Not at all, Fail is misused as it is. We need to have less "subjective " channels and more concrete ones. One win to me is a fail to someone else, a win to you is mediocre luck/chance to me etc. etc.

Don't you think this may be helped with better channel descriptions?

>> ^BoneRemake:

Not at all, Fail is misused as it is. We need to have less "subjective " channels and more concrete ones. One win to me is a fail to someone else, a win to you is mediocre luck/chance to me etc. etc.

>> ^BoneRemake:
One win to me is a fail to someone else, a win to you is mediocre luck/chance to me etc. etc.


And vice versa, at the end of it all, it's just a matter of opinion, but basic common sense should make the average viewer understand where the poster is coming from.

Thanks for voting.

>> ^critical_d:

Don't you think this may be helped with better channel descriptions?
>> ^BoneRemake:
Not at all, Fail is misused as it is. We need to have less "subjective " channels and more concrete ones. One win to me is a fail to someone else, a win to you is mediocre luck/chance to me etc. etc.



No.

>> ^Barseps:

>> ^BoneRemake:
One win to me is a fail to someone else, a win to you is mediocre luck/chance to me etc. etc.

And vice versa, at the end of it all, it's just a matter of opinion, but basic common sense should make the average viewer understand where the poster is coming from.
Thanks for voting.


Setting up a successful channel is much more different than rationalizing others responses/use to it.

I voted ?

Let's be honest, channel descriptions do not help much when it comes to the average user. You see the channel name and assume what it means. Africa? That'll be anything to do with the African continent and African people. etc.

Personally, I'd like to see some sort of total channel overhaul. Where you can have Super-channels and Sub-Channels. For example:

Science
- Physics
- Chemistry
- Biology

The World
- North America
--- USA
--- Canada
-Europe
--- France
--- Britain

Putting something in biology would automatically make it searchable in both the science super-channel and the biology sub-channel.

>> ^BoneRemake:

I voted ?

Oh I'm sorry, I just popped my head in, saw your "Not at all" statement with (at the time) one no vote & just assumed it was you.

>> ^Hybrid:

Personally, I'd like to see some sort of total channel overhaul. Where you can have Super-channels and Sub-Channels.

Totally agree.

Personally I lean no on this one because I have trouble imagining this one will get a lot of use. Epic fail happens all the time, epic win not so much.

I'm also not so sure we've got all the super-categories covered yet, and think there are more than a few gaps in the 1st tier of subcategories.

This sorta seems like a 3rd tier subcategory under "meme" to me, plus most of the uncontroversial "epic win" moments are also going to be in skillful.

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^Hybrid:
Personally, I'd like to see some sort of total channel overhaul. Where you can have Super-channels and Sub-Channels.
Totally agree.
Personally I lean no on this one because I have trouble imagining this one will get a lot of use. Epic fail happens all the time, epic win not so much.
I'm also not so sure we've got all the super-categories covered yet, and think there are more than a few gaps in the 1st tier of subcategories.
This sorta seems like a 3rd tier subcategory under "meme" to me, plus most of the uncontroversial "epic win" moments are also going to be in skillful.


See I was JUST wanting a win channel the other day, there's a few videos I'd put in there, but I guess it is rather subjective.

>> ^alien_concept:

See I was JUST wanting a win channel the other day, there's a few videos I'd put in there, but I guess it is rather subjective.


The one where the kid accidentally snowboards off a cliff, and instead of dying lands on his feet? I think "win" would be good for that one. But how many others?

Everyone knows what they're in for when they click on a fail video -- an embarrassing self-inflicted wound of some sort. What's a win video going to have? Competence and success? How boring.

And if "win" actually translates into "accidentally doing something awesome" it's gonna hit all my hot buttons, like being too narrow a topic, and meaning something more narrow than what the name of the channel would imply, like the hated terrible channel!

On the other hand, I could easily get behind an *owned channel...

>> ^Hybrid:

Let's be honest, channel descriptions do not help much when it comes to the average user. You see the channel name and assume what it means. Africa? That'll be anything to do with the African continent and African people. etc.
Personally, I'd like to see some sort of total channel overhaul. Where you can have Super-channels and Sub-Channels. For example:
Science
- Physics
- Chemistry
- Biology
The World
- North America
--- USA
--- Canada
-Europe
--- France
--- Britain
Putting something in biology would automatically make it searchable in both the science super-channel and the biology sub-channel.


