You can still count me in, although I don't say much these days I'm still around, and man are there a bunch of new members.

Pink sky tonight, Sailor's delite - Does that still count in the desert?

>> ^xxovercastxx:
I have a more radical suggestion: Increase the value of the vote. Think of votes as currency. We're suffering from inflation here. We've got an unlimited supply of votes to spend on anything and everything. From the voters' perspective, there's little to no reason not to vote something up.
Cap the total number of votes each sifter has per day. Suddenly those votes have value and voters will want to use them more selectively. I suspect that under such a system, downvote would be obsolete.
I realize this would be a radical change to the way the Sift works, but think about it. How radical the change is could be controlled by how many votes-per-day are allowed. Something ridiculously low, like 5, would cause people to be really stingy with those votes and would be a drastic change. Something ridiculously high, like 500, would have little to no impact at all.


I've been thinking something along the lines of this too, though mostly in a sarcastic, tongue-in-cheek way.

What we need is false scarcity! Let's make it so "votes" work like money. Posting a video is free, and each vote your video receives goes into your "bank". You can vote for a video as many times as you like, each one subtracted from your bank, but you can't vote for your own videos.

You can downvote videos, but it'd still count as an "upvote" in the recipient's bank, it'd just lower the vote count for "quality" purposes. You can downvote as many times as you like, though it may ultimately be counterproductive.

There is no such thing as pqueues, promotes, begs (they're socialist anyways) and the front page is Top Sifts, not Hot/New.

That way free market principles will surely allow choice to bring us the highest quality videos possible.

Then we just change the site to "LibertarianSift", and siftbot's name to randroid, and we're good to go.

Getting back to seriousness though, I do think we should look into increasing vote count and queue time both, and shifting the default front page to newness instead of hotness. I think the hot = frontpage is exacerbating some of the problems people are complaining about (i.e. too much sensational, not enough sublime).

Its always an honor to get a video on the top 15... I never expected though for this many votes on this on this topic of OMGWTF moments in video games...

From the comments left down, I though I should answer a few... Handsome Tom did leave screw attack from what I can tell, and as I said before, the moments do seem to be out of order, or at least the #1... I'm sorry I forgot to say spoilers, thats a my bad... and I admit that the idea of Silent hill 2 could have been on the list, but one of Bioshock's moments could have been on the list...

!!Spoilers!!

I believe these were the three WTF moments, from Bioshock
1) You find out that you were being controlled the whole time... Would you kindly...
2) Andrew Ryan isn't the mastermind behind all of this...
3) Big Daddy... Pick any scene and it still counts...

But don't take my word for it... Would You Kindly go buy bioshock and try it yourself?

^I groaned, yet I also laughed. Not a LOL laugh, but a LQTM laugh. It still counts.

It's also a *British *parody of *humanitarian *cinema, I say.

Seriously, the entire episode was. Good times.

HA HA - "it still counts"

He should have 33 star points, 32 sifted videos, 1 comment applauded, unless dead videos still count as sifted, which i've not checked to see if you have any.

EDIT: Yep 32 confirmed sifted and working videos. Have you done anything lately to make sifty mad? Maybe suggested it should go back to flour and confectioner's sugar because its kind has no place on the internet?

>> ^kronosposeidon:
You can stop wondering. You have lost your mind.

Ok, that may be so, but I can still count.

this was my first impression, that i jotted down earlier, on spoco's Damien Rice sift:

it'll be an adjustment. but i think the P-Q really helps, don't you?
so long as no one takes advantage of it. by purposely not voting someone else's sift up, letting theirs go from the Q to P-Q, then sifting their own.
but, honestly? i don't see anyone here, being that overtly predatory.
and any attempt to do that, would be fairly transparent anyway.

i'm here to stay, regardless of what you set Q-times, etc, to be.

[edit - apparently, lucky made the P-Q still count, as Q'ed anyway. so my scenario above, isn't a problem.]

I think a negative vote still counts as a vote received so 2 negative votes will decrease your published tally by 2 but increase your votes received by 2 making the difference 4.

If the original has been discarded, does this still count as a dupe?

Oh, I was hoping to see a certain song. This is okay too though.

And although it's a PSA, it still counts as a *viral clip.

I heard Pluto was not a planet but I thought Uranus still counted.

No, it still counts as a published post, but you need a published video to get rid of the P. So essentially, someone could have 250 SiftTalks and not be diamond member.

downvotes still count towards your overall ranking... at least I think so, am I right?