

or (at a certain rank) you can upvote (and downvote, but that isnt used very often, in comparison) AND give a rating (for example from 5-10 for upvote 0-5 for downvote)

what does a "low-quality" "crap" video look like? isn't that going to vary from person to person?

I'm voting for 12, even though I know more rare gems might slip through the cracks. I think we've seen more than a sufficient rise in membership numbers to warrant the increase. What might be helpful for this post would be a graph (generated by dag or lucky, bien sûr) that shows how the number of members has increased over the past year, that way we can all make an informed decision, because for me it's all about the numbers when it comes to establishing an escape threshold.

For example, if one year ago we had 1000 active members (for the sake of argument I'll say "active" means anyone who has cast a vote at least once per week), and now we have 1200 active members, then the math should indicate that an escape-threshold increase is warranted. However, if that number hasn't changed much in the past year, then let the 10-vote threshold remain.

I don't want to make it harder to sift videos at all. I just want consistency. IMHO, escape threshold should be based on an established votes-per-active-members ratio. Therefore as the number of active members grows, it should follow that the escape threshold should grow too.

The mission to post quality videos is tempered with the desire to make sure nobody gets their feelings hurt. You don't get to be a top sifter around here by being picky about what you post, you do it by throwing everything you can find at the wall and see what sticks. I'm not trying to insult anyone when I say that, it's just how I see the system working.

Lots of people talk about wanting more quality videos, but they still keep voting for anything they see. Changing that is the only thing that's going to make a difference. If you raise the queue limit or fuck with the queue times, people will just complain that it's "too hard" to get things sifted. It's like an elementary school baseball game: nobody is ever out, everybody gets to bat every inning and they don't keep score so there are no losers.

p.s. how come we can only see who voted for what before we vote?

I'm thinking perhaps what we need is to move the front page back to being sorted by "newness" instead of hotness.

I have a bear of a time getting anything sifted unless it gets votes right away, and gets bumped to the front page.

I think timing now plays too big a role in what gets that prime real estate, and that's what's skewing our sifting patterns. Crap that gets 3 votes in the first hour will probably sift. Good vids that go 4+ hours without a vote usually pqueue.

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

^If we moved to "newness" being the default again, we would definitely want to up the escape level to at least 12.

I don't think raising the bar to 12 will solve the subjective underlying problem of lower quality videos being sifted, only lower the amount of videos getting sifted. The taste of videos changes over time with the community getting newer members and losing older ones, and the more members you get the more mainstream youtube/internet videos will be submitted/sifted. That's unfortunate for the members who came here long ago while the paradigm was different, but unless we turn the clock back we won't see the same kind of videos being sifted no matter if we've got 10, 12 or 25 votes to get something sifted.

>> ^campionidelmondo:
You're right about alot of crap being sifted.


Noooo!

This is the equivalent of putting a leaky bucket inside another leaky bucket.

i dont want to be talked to about a potential increase in anything that affects me... im not a socialist pansy. just lie and say it was always 12 so i don't have to think about it.

make it 15, and make it retroactive!

youre absolutely right, you people do post alot of crap on here. im gonna go downvote all your pq's now.. oh and all your sifted videos that only have 10, im going to downvote them too, send them back to the queue and downvote them again.

the current system sifts out the bottom 50% of internet videos really well (shitty technical quality, totally boring, youtube flotsam, snuff, these things die in the queue)

The other 50% is just kinda thrown up in the air to see who salutes.

The number of videos on here has increased dramatically, and the popular stuff has been subsidised even more, creating a feedback loop that hides the more obscure stuff that less people like (but they like it A LOT). Videosift is set up as a popularity contest so the "bias" here is "towards popular". That's what you get when you try to be egalitarian, you suppress the obscure.

The top 15 is indeed useful but skewed towards "things that a lot of different people agree is upvotey". This predictably leads to a lot of comedy, cats and CCTV. It's useful as a "Channel One" for the internet, but you don't always want to watch channel one.