YES. If something like this isn't a feature in the upcoming overhaul of the Sift, I'd be very surprised. Submitting a video now and staring at the enormous wall of channels can be quite intimating, especially if you're new to the site.

If we want to be better than youtube as a community, maybe we should stop modeling parts of the site after the way those morons talk.

>> ^xxovercastxx:

If we want to be better than youtube as a community, maybe we should stop modeling parts of the site after the way those morons talk.


IF

I agree with the super channel concept, but isn't the answer to the issue below the channel moderator? Does having a counter-intuitive definition make a bad channel?>> ^Hybrid:

Let's be honest, channel descriptions do not help much when it comes to the average user. You see the channel name and assume what it means.

My point is that channel names should be completely obvious as to what they contain, simply because people do not read the channel descriptions each time. The more subjective or misunderstood the channel names are, the more problems with incorrect channel assignment.

I know user-suggested channels, the voting on their creation, and channel ownership is great for the community side of things. However, I do think that going forwards and creating something that will be beneficial and useful, then the channels should be formalised a bit. Yes, you can suggest them and become the owner, but under the super and sub-channel idea I proposed, the channel names would, and should, fall into the naming convention. For example, take the 'World - Continent - Country' example from my last reply. In the case that someone proposed a "French" channel, then they would have to accept it being called "France" instead to correctly be named as the country.

There would be nothing wrong with having a "Novelty" super-channel, that contained "Wilhelm" for example. Or perhaps "Wilhelm" could be a sub-channel of cinema, along with say "trailers"...

I just think a little bit of formalisation and clean-up of channels could go a long way to making them useful and obvious.
>> ^longde:

I agree with the super channel concept, but isn't the answer to the issue below the channel moderator? Does having a counter-intuitive definition make a bad channel?>> ^Hybrid:
Let's be honest, channel descriptions do not help much when it comes to the average user. You see the channel name and assume what it means.

There is the problem of overlap leading to problems of posts getting tagged with one or other or both. And then you start to run into the 7 channel limit.

I vote No because in this case we'd have absolutely, in theory, no end to the amount of videos in the Win channel. A great bit of stand-up? Someone juggling expertly? One of those bullied kids striking his tormentor? A smart rebuttal?

It's just potentially too wide a channel that's very, very subjective. Your initial reasoning seems fine but such a move would lead to a bit of a mess in my opinion.

>> ^Deano:

There is the problem of overlap leading to problems of posts getting tagged with one or other or both. And then you start to run into the 7 channel limit.
I vote No because in this case we'd have absolutely, in theory, no end to the amount of videos in the Win channel. A great bit of stand-up? Someone juggling expertly? One of those bullied kids striking his tormentor? A smart rebuttal?
It's just potentially too wide a channel that's very, very subjective. Your initial reasoning seems fine but such a move would lead to a bit of a mess in my opinion.


I can't believe I'm upvoting a "no" vote, but you've raised one or two points I didn't think of & put them forward in a simple & constructive manner.

^Thumbs up^ to ya.

>> ^BoneRemake:

Not at all, Fail is misused as it is.

But I was describing the channel selection!

Yes!

>> ^longde:

Does having a counter-intuitive definition make a bad channel?

Having this many channels is more of a usability problem. If we can present them in a tiered structure (maybe only to those who want it) then it can be easier to place them fast, instead of having to run through the huge list.

Not all have to be tiered, just those that it fit with - hell, you don't even have to change the backend, just the submission process.

And you could even let users arrange them on a per user basis, if you don't mind the added server load.

Win is fine. Good counterpoint to fail.

I cant wait for this poll to be over. I want to have my " are you wearing pants" poll. In new version I vote YES to having more than one poll at a time @dag.

If you really want to add stuff like "win" to your video, why not just add it as a tag instead of a channel? Or am I missing something here?

Exit polls predict a close race.

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

It's a nail biter.

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

I hope the Supreme Sift Court doesn't have to step in.

http://videosift.com/video/Mark-Morrison-Return-Of-The-Mack-original

If this doesn't pass, I'll put it in the fail channel..

And if it does, guess where it goes.

Voting for this poll ended with the majority of users voting Yes.

Numerically speaking. The result is crystal clear.

>> ^siftbot:

Voting for this poll ended with the majority of users voting Yes.


I knew my vote would count!