Indeed. I don't like it.

Agreed.

I'm confused. It seems the same as always for me.

Yeah, a little warning would have been in order.

Now I have to rethink my entire submitting process. Re-calculate tides and the moon cycle. Cripes.

BOOOOOOOOOOOO!

This will only serve to inflate PQ's everywhere.. I hate PQs.

I think we should just try it for a few weeks.

how many of your videos don't have more than 15 votes? Suck it up...times are changing stop being so rigid.

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

Apologies - I forgot this as we raised the level early on in the dev site. Lets try it for a while and see how it works.

I think that after a month or so, with new members joining all the time, it might just work. I'm not the biggest fan of this change, but i'm sure people will step up and check out the unsifted more often

Seems like a bad idea, but I've been wrong before so who knows...

I will reserve judgment for a couple weeks but I don't see how this helps the site.

just make sure to sift quality stuff, it'll get through the queue. i like this change.

especially with the new 'quality' command for videos this might actually be a good idea.

>> ^rottenseed:
how many of your videos don't have more than 15 votes?

17 of 85 ... precisely 1/5 are between 10 and 14 for me.

And an additional 40 are between 15 and 19. I mention these, because videos usually get a surge whenever they pass the magic barrier. So 2/3 of my videos are within 5 votes of the new limit. Illustrates quite nicely how apparently I mostly submitted shitty or unpopular videos.

Suck it up...times are changing stop being so rigid.

No complains from me, just observations.

I expect rottenseed to upvote every one of my pq videos from here on out.

When Bob Marley won't sift with 14 votes, (http://www.videosift.com/video/Wailers-Bob-Marley-Peter-Tosh-You-Can-t-Blame-The-Youth) you know something is broken.

Frickin' NICE!!!

Dag, I have a man-crush on you. The "whoops, we forgot to revert back to 10" - ha ha

Thank you thank you thank you. I can now officially say that this is a perfect update. Sift-wise, pretty much all of my major wishes have come true and to top it all I'm looking forward to *spoiler* unveiling a channel in a couple days' time, too

P.S. From here on now I genuinely invite each and every one of you to privately PM me links of your unsifted videos that you think are underrated and are not getting the attention they deserve. Some of you may already know that more often than not I tend to promote them. I promise a definite view and a vote, at the very least.

My initial reaction was 'Oh come on... I have few enough sifted as it stands'

But then I remember the kind of dross that has made it through.

This is probably for the best.

Probably.

Probably bad timing right now because of VS upgrade and we're all trying to get used to it.

raising the limit to 15 votes is a bad idea. btw, upvote my pq, quick!

http://www.videosift.com/search?q=&t=v&u=gwiz665&s[]=s&o=lovotes&vmin=10&vmax=14&sh&l&n&b&submit=Search&pg=1

96 videos between 10 and 14. I really don't like it.

Like I said before, this will only inflate the PQ, which is fundamentally a poor system as it is. For shame.

^ that's interesting. Right now 240 of my sifted vids have less than 15 votes, that's over 26% of them.
http://www.videosift.com/search?q=&t=v&u=rasch187&s[]=s&o=lovotes&vmin=8&vmax=14&sh=&l=&n=&b=&submit=Search

How about we have a vote on this, dag?

^Why is it such a bad idea to try it out for a week or so?

http://www.videosift.com/search?q=&t=v&u=kulpims&s[]=s&o=lovotes&vmin=10&vmax=14&sh&l&n&b&submit=Search&pg=1

152 for me, 1/3 of my posts. another 43 in pq
let's have a vote.

PS: EDD has 34 and 3 videos in his pq

I'm all for giving it a try, but as I said here, I'm lucky enough to get one out of the park when it was 10. Maybe I need a class in Sifting... Hey, now there's an untapped revenue stream!

The Obama Recession has caused the cost of votes to rise!

>> ^EndAll:
just make sure to sift quality stuff, it'll get through the queue. i like this change.


The problem with this is, quality posts are subjective. I feel like I sift quality stuff, but it sits there forever. I'm not going to get rid of it, because I think its quality. The problem is, no one clicks on any of it to view it. I hover over the views, and it tells me I have had three unique views to my video and I submitted it five months ago. WTF.