Also: titles, tags and categories are screwed so you can't rely on search.

Anyway in answer to the poll, i don't think 10 or 12 would make any difference. The site is set up so that "most things sift" and unfortunately that means that "gems are missed". But the vote threshold is not the thing to fuck with, unless you are going to index it to the number of voting members, and i think if you did that we would have to increase it to 30.

The only change I would find useful in the queue would be some kind of algorithm that removes the time zone bias.

The underlying problem is that people sift stuff for popularity, rather than from their love of sharing video. The incentive system here is not conducive to "good" sifting. We've all posted crap we wouldn't normally post but we know it's going to get upvotes, and we've all suppressed good stuff that isn't worth sifting because it's so obscure, or been disheartened when something super interesting is buried under a pile of lolcats. Do people really love lolcats this much? or is it partly because we made a biased reward scheme specifically for short videos that make you smile?

Its hard enough for me to sift my crap as it is.

I don't think that raising the escape threshold is a good enough solution.

While there are many, many videos between 10-12 (http://www.videosift.com/search?q=&t=v&u=&s[]=s&o=hivotes&vmin=10&vmax=12&sh=&l=&n=&b=&submit=Search) it would still not touch the underlying problem, which is that quality is overlooked and quick-fixes are rewarded.

I think we need to devise a different way to measure quality that includes other parameters (although, it's a shame that we'd have to sacrifice transparency).

For instance, number of unique views could be a factor, number of promotes, number of begs, number of comments and so on. There is also a grave issue with time zone preference, which is a shame. What we could do, is to make videos only submittable in peak hours, so that a queue outside the queue was created and in peak hours the video was thrown on to the queue, or something like that, I'm just brainstorming (or brain-whisking in my case).

>> ^MINK:
The underlying problem is that people sift stuff for popularity, rather than from their love of sharing video. The incentive system here is not conducive to "good" sifting. We've all posted crap we wouldn't normally post but we know it's going to get upvotes, and we've all suppressed good stuff that isn't worth sifting because it's so obscure, or been disheartened when something super interesting is buried under a pile of lolcats. Do people really love lolcats this much? or is it partly because we made a biased reward scheme specifically for short videos that make you smile?


What incentive system would work better? I'm struggling to think of one that doesn't have inherent flaws.

I enjoy seeing the best videos in catsanddogs to take a populist channel but inevitably we accept they are going to crowd out obscure music videos for example. At this point it depends on your tastes as to whether that is a problem or not. Some would say you're getting the best of all kinds of video content and Videosift is just doing fine.

But if the site is too populist it must come down to the channels that are allowed. Those are the primary filters and encourage certain kind of content. If Videosift actively discouraged submissions of cats and people face-planting then I'm sure the place would look alot different. That not being the case you can start to use your downvote as Farhad says but this feels like playing whack-a-mole.

My only suggestion is that there could be a place (something better than Beggar's Canyon) that bridges the gap between the obscurity of personal queues and the promotion of videos back to the unsifted listing. How about a Recommended Gems page where channel owners can put stuff on a weekly basis? I don't know how such content would be organised exactly but it should be trivial to switch between channels and perhaps it would be less confusing if the page *didn't* load up the channel subdomain.

Farhad2000, I only down voted you're comment as a joke because you were trying to encourage downoting I actually agree with you. I only started sifting videos so I could be able to downvote videos and comments, but I've rarely downvoted anything since I've gotten my bronze star. People take downvotes way too personal. I've been insulted just because I didn't like someone's video before.

Also this being a social site and all, some people seem to get guaranteed votes from their "buddies", so their videos actually start out with 3-5 votes instead of 1. I think that's an inevitable consequence of a close-knit community like this.

^I have a few buddies here but I'm proud to say they don't auto-upvote my stuff and I wouldn't want them to. Honestly

>> ^dag:
^If we moved to "newness" being the default again, we would definitely want to up the escape level to at least 12.


