Sift up knife fight would settle it ! now IS the time to plan these things.

*quality double promote awesomeness

http://videosift.com/talk/Accute-Dupitis

This poll came from this Sift Talk. You can read each "side's" perspective, if you can slog your way through the whole thing.

There is fartiness mentioned. And some short video commentaries that are eloquent.

Also, in the meantime, we'll be roasting @NetRunner. Master of Ceremonies: @rottenseed. Let the roast begin!!!!!

*CHEERS! APPLAUSE!*

...and don't forget to tip your waitresses and vote for which you think is a dupe.

I wouldn't consider a 10 second clip of a two hour movie a dupe but I would consider a 10 minute part of a 15 minute video a dupe.

>> ^BoneRemake:

Sift up knife fight would settle it ! now IS the time to plan these things.


So far, this should be easy to slaughter the other group.

How about a 7 minute excerpt that shows up at minute mark 8 on a 17 minute long TED vid?

I was recently called as a dupe under these circumstances.

It was a snippet that talked about an experience with door to door Mormon missionaries, within a larger talk/stand up about religion in general.

The dupeof and isdupe is to allow for differences of opinion -- it takes two to agree that a dupe is a dupe.

Unfortunately, there is extreme disagreement about the definition of dupe. That is what this poll is about.

Some feel that any part -- ANY PART -- is duplicated, then they are free to dupe. And there is no going back, or at least, I wouldn't bother dag or lucky or whoever to fix a "wrong" dupe. They already work hard on this site -- the heartbreak of an ill called dupe is really nothing, in the grand scheme of things.

Written rules provide guidelines and avoid kerfuffles. Hence this poll.

Please vote to allow excerpts.




>> ^thegrimsleeper:

I wouldn't consider a 10 second clip of a two hour movie a dupe but I would consider a 10 minute part of a 15 minute video a dupe.

Your mom is a dupe. Lolololol.

I would define the "dupe" as an exact copy of another video.
I'd suppose the likelihood of a exact copy is higher then that of a portion of a video to appear on the sift and thus the "definition of dupe" should handle the more likely thing to happen.

But in addition just posting a part of a video without adding more context or another point of view, though not adding anything, should be called a dupe too.

Maybe we need "excerptof" to tie the 10 second part sift to the whole 2 hour sift.

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

It might be useful to refer to 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.

My unofficial opinion on excerpts is that they are dupes. Of course there are outliers. If we had a 2 hour documentary posted, and someone posted a 1 minute scene - then that doesn't feel very dupey to me. The difficulty is determining what percentage of an excerpt / main post ratio would be acceptable.

>> ^dag:

The difficulty is determining what percentage of an excerpt / main post ratio would be acceptable.

True, but the exact same dilemma results from the last sentence of the guideline quote of yours. There will always be instances where there is no consensus about dupe or no dupe. So I'm just throwing ideas around. How about a way to vote if a video is different enough to not be considered a dupe if there is a disagreement?

It's pretty clear that the appropriate cut-off proportion is 66 per cent. If you disagree with me, you are a dupe.

10%!

3.14285714285%

Boopie-doop dupe

I think *dupe should be identical.
For situation #2 maybe add another meta context like *RelatedTo= or *ExcerptFrom=?

Can't we just use common sense as we have done in the past?

>> ^Hybrid:

Can't we just use common sense as we have done in the past?


I lack common sense.

context is everything.
for example:i just posted doug stanhopes "no refunds" full show but there are a number of clips from that very same show.
i also had a clip i posted from the movie "equilibrium" which zonbie had also posted but mine had an extra 2 mins which gave the clip context to understand what was going on while zonbies did not.
the way i handled it was to contact zonbie directly and see what he thought and gave him the opportunity to reclaim any votes if he felt it was a dupe.
another practice i try to engage in is if i have a clip that may be ..in part..another sifters posted video i link said video.
my feeling is it gives the viewer more content and also gives credit to my fellow poster.

its all about the sharing.......hug?

