Would it be helpful to have a *notadupe invocation?

  (30 votes)
  (14 votes)

A total of 44 votes have been cast on this poll.


First let me say -- it is just vids. No lives are on the line. It's just a bunch of pixels and a big dose of Loving Our Vids and Our Stars and Our Votes.

And -- making things work a little smoother is nice. Slick. Happy. Ease.... I love the ease....

So having established that this isn't a huge tragedy, just a nicety...


Sometimes, a dupe is called when it clearly isn't a dupe according to Sift guidelines. This usually happens inadvertently (I've been told that there have been folks who have flamed out doing it, but I have never seen that. Before my time.)

The problem is, once a *dupeof is called, all it takes is for a well-meaning person to come along and *isdupe without fully investigating -- or without reading the whole comment stream where the lack of dupeness is acknowledged and agreed upon.

It was pointed out to me that even if the original *dupeof person realizes they made a mistake, removing the comment won't stop an *isdupe from happening. Once the invocation has been called, it is permanent.

Here is the situation that prompted this sift talk post:

There was a 4:40 minute vid posted. Someone came along and excerpted 11 seconds of that vid and posted it. Unfortunately, the time signature on the really short vid wasn't completed, it was left blank.

Someone else came along, saw what looked like a dupe (the topic, the thumbnail, it really looked like a dupe) and duped it without watching it.

But now it is a permanent thing -- that dupeof is sitting there like a ticking time bomb. There is nothing to stop the vid from being duped out of existence.

I know that there is a presumption that dupes are fully investigated before being called, but hey. Human error. It happens. (I even duped myself once, when it wasn't a dupe -- same situation: saw the topic and thumbnail but didn't see the huge time difference and rushed to dupe myself, which of course was permanent. D'oh.)

I don't know how hard it is to program a new invocation. Hopefully it is easy. [edit] To be clear, this would be an invocation after dupeof and before isdupe is called. I understand once the dupe has been "completed", it is a done deal.

If folks agree that we need it, of course.
geo321 says...

I've been in about a half dozen situations where I wished that invocation was available.
I understand that the *dupeof invocation has the backup isdupe invocation.
But having the *notdupe would add more time for discussion on a video.

lucky760 says...

It is not feasible to undo every incorrect *dupeof invocation. It is for this reason that whenever someone misuses it, even just by being too lazy to fully research if they should truly be invoking *dupeof or *isdupe, historically the accidental invokers have permanently lost their privileges to both invocations.

These are some invocations that must be used with extreme care, otherwise you will not be permitted to use them. When in doubt, don't invoke (or you can just *discuss).

bareboards2 says...

This is very sad news.

We have some enthusiastic dupers here who do a great service but aren't as careful as they should be (in my opinion.)

I would hate to have them cut off from duping because of an excess of enthusiasm. That is harsh.

And how many mistakes does it take to get your duping power taken away? Man, that is soooo subjective. Maybe that should be quantified -- you get 5 mistakes, then cut off? Ten? And who keeps track? How do you keep track?

Man oh howdy.

No hope of an invocation, huh? No block of some kind that could be invoked on the dupeof? I know you said that very clearly, but my non-programming mind is having trouble wrapping my head around it. I have blind faith in Programming Gods to be able to do anything.



>> ^lucky760:

It is not feasible to undo every incorrect dupeof invocation. It is for this reason that whenever someone misuses it, even just by being too lazy to fully research if they should truly be invoking dupeof or isdupe, historically the accidental invokers have permanently lost their privileges to both invocations.
These are some invocations that must be used with extreme care, otherwise you will not be permitted to use them.

arvana says...

@lucky760 my understanding of the suggestion is that *notdupe would cancel a *dupeof before *isdupe is called. I know that correcting a mistakenly duped video after *isdupe would be a nightmare, but in between the two should be easy. amirite?

bareboards2 says...

Yes, yes, this is what I meant! I have edited the description to clarify.

Unwinding a completed dupe is not to be considered!!!!

Has hope been restored to me? oh please oh please....

>> ^arvana:

@lucky760 my understanding of the suggestion is that notdupe would cancel a dupeof before isdupe is called. I know that correcting a mistakenly duped video after isdupe would be a nightmare, but in between the two should be easy. amirite?

berticus says...

This right here is why I never invoke the dupe command. Because dupes never seem to be black and white—as evidenced by the many heated discussions surrounding them—I just link to what I think is the dupe and let someone more brave or foolish than I do it. The irony of keeping the privilege is that I never use it.