I'd be willing to make that trade, though I don't think upping the queue escape number is what's needed, so much as getting more people to actually look in the unsifted tab.

I don't think it's a big stretch to say that lots of visitors to the site only look at the front page or the top 15. It used to be that every published video got its 15 minutes of fame that way, and I personally noted that anything I posted that got sifted, usually wound up with 20+ votes.

Now that exposure is fairly randomly distributed. mintbbb and I notice that if we upvote each other's videos as soon as they're posted, they're almost guaranteed to sift. On the flip side, if I post something that I'd normally expect to have no trouble sifting in the morning or late at night, it's almost certain to pqueue, unless someone overseas votes for it in the first few hours it's out there.

I don't think having hotness has improved our general level of quality, I think it's just made our Top 15-bound videos rise faster and top out higher, and given us a lot of random noise below that level.

Just my own view, maybe other people see it differently. I am something of a niche sifter.

>> ^Deano:
What incentive system would work better? I'm struggling to think of one that doesn't have inherent flaws.


yes. the idea of having upvoting, rankings and powerpoints is flawed.

also the system now is so complicated and intricate it's counterproductive.

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

I always thought that the channel system was the solution for when you don't want to watch "channel 1" type videos.
http://obscure.videosift.com/

I am obviously one of those who are just pushing as much 'crap' through as I can. I do not think of it as crap myself... I see a funny, or featured video on LiveLeak, and if I find it funny or interesting, yes, I will try to sift it. Obviously lots of people agree that the crap I am sifting is funny.

And there are lots of WAY more crappy videos that sifter and got more votes I do try to sift both my old favorite music videos, and some more serious stuff that concerns me and touches my heart.

Funny stuff sifts easier (though Net is right.. you get votes right away and to the front page, and it will sift pretty quickly. Lots of good stuff just gets lost in the insifted queue), serious videos might take longer, more begging.. ot doesn't mean that they are worse.

I don't want to raise the limit to 12. Then I'd be sifting pure 'crap' and nothing serious.. If there has to be a change, maybe base sifting ratios based on channel popularity.. you want to sift a 'wtf' video, you need 20 upvotes.. 'documentary', just 10 votes..

And NO, I don't want to have sift work like that. Just give crap to the masses that like crap, or downvote if it really bothers you..

I agree with Farhad that downvoting is the best solution. I need to get harsh and use my "wag of the finger" much more often. Maybe I should create a poll asking how often people use their downvotes?

I'm rolling with a vote for 10, look at Kulpim's (I believe) amazing "Pqueued with 9 votes" playlist for all the explanation you need.

>> ^dag:
I always thought that the channel system was the solution for when you don't want to watch "channel 1" type videos.
http://obscure.videosift.com/


The issue of how you get good (but obscure/long/interesting) videos sifted into those kinds of channels still remains. I'm against upping the limit as it won't help obscure videos and it won't keep out all the so-called rubbish. And I doubt people will start downvoting routinely as it seems contrary to the site culture.

>> ^dag:
I always thought that the channel system was the solution for when you don't want to watch "channel 1" type videos.
http://obscure.videosift.com/


The channels are not advertised as well as they could be so their singular use is fairly rare. Before they all had their own sticker/logo that you click and actually experience them as separated 'collectives' apart from the main sift. That isn't there anymore.

A rotating button system of channels would have been great, You have say an Obscure logo on the right and "Explore rare eclectic music!" or Stand Up "Great Stand Up comedy from around" the sift. That would create more localized viewership.

You know what am saying.

