Other than the case you're talking about on your 9/11 video, I don't think I've seen any cases of abuse.

Is it unreasonable?

No, changing tags is not unreasonable, because in most cases the need to do so is just basic maintenance, i.e. some sifters are lazy and don't tag at all (shame shame) or hardly at all... and then other times tags just have mistakes, like spelling (ehem... I do believe the word is 'changing' not 'chaging').

We were given the ability to change tags in order to help with these problems. If people are abusing this feature it is very rare, in fact I have never seen such a thing (except for banned members that is). I'm sorry your post got its tags changed, if the abuse becomes frequent and malicious then report it to the admins... otherwise, the feature is pretty important to streamlining maintenance around this place.

Raven's got it bang on. If this was being abused then the site admins could deal with it. The fact is most sifters who change tags do so responsibly.

What I meant was 'is it unreasonable to think that poster should have approval abilities over changes on a post'.

I think you guys are thinking that I am really pissed about this. I am not, I just thought that ultimately the poster should have control over the editing of the sift. It is a nuisance to change something back, and I thought it made some sense to require original sifter approval before a tag or a video was edited or changed.

I see what you mean about it decreasing through put, but there could be a time limit on the approval that could make it work.

Ultimately you could always change your tags back to the way you had it and ask it be left that way. Most would respect that. I'd go nuts if I couldn't put a date on something old though, so expect at least a decade tag from me on a vintage post.

I'm sort of on the "with the submitter's approval" side of the fence.

At least then the submitter would have a chance to say why or why the tags should be not changed.

Most tag changes seem to be for good reasons, but I've seen at least one that was a little on the malevolent side.

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

I think it should be free to do, seeking approval puts another layer of inefficiency in the middle.

As long as there is a record, it should be easy to change back.

However - I don't think tags should be changed to editorialize or make a point. That's what comments are for. Tags are very important to our "related videos" feature - so they need to be relevant, comma separated tags - not sentences.

Gold stars have been around long enough to understand this is the way it should work.

It's a sort of unspoken etiquette that one adds, but rarely changes unless it's a banned noob. It's polite to ask if the edit is a major change don't ya think? (polite, but not necessary)

Besides, if it requires the approval of the original submitter, then some may never get approved. There have been numerous dupes because of bad tags, and so those tags were changed. If it took the approval of the original submitter, then they may never be changed as some members never come back.

Yeah. That's why I said approval with a time limit.

I think MH is onto something here. I don't know if I just watch tags more or what, but I personally have seen tags changed more than a few times to editorialize one way or another by another sifter other than the submitter, and it generally leads to bad feelings. I think there should at least be a rule that tags not be changed by another sifter to editorialize for a certain viewpoint. The submitter's right is to express his/her opinion in his sift, it's the sifters' rights to express their opinions by voting and commenting on that sift.

By the by, I've heard the argument that "gold stars have been around long enough to know what's ok and what's not, they'll know better" a few times before from a bunch of different people. IMO that's a pretty poor argument against most things, considering the issues we've had with gold stars and up in the past. Just because gold stars should know better doesn't mean there shouldn't be guidelines by which civility can be kept.

oops, I missed that!

I agree Rembar. No, worries Marine.

Honestly, I've seen so many badly titled and tagged posts, that I would also add the possibility to change the title itself.

Many sifter already know how much it pisses me off to see clips without their proper name neither in the title nor in the tags

I'm not saying we should have standardized titles whenever possible, but if you want to have a catching title, at least give proper credits in the tags, dammit! -.-

(I'm not talking to anybody in particular).

"It's a sort of unspoken etiquette that one adds, but rarely changes unless it's a banned noob."

Now it's spoken.

Regarding the time limit, even that would be sucky because on some occasions, you want to do a quick edit to see if fixes the related vids. If it would fix the related vids for the "changer" even while it's "probationary change" mode, then it's not a bad thing.

A day or two to reject changes before they 'officially' take effect would be possible.

It could be a bitch on server load to have to track yet another thing though - don't forget the effect on the Sift's server when proposing features and suggestions - and the fact that it means more work for Lucky.

I'd say that the situation is sufficiently rare where abuse occurs that a 'hard' code change is unnecessary, just a gentle reminder - and, if you will, solidification - of the etiquette involved is sufficient.

I think a probabtionary change is a good idea.

I also talking to some extent about deadpool fixes as well, or any changes made to video not made by the original poster.(The deadpool thing may be a nonissue, I don't know)

On my first dead pool fix, I was pretty worried that the video was different. I spent an hour trying to verify that Bill Maher's shirt was the same. Maybe, I broke some rule there, but I didn't know at the time. I guess what I am saying is;

If the original poster had the ability to verify and approve a change, then that shifts the onus from the person that made the change onto the person who posted the video.

To me that seems only logical. If it is a matter of memory and or time required to program, then that is another matter.