>> ^lucky760:

It is not feasible to undo every incorrect dupeof invocation. It is for this reason that whenever someone misuses it, even just by being too lazy to fully research if they should truly be invoking dupeof or isdupe, historically the accidental invokers have permanently lost their privileges to both invocations.
These are some invocations that must be used with extreme care, otherwise you will not be permitted to use them. When in doubt, don't invoke (or you can just discuss).

gwiz665 says...

Anything can be done, but like lucky760 says, it's not feasible to undo it.

Undoing the primary dupeof; setting the dupeof.count to 0 should be relatively easy though.

If it's the first then nay (which I voted before reading comments), if the latter then yea.

gwiz665 says...

Just one. Well, it was like that back when dupeof only took one user. Not sure we really have had it done after we introduced the double user failsafe.

And when I say "we" I totally take credit for good features.. like when "we" win at sports, or IdrA and Me GGs. Also, I'm a nerd.

>> ^bareboards2:

This is very sad news.
We have some enthusiastic dupers here who do a great service but aren't as careful as they should be (in my opinion.)
I would hate to have them cut off from duping because of an excess of enthusiasm. That is harsh.
And how many mistakes does it take to get your duping power taken away? Man, that is soooo subjective. Maybe that should be quantified -- you get 5 mistakes, then cut off? Ten? And who keeps track? How do you keep track?
Man oh howdy.
No hope of an invocation, huh? No block of some kind that could be invoked on the dupeof? I know you said that very clearly, but my non-programming mind is having trouble wrapping my head around it. I have blind faith in Programming Gods to be able to do anything.

>> ^lucky760:
It is not feasible to undo every incorrect dupeof invocation. It is for this reason that whenever someone misuses it, even just by being too lazy to fully research if they should truly be invoking dupeof or isdupe, historically the accidental invokers have permanently lost their privileges to both invocations.
These are some invocations that must be used with extreme care, otherwise you will not be permitted to use them.


critical_d says...

Isn't the ability to call a dupe limited to Gold Stars and above? I would expect that these people should know better than to do so out of sheer laziness. lucky760 mentioned that people who do so have that privelage revoked so it seems that the admins are aware of this being a problem.

It's awesome that a discussion like this has resulted in an open, thoughtful conversation and has resulted proposed solution. A lot of people will just get frustrated and say "Fix It!!". It's just nice to see people helping themselves. I work in IS...can't you tell. ;-)

That being said, I would hesitate to turn to a code change as a solution. Could this problem not be solved by other means?

Maybe the admins change permissions to allow only higher levels call a dupe? This means fewer people have the ability, thus fewer occurances of this happening. Perhaps writting a overview/tutorial for members when they are promoted so they truely understand the responsibilities? I like the idea of invoking the discussion as it will get more eyes on the problem. Of course these ideas don't prevent the accidental use of the privilege.

These are just my thoughts. I am still a newb here so please bare with me if I am not understanding the problem.

critical_d says...

I also think that instead of calling it *notadupe, we should call it *notafinga.

Sorry...I couldn't resist.

>> ^critical_d:

Isn't the ability to call a dupe limited to Gold Stars and above? I would expect that these people should know better than to do so out of sheer laziness. lucky760 mentioned that people who do so have that privelage revoked so it seems that the admins are aware of this being a problem.
It's awesome that a discussion like this has resulted in an open, thoughtful conversation and has resulted proposed solution. A lot of people will just get frustrated and say "Fix It!!". It's just nice to see people helping themselves. I work in IS...can't you tell. ;-)
That being said, I would hesitate to turn to a code change as a solution. Could this problem not be solved by other means?
Maybe the admins change permissions to allow only higher levels call a dupe? This means fewer people have the ability, thus fewer occurances of this happening. Perhaps writting a overview/tutorial for members when they are promoted so they truely understand the responsibilities? I like the idea of invoking the discussion as it will get more eyes on the problem. Of course these ideas don't prevent the accidental use of the privilege.
These are just my thoughts. I am still a newb here so please bare with me if I am not understanding the problem.

berticus says...

I believe dupeof invokes were originally diamond level only (and above). Then enough people made a fuss that they couldn't use it that it was changed.

At least that's how I remember it. Could be completely wrong.