Hey, personally, if ultimately all this does is get folks to downvote 20% more, I will be more than content. On my part, I will be continuing promoting unsifted gems as much as I can.

dag (and lucky) you think if you have "options" available that answer all criticism, then your system must be good. but that's not the way design works.

don't like top 15? we have channels!
don't like a comment? we have downvotes!
don't like a member? we have ignore button!
can't get sifted? we have beggars' canyon!
newness not the best way to filter? we have hotness!
you liked collectives? we have group playlists!
don't know what the sift thinks? we have polls!
can't make any money? we accept donations!

this has gone on for ages, answering people's criticisms by tacking on another "feature" and saying "problem solved". but the point is it doesn't work as a whole.

Since quality is inherently subjective, what you want is a system in which each user quickly sees more of what they think is quality. Viewing the Unsifted tab for each channel of interest individually would be a nightmare. Why not let users opt-in to channels, instead of filtering out.

The problem with filtering out is that too much is lost (or not enough is filtered). For instance, I might not be particularly interested in everything *-news, but I don't want to miss out on news stories about the *-brain. Similarly, I might not care to sift through all the *-politics vids, but I do like to see the ones that are *-drugs related.

The reason I think this would work better is because of the nature of channel specificity. Filtering out niche channels doesn't do very much, and filtering out the more generic ones hides too much. On the other hand, opting-in to niche channels shows me exactly what I want, and opting-in to generic channels will only include a handful of videos in niches I don't care about.

^that's interesting. i agree that it's pointless expecting the sift to provide you with a personally tailored service, and we need to focus more on good search, related clips and ways to find stuff we personally like (rather than flawed voting mechanisms to push our own definition of "good" stuff into the mainstream)

i would be more interested in opting in to certain users on a favourites list, it seems to me that users are more consistent than channels. i don't really want to see shitloads of latenight comedy, but i can't just filter it out because i really enjoy a couple of those clips. i wouldn't be surprised if they were the ones submitted by the same (imo) "quality" sifters.

if i had a stream of favourite members i would probably see more of their clips, and upvote more clips early, and the queue problem would be fixed a bit (if you are good enough to get followers, that is). Posters would be encouraged to be more consistent and keep their queues high quality, in order to attract more followers.

anyway channels are a very crude filter, there's shitloads of crap in "comedy" for example, no solution to that. i mean technically it's all "comedy" but whether or not it's "funny" is a completely different question to which we all have a different answer.

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

How would this work? I'm guessing you would need to be opted in to a "core" set of channels, and then you could add more that you wanted.

DON'T TOUCH THE FLOODGATES. it'll do absolutely fuck all to stem the flow of sewage that splashes all over the front page.

the only thing you can do to improve the quality of the videos you watch/upvote is to look harder and stop being so monumentally lazy. there is shitloads of quality on the sift and it's there to be seen and applauded - the problem is that everyone wants it all on a single plate and can't be bothered to lift their fat little index fingers some more and click a few extra links. the idea that raising the escape limit could enhance the quality of published videos absolutely baffles me.

dig a bit deeper around here, stop upvoting videos of cats wanking just because a friend submitted them and who knows - maybe the top 15 will change for the better.

>> ^JAPR:
I'm rolling with a vote for 10, look at Kulpim's (I believe) amazing "Pqueued with 9 votes" playlist for all the explanation you need.


It's me, but kulpims does good work.
Here's the 9-list.
http://www.videosift.com/playlists/Krupo/PQUEUED-with-9-Votes

Also, this is a fun list by Eklek:
http://www.videosift.com/playlists/Eklek/PUBLISHED-with-9-Votes

As the Chronicler of the Sift, I award a *quality to EDD for the nice write-up of the Siftory in the post. I encourage use of downvotes as a soft raise on queue limits - but also encourage entering a reason if you're doing it a LOT (as opposed to a... let's look at 3 vids, downvote one of the three because it's not good, etc.).

>> ^deputydog:

dig a bit deeper around here, stop upvoting videos of cats wanking just because a friend submitted them and who knows - maybe the top 15 will change for the better.


unfortunately that's like putting a sign on a broken door saying "please close the door" instead of fixing the door.