Part of the dupeof process automatically makes the duplicate embed a backup of the original video. So think about this example. I sifted a vide that was a 12 minute excerpt of another video that was an hour and a half long which was then called as a dupe:

My Sift (12 minutes):
http://videosift.com/video/Neil-deGrasse-Tyson-A-Story-About-Race?noredirect

First Video (Hour and a half):
http://videosift.com/video/A-Conversation-with-Neil-deGrasse-Tyson

I would certainly say that my 12 minute sift does not qualify to be a backup of the hour and a half long video. If it is considered to be a dupe, then we need a mechanism to remove this incorrect backup.
(I'm not upset about losing my sift, I just wanted to provide an example)

I personaly do not think that a small excerpt of a much longer video should be considered a dupe when it has a narrow focus vs. the broad focus of the longer video. Unfortunately this would mean that things are not black and white and would require some common sense and judgement which can be too much to ask...

>> ^Zifnab:

Part of the dupeof process automatically makes the duplicate embed a backup of the original video. So think about this example. I sifted a vide that was a 12 minute excerpt of another video that was an hour and a half long which was then called as a dupe:
My Sift (12 minutes):
http://videosift.com/video/Neil-deGrasse-Tyson-A-Story-About-Race?
noredirect
First Video (Hour and a half):
http://videosift.com/video/A-Conversation-with-Neil-deGrasse-Tyson
I would certainly say that my 12 minute sift does not qualify to be a backup of the hour and a half long video. If it is considered to be a dupe, then we need a mechanism to remove this incorrect backup.
(I'm not upset about losing my sift, I just wanted to provide an example)
I personaly do not think that a small excerpt of a much longer video should be considered a dupe when it has a narrow focus vs. the broad focus of the longer video. Unfortunately this would mean that things are not black and white and would require some common sense and judgement which can be too much to ask...


Great point.

Perhaps we should modify the dupe guideline as follows:

If the entirety of a submitted video's content is contained within an existing submission, it shall not be considered a duplicate if and only if the existing submission is at least 15 minutes long and its total length is at least 300% that of the newer submission.

What this means is if someone posts a 15 minute TED talk, for example, and someone else posts a 5 minute excerpt, it will not be considered a dupe. However if someone posts a 10 minute excerpt, it will be considered a dupe.

This is the only half-good way I can imagine allowing short excerpts of longer videos to be permissible. If we didn't have any restrictions on length, worst case is anyone could submit a video 1 second shorter in length, and typical case is anyone could submit content already contained in much or most of an existing video.

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

That sounds good to me. The only tricky bit will be the calculation. OK, everyone I have a 47 minute video, and a 17 minute excerpt. Acceptable or not? Go! >> ^lucky760:

Perhaps we should modify the dupe guideline as follows:

If the entirety of a submitted video's content is contained within an existing submission, it shall not be considered a duplicate if and only if the existing submission is at least 15 minutes long and its total length is at least 300% that of the newer submission.

What this means is if someone posts a 15 minute TED talk, for example, and someone else posts a 5 minute excerpt, it will not be considered a dupe. However if someone posts a 10 minute excerpt, it will be considered a dupe.
This is the only half-good way I can imagine allowing short excerpts of longer videos to be permissible. If we didn't have any restrictions on length, worst case is anyone could submit a video 1 second shorter in length, and typical case is anyone could submit content already contained in much or most of an existing video.

3 x 17 minutes = 51 minutes minimum to not be a dupe.

51 minutes > 47 minutes, therefore it's a dupe!

(You're allowed to employ a quad-dramatic equation and a log o' rhythm, but you are required to show your work, otherwise it's a dupe.)

Are we squabbling Sifting Peons being mocked by the Sift God Founders? I feel mocked.

In the most loving way, of course @dag and @lucky760. In the most loving way.

The way the common sense goes in my head is something like this:

1) Could I replace the original with this clip and keep the same tags, title etc?
2) Is the meaning in the two clips, the essence, the same or not?

If both are "yes", then it's clearly dupe.

When it's something like two angles of the same event, I remember two clips of a wind mill breaking in a storm, then I think they both add to each other, and they should both stay.

And, if in doubt, both stay.

Working out dupes based on exact times and percentages will be far too tedious.

Why can't dupes simply be based on a bit of common sense and logic? To me a dupe is:

A video (of similar length) to the original that was posted with the intention of highlighting the same issue/joke/clip as the original. You'll get the intention from both the title the person has given the submission, and the bulk of the video's footage.

Thereby, posting an entire TED talk has the intention of showing the entire talk, where as an excerpt might be to highlight a particular argument.

And so at @dag's 17m excerpt of a 47m video, I would look at both and use the criteria above

Can I replace one with the other without losing anything?
Is the essence the same?

It's sort of a borderline one, since they both demand a bit time investment, but it depends on the videos.

