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

My opinion is concerned not with channels that are too narrow in scope, but channels that are too wide. In retropspect channels like "music" or "comedy" were probably a bit too grand - they are "super channels" that cover huge chunks of the Sift.

We're trying to thread a happy medium between having lots of interesting channels to explore - and just having a "channel" that means nothing and is realy a tag- which is the path that a site like Reddit has chosen.

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

*promote

Only published, queued, or discarded videos, published Sift Talk posts, and published blog posts may be promoted - ignoring promote request by dag.

I dont know if its a matter of letting the community decide, or having the powers that be decide. Its more a case of having a set guideline as to what should constitute a channel. In the other thread, Krono mentioned how the line between tags/channels/playlists has been blurred over time, and I think this is a result of that. If that is the case, then why have any of it? Each thing has its own purpose and should serve a certain function.

Tags: Used to make youre video visible to certain keyword searches.
Channels: Displays videos of a certain broad themes governed by a standard which is moderator controlled to preserve quality.
Playlists: Personal, user customizable lists of videos of your choice.

The Wilhelm Scream is nothing but an obscure movie reference about a reused, signature scream. What purpose does it serve for it to have its own channel? It fits quite well in the Obscure or Movie channels. Does the traffic to those videos warrant its own channel? Sure it may just be a spot out there on the internet, in its own little corner not harming anything, but then where do you draw the line? How about an Astronomy channel in addition to Spacy, or Physics in addition to the Science channel. Christian and Jewish channels in addition to Religion? I post a lot of things from the Sixty Symbols series, why dont I have a channel for that? Do you see my point? If you let the number of channels get out of control with subtopic channels that are covered in a broader "parent" channel, then you'll just have a giant mess of channels that frankly aren't really needed, and annoying to go through when choosing channels when submitting a video.

A site like this needs standardized topic channels. If someone wants to make a list for a more specific single topic, thats what playlists are for.

The bottom line for me is that I don't really mind too much but it is possible to push things too far so that you undermine the status/meaning of channels in the first place.

On the other hand I agree that being too broad is a problem as well.

However being able to create a channel should be more than just a feather in one's cap. To up the value of a channel in the first place we need to add more channel specific features and cool stuff. Then the debate about how channels are created becomes more meaningful as it's far more than a playlist or clicking on a tag.

BTW if the community decides, perhaps two other sifters should second the channel nomination before it's put forward to everyone else.

Do both!

I'm just going to sit on the fence.


That being said, I'd love to start *improv, once (if?) (....ever??) I get to 250. That or maybe *exercise.

Ok, back to mining for some vids.....chink....clang...(crumble)....

I'm on the fence too.

Like I said in the other thread

"We are growing too many channels, the way it works now. By having super-narrow channels on the same level as much broader channels (like music) we are hurting everyone trying to use the channels.

I like the idea of a narrow channel like *Wilhelm but it will be used in less than 1 % of the videos, which means that for most users it will merely fill the list of channels when submitting, making it even harder to choose the right channels for your video.

Some sort of tiered approach might be usable, at least where some channels are clearly subsets of another channel, so we could at least clear up the design/look/presentation of the channels. That way we could probably make even more channels if we wanted without running out of space in the submitting."

On the specific question raised in the poll, I think the buck should stop at the admins, but based on guidelines that we agree on together. In general I'd like to think that we can discuss it if there are issues.

Oh. God. No.

This is way too granular for community involvement, in my opinion. If the issue is the number of channels or how they're organized, then that's a valid critique of where this site could use an adjustment in its user experience. But voting on people's channels? That sounds like another popularity contest. Allow me to illustrate my point...

When there's a political argument unfolding in the world (or specifically in the US), some people may want to use a channel to embolden their position. It's no secret the majority of votes on here go toward pro-USA-Democrat messages, so I can see voting on channels being something that tips the site more in that direction which can be a huge turn off to some. Especially those not living in the US.

An example would be the health channel. It's not that we didn't need the health channel, it's that it was prominently and favorably argued for during the whole health care reform debates. It's topical. It's not that topical channels should be off the table, but voting on them would open up the arena to the majority picking all channel assignments, and thus possibly closing out uniqueness to channels or worse ostracizing those not interested in majority US opinions. A user with a ruby who wants to open a channel could easily be brow beaten to open one they have little interest in.

Let's keep channel assignments an intimate thing where the individual chooses, not the group. They'd still have to clear it with dag and lucky to ensure it's a valuable addition. And who doesn't like being surprised when a new user's channel is announced?! It's like a personalized extension of them that they're sharing with all of us, and that's a wonderful thing that would be destroyed with voting.

I'm gonna have to agree with bf. I'd rather not have every channel suggestion voted on, if it is fairly obvious that it could be made without a hitch. It's a personality thing too, augmenting the persona that exists on videosift. That surprise and revelation disappears if we vote on them all. And some channels that would be fantastic, might be voted down because of biased opinion.

I fear the will of the crowd, because the crowd is often an idiot.

@blankfist -- STATIST!