>> ^critical_d:

Isn't the ability to call a dupe limited to Gold Stars and above? I would expect that these people should know better than to do so out of sheer laziness. lucky760 mentioned that people who do so have that privelage revoked so it seems that the admins are aware of this being a problem.
It's awesome that a discussion like this has resulted in an open, thoughtful conversation and has resulted proposed solution. A lot of people will just get frustrated and say "Fix It!!". It's just nice to see people helping themselves. I work in IS...can't you tell. ;-)
That being said, I would hesitate to turn to a code change as a solution. Could this problem not be solved by other means?
Maybe the admins change permissions to allow only higher levels call a dupe? This means fewer people have the ability, thus fewer occurances of this happening. Perhaps writting a overview/tutorial for members when they are promoted so they truely understand the responsibilities? I like the idea of invoking the discussion as it will get more eyes on the problem. Of course these ideas don't prevent the accidental use of the privilege.
These are just my thoughts. I am still a newb here so please bare with me if I am not understanding the problem.

xxovercastxx says...

I think people who fuck up need to be punished more readily.

If people don't give a shit about the details then adding this invocation may just lead to dupeof/notdupe wars.

What we need to do is hobble or suspend people who screw it up out of blatant negligence. And before we can really do that, we need the written rule changed to match the rule that was voted into place a month or so ago.

lucky760 says...

>> ^arvana:

@lucky760 my understanding of the suggestion is that notdupe would cancel a dupeof before isdupe is called. I know that correcting a mistakenly duped video after isdupe would be a nightmare, but in between the two should be easy. amirite?


Thanks for your Cliff's Notes interpretation of this poll.

Now I understand the desired functionality, but how useful/necessary would that really be? If no one else invokes *isdupe, then the initial *dupeof will just be ignored. The lack of a confirmation *isdupe invocation is the same as adding an additional *notdupe invocation, except the latter would just serve to clutter the post.

I still vote no against what would be an unnecessary and comment cluttering invocation.

bareboards2 says...

You assume no human error, lucky. There is more than you realize, as the votes so far are indicating.



>> ^lucky760:

>> ^arvana:
@lucky760 my understanding of the suggestion is that notdupe would cancel a dupeof before isdupe is called. I know that correcting a mistakenly duped video after isdupe would be a nightmare, but in between the two should be easy. amirite?

Thanks for your Cliff's Notes interpretation of this poll.
Now I understand the desired functionality, but how useful/necessary would that really be? If no one else invokes isdupe, then the initial dupeof will just be ignored. The lack of a confirmation isdupe invocation is the same as adding an additional notdupe invocation, except the latter would just serve to clutter the post.
I still vote no against what would be an unnecessary and comment cluttering invocation.

lucky760 says...

@bareboards2: I'm not implying I assume a lack of human error. I'm explicitly stating you must use extreme caution when using both *dupeof and *isdupe as to mitigate your own error before you make it. If someone else after the first *dupeof just comes along and posts a comment stating "This is not a dupe," that should have the same affect of invoking *notdupe. (This is why *isdupe exists.)

If the first person is erring when they *dupeof and the second person is also erring when they *isdupe, then they'll both lose their privileges for being so overwhelmingly careless.

These powers cannot be taken so lightly as to encourage people to think, "Well, I'll just invoke without doing any research. If I'm wrong, we'll make siftbot undo it for me. Yay for ignorance!"

enoch says...

i'm with berticus.
ill post the link to what appears to be a dupe and let the chips fall where they may.
i will dupe if the original poster catches and asks me to second a dupe,which i have had to do on a few occasions myself.
the notdupe option seems redundant with a secondary isdupe already in place.

lucky760 says...

While user input is a major factor in our decision-making, we always have to take into account other considerations. In this case, we'll not be adding the proposed invocation because, among a variety of reasons, it's precisely why *isdupe was created.

bareboards2 says...

http://videosift.com/playlists/bareboards2/Dupes-Made-In-Error

Could you add your vid to this new playlist? I am collecting data.

I have another playlist for vids at risk of being duped in error:

http://videosift.com/playlists/bareboards2/Videos-with-Dupeof-errors

We all get very excited when we lose "our" videos -- the votes, the stars, the title that we slaved over. But we don't know really how big the problem is -- certainly if it has happened to you, it can feel huge.

Now we have data collection sites to de-personalize the experience.

>> ^ant:

>> ^Hybrid:
It's a shame it's not being added. An accidental dupe has just occurred that could have been saved by having a notadupe invocation called beforehand.

Ditto.

Send this Article to a Friend



Separate multiple emails with a comma (,); limit 5 recipients






Your email has been sent successfully!

Manage this Video in Your Playlists

Beggar's Canyon