@dag all i am really proposing is you have a "follow" button on people's profiles, and a "mysift" tab in the menu or filter in the queue/sifted pages that shows only sifts from those members you are following. then you could probably cut out a lot of the other high serverload dynamic stuff in the sidebar that currently tries to attract people to user profiles and playlists every time a page loads. just an idea. because users are a more predictable guide to "quality" than channels.

>> ^MINK:
>> ^deputydog:
dig a bit deeper around here, stop upvoting videos of cats wanking just because a friend submitted them and who knows - maybe the top 15 will change for the better.

unfortunately that's like putting a sign on a broken door saying "please close the door" instead of fixing the door.


i disagree. i'd say it was more like putting a sign on a functional door that says, 'please come in, have a look around and stop gathering on the doorstep complaining that the door itself is broken'.

I don't think raising the escape limit is the right decision, there's so much that doesn't get seen already - if it was to be raised, I think it should be done dynamically (maybe as a fractional percent of the total number of votes cast in the past 48 hours, calculated in 24 hour increments?).

The trick of the system is always going to be determining the average number of "good" sifts vs the number of "bad" sifts and creating a cutoff that eliminates as many of the bad sifts as possible while not effecting the good sifts.

The main problem inherent in the system (even with a predetermined escape limit) is that there will always be videos that fall outside of the average (both good and bad).

I think the best solution (as others have mentioned) is to use those downvotes - they exist for a reason.

MINK - I agree about the granularity and choice of channels, but it's the best we've got. Following particular users has a number of drawbacks. It will only reinforce the cliquey aspect already going on, it will make it that much harder for new members, and you're still bound to miss a lot of great stuff (particularly from less active users).

>> ^dag:
How would this [opting-in] work? I'm guessing you would need to be opted in to a "core" set of channels, and then you could add more that you wanted.

no, no, no - that would ruin the whole idea by always having to include the more generic channels. New users are subscribed to everything initially, and they can remove any channels as they wish. For existing users, just invert their current filter selections. It's a big enough change that you'll probably want to advertise it prominently for a while, so that users know to take advantage of it.

If anything we should get rid of some of the most generic channels. Comedy, Cute and Music are probably the first to go, because they are essentially covered with more specific channels. I'd also like to see Politics axed (or at least replaced with Domestic Policy) but as of now, there probably aren't enough specific channels to cover it.

>> ^MINK:
>> ^deputydog:
dig a bit deeper around here, stop upvoting videos of cats wanking just because a friend submitted them and who knows - maybe the top 15 will change for the better.

unfortunately that's like putting a sign on a broken door saying "please close the door" instead of fixing the door.
@dag all i am really proposing is you have a "follow" button on people's profiles, and a "mysift" tab in the menu or filter in the queue/sifted pages that shows only sifts from those members you are following. then you could probably cut out a lot of the other high serverload dynamic stuff in the sidebar that currently tries to attract people to user profiles and playlists every time a page loads. just an idea. because users are a more predictable guide to "quality" than channels.


This suggestion might annoy you but you can follow people using the RSS feed on their profile.
Having said that I think it's an interesting idea to link users together and group content that you probably will want to see.

^yes i know i could set this up in RSS for myself, but that's just for me, that wouldn't have community-wide benefits. and many people including myself can't be arsed with RSS.

as for the "cliquey" thing... so what? you have to break the site down somehow, it's too big. doing it with channels doesn't work.

I think only anonymous downvotes would encourage people to downvote, otherwise people will be scared that they will get downvotes too, or miss upvotes.
Problem with this is that it would make abuse of downvotes much harder to detect.

The problem isn't the queue... it's the stupid personal queue and all the requests to "upvote my pqueue".. not even so much beggars corner, but sort of. You should have to requeue with ZERO votes again and again if you have a fail video no one likes.

Instead eventually your stupid video makes it. That's why choggie necro posts all keep making it to front page.

dumb poll.

Voting for this poll ended with the majority of users voting Leave the queue escape limit as it is at 10.