Another example: http://videosift.com/search?q=bill+hicks

There are lots of full shows posted. Would a single joke posted for itself be considered a dupe? All the content is already on the sift, but the "essence" is different , I'd say - and you certainly couldn't replace a full show with the embed of a 1 minute joke.

Whether or not a video is a dupe is very subjective. I would like to propose the following solution:

How about if at least 2 people, who are of a certain rank and have been given the power to invoke the almighty * dupeof, view both videos in question, refer to the guidelines regarding dupes, deliberate the content of each video, using their thinking machines in their brain, decide if the accused video is a dupe. If two people decide that the accused video is a dupe then it must be a dupe.

Can we have some sort of system like that?

Oh.... wait....

Worst roast for @NetRunner ever.

Instead of my previous 3x idea, what if we just simplified that part to: the new video must be less than half as long as the existing video.

Or something.

I'll just keep slinging my shitballs at the wall until one of them sticks.

I still like what's written in the current FAQ guidelines (emphasis mine):

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.

It makes sense. It keeps reason in the equation and doesn't keep things so literal. A few extra seconds does not exclude videos from being dupes. A change in soundtrack either, unless it conveys a difference somehow, as in tone or meaning and so on.

And it's also important to add that the video that's killed by a *dupeof invocation will be made into a backup embed for the other video, so they should really be identical duplications (or as near as reasonable) before calling it.

Here Here! I agree with the honourable @blankfist. The current description is fine.

(What I do know is, we'll be having these dupe discussions til the end of time)

We will, @Hybrid. We will.

super insightful logical thought redacted because its just to far advanced for you it would make your skull expand beyond capacity.

It's neither of the two options in the poll.

There isn't a hard and fast rule, but I know it when I see it. An excerpt of a larger video should be declared a dupe of the larger video (regardless of which one came first) unless the excerpt is a particularly salient and focused part of the larger video.

Excerpting
http://videosift.com/video/Richard-Dawkins-What-if-youre-wrong
from
http://videosift.com/video/Richard-Dawkins-responds-to-Jerry-Falwells-students
is okay.

Excerpting a random 20 minute segment out of the latter is not okay. Excerpting a separate video for each audience question is not okay.

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

I think there must be an axiom something like "the more specific a rule, the more imprecise is its application". Along those lines, I'm also ok with keeping things a little bit imprecise.

I also think that the current description is adequate. Duping is, has been, and always will be subjective, and things can, have, and will again go wrong in its application.

The only thing we users can do is to watch both submissions in full. If you're in doubt, don't call a dupe - send it here for *discussion.

I agree with you except that the video that was posted first should always stick no matter what. It can't be expected of the original submitter to look for a longer version of a video he/she posted a year ago, just in case someone will post it. It would be like stealing the original video from the submitter.

>> ^jwray:

It's neither of the two options in the poll.
There isn't a hard and fast rule, but I know it when I see it. An excerpt of a larger video should be declared a dupe of the larger video (regardless of which one came first) unless the excerpt is a particularly salient and focused part of the larger video.
Excerpting
http://videosift.com/video/Richard-Dawkins-What-if-youre-wrong
from
http://videosift.com/video/Richard-Dawkins-responds-to-Jerry-Fal
wells-students
is okay.
Excerpting a random 20 minute segment out of the latter is not okay. Excerpting a separate video for each audience question is not okay.

@blankfist: The answer is RON PAUL

>> ^Fusionaut:

I agree with you except that the video that was posted first should always stick no matter what. It can't be expected of the original submitter to look for a longer version of a video he/she posted a year ago, just in case someone will post it. It would be like stealing the original video from the submitter.
>> ^jwray:
It's neither of the two options in the poll.
There isn't a hard and fast rule, but I know it when I see it. An excerpt of a larger video should be declared a dupe of the larger video (regardless of which one came first) unless the excerpt is a particularly salient and focused part of the larger video.
Excerpting
http://videosift.com/video/Richard-Dawkins-What-if-youre-wrong
from
http://videosift.com/video/Richard-Dawkins-responds-to-Jerry-Fal
wells-students
is okay.
Excerpting a random 20 minute segment out of the latter is not okay. Excerpting a separate video for each audience question is not okay.



The point is creating the best repository of content. It doesn't matter who gets the star points.

Voting for this poll ended with the majority of users voting A dupe is defined by an identical dupe.

Done and done.