I think #willhelm is pretty funny, but I don't think it'll be funny for months or years on end and I don't see much other point to it.

All I know is that if I decide on a channel, It's because I have an interest in maintaining it and having some fun. I don't think anyone else should be given a chance to shoot me down. As a Ruby level, I have been around long enough to have an educated idea of what I want and I don't need to pass it by a committee.

That being said, I think Dag should have Veto rights to an extent -- it's his site. But If a person felt very strongly about their choice and was still denied (by Dag), I think a public forum situation could be called for to protest the case (and sway him) - pro or con. (and in the end it would still be Dag's choice)

Cheers!

Picking your own channel is one of the perks for being a long time, involved member of the site. This is a personal choice that the community should have no say in. If you don't like a channel, you may avoid it or ignore it.

^what blankfist and dft said, yo

Yeah, except, haven't other people's choices been shot down in the past? I ask earnestly, not rhetorically, as I can't remember if this has actually happened or not. I mean, if someone has been denied a channel before but this one goes through, it seems a little insulting, right? I should mention that I've had several beers, so I apologise if I'm not making any sense
>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

Picking your own channel is one of the perks for being a long time, involved member of the site. This is a personal choice that the community should have no say in.

^marinegunrock wanted a tech channel, but dag and lucky said it was too similar to geek. This is the only example I know of, other than choggie getting shot down on his request for a 3rd or 4th channel, which I believe was the calalyst for his first sifticide.

i was gonna vote yes but blankie and DFT changed my mind.
i have seen how some have made open forums an excuse to badger and even enact retribution.
sorry but i dont want any part of that.
and i just made my case for a channel and i would rather the owners of the site tell me NO or YES than have me shot down by vote and then have my wee lil heart crushed,not by the owners but by popular demand.
dag and lucky say no?
i am ok with that.
the collective says no?
then i am taking my toys and going home and you are off my christmas list.
well..not really..but you get my drift.

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

It's a nail-biter. Vote now or forever hold your tongue.

I'm thinking the right answer is that we should try to blend both aspects, voting, and picking.

People should feel free to pick whatever channel they like, without having to feel obligated to meeting a publicly demanded gap in our channel list (e.g. health).

So, why not let us have two channel creation methods? One for voting them into existence based on community appeal, and another given to people when they hit ruby?

No one manages the politics channel, or the music channel, or the comedy channel. Is this a gap that needs to be filled? Is it a horrible exercise of democratic socialism that they exist without ownership?

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

There are other examples that never see the light of day. Sometimes people pre-vet a chennel choice with Lucky and I- and sometimes we disuade because it's not a good fit for the Sift.>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

^marinegunrock wanted a tech channel, but dag and lucky said it was too similar to geek. This is the only example I know of, other than choggie getting shot down on his request for a 3rd or 4th channel, which I believe was the calalyst for his first sifticide.

I have spoken !

nice I just tipped the balance, I feel cool now

I really think a 2/3rds majority is necessary for a poll like this to be effective. Why make only 51% satisfied and alienate the other 49% on something that divides us so fundamentally and so staunchly?

Higher percentages of agreement make for happier users. Measurably closer percentages disenfranchise users.

pole is a poll I always say. Majority rules, and thats the rule.

I think it's fascinating that it's so evenly divided down the middle. Who would have thought this was such a dividing issue?

I think the public should be able to intervene if there is an issue, but control should be mostly kept within dag and lucky's jurisdiction. Of course then there's the question of what constitutes a major issue. Maybe we need a poll on polls for polls for channels...

Infinite pollgression!
>> ^randomize:

I think the public should be able to intervene if there is an issue, but control should be mostly kept within dag and lucky's jurisdiction. Of course then there's the question of qhat constitutes a major issue. Maybe we need a poll on polls for polls for channels...

If it's a Yes, I promise I'll be the first in line to put one of my potential channels up to a community vote (i.e. I voted YES). Other than that, I don't think this is a big issue and fundamentally I am fine with the system as it is, even with the *Wilhelm (my point was, after all, that in the long-term it wouldn't be topical and would basically just fade into obscurity). I have no beef with youdiejoe (or dag, for that matter) either, it's just that I think the Wilhelm scream warranted a playlist at best, not a channel.

I voted no. The reason I'm telling you I voted "no" is because I hate anonymous polls here almost as much as I hate polls with an option of "I don't care".

This is the kind of poll that has a huge impact on the sift. At least as much as siftquisitions, if not more so. Anonymous voting wasn't allowed in them, yet any probationary member can vote in this poll and we never get to see it. I'm sorry, I don't mean to get all *conspiracy about it but I'd like to see the votes.

Voting for this poll ended with the majority of users voting Yes - Let the community Decide..

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

So say we all Siftbot- so say we all.>> ^siftbot:

Voting for this poll ended with the majority of users voting Yes - Let the community Decide..

"We all" being 51,8 % of the voters.
>> ^dag:

So say we all Siftbot- so say we all.>> ^siftbot:
Voting for this poll ended with the majority of users voting Yes - Let the community Decide..