On the other hand, I see a lot of stuff not worthy to get sifted. But, that's my opinion. I don't think its quality, but obviously other people do.

I don't really think upping the limit to 15 will stop bad quality stuff from being sifted, it will just make things infinitely more difficult for the probies and newly christened sifters from moving up, and will cause many more quality (in my definition) unsifted videos sitting in the pqueue forever.

I generally get frustrated by the lack of upvotes my videos receive. Can't do much about it, so I just figure eventually people will see them and they'll get their day. I generally pass the time around here maintaining the site and editing tags with more meaningful search criteria, channels, and seeking out dupes, but now I can't even merge dupes.

Let's give it a try. Then we can change the name to VideoPQ, it's catchy and will look exceptional embroided on a baseball cap or hoodie.

Out of 412 sifted videos, 202 of them are under 15 votes. Plus, 200 pq videos already. Do the math. I just don't have that many groupies yet.

Quality is subjective. After a year and a half of lurking, followed by signing up and posting a few. You know, I still don't have a complete feel. What can I say? Subjective is subjective...

*quality

Awarding Deano with one star point for this contribution to VideoSift - declared quality by cybrbeast.

I suppose this means we need to give a LOT more attention to the Beggar's Canyon.

That's usually the place I try to get those last couple votes. In the past anything under 7 votes I thought didn't have a chance getting out of the BG. Looks like I'll need to readjust my standards as to what I'll put in there.

Still, this is going to be a tough change to get used to. It's probably going to be difficult for new members to feel confident getting sifts through.

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

Let's try it for a week and then poll it.

.

Ha.

Everything I post will not make it now.

THe problem for me is that the less popular Bravo videos will find it hard to make it out and find a wider audience who might appreciate them. Oh well, I'm prepared to give it a go for a time.

Many quality videos I've seen here have very few votes. At least in comparison to whatever latest cute puppy or meme video. That's the difference between popularity and quality I guess. This should have been a poll imo. Increasing the escape limit does not translate into more quality sifts.

>> ^Stingray:
I generally pass the time around here maintaining the site and editing tags with more meaningful search criteria, channels, and seeking out dupes, but now I can't even merge dupes.


Agreed. I've dupeof'd hundreds of videos, I don't understand why I can't do that anymore.

I'm not sure what to make of the change (at first glance the new Sift vote limit and star levels appear to discourage participation from new and casual users), but I get an odd feeling reading calls for votes and polls. I guess I'm not really clear on the nature of the Sift in that regard. On the one hand, I know the Sift is by its very nature a very democratic construct, but on the other hand it's Dag's site and ultimately it's his decision, right?

I barely got back from my (depression) break, I was still not feeling too enthusiastic about trying to try to sift again.. and what do I see - 15 votes to get sifted.. I think I am going to back to not sifting if this change stays It is hard enough trying to get 10 votes when you are not well-known/very active (to my opinion, but what do I know..).

15 is just a bit too hard for me right now, especially if I try to post one early in the morning before going to work, or not one of the popular categories.. I had my PQ up to 70+ and it just finally went down to 20+. If I have stuff just go down to my PQ, it'll either blow my PQ to 100+, or I will discard stuff, just to see it getting submitted by somebody else a few days later and get sifted no problem.

Anyway.. yeah, if you want t have a poll, fine. If it goes up to 15, I am not going to try to be back. Sorry Work is already too much work..

I think that everyone did a super sweet job on the update. The site looks super sexy and slick. i really dig the new organization of the place thought it will take some getting used to. BTW.. loving the new buttons on the comments. ^^^^^

That being said (can't leave it entirely positive, right? )

I do sift a ton of music, and it is almost impossible to get 15 on them. This is basically what everyone else is saying as well. I don't want to add to the grumbling, but I am discouraged. Lots of us lost our status and now it will be even harder to get the privileges we once had.

I am really not feeling excited about it.

im am editing this to add that I really dig the sift and I appreciate all the hard work that goes into things like this. My post sounded worse than i intended. So take my comment as kindheartedly as possible.

14 out of 51 videos i've sifted are 14 or below, 27%, and being as I'm basically a casual sifter, that's a hell of a lot. The transition for people who lost their bronze stars and now need another 15 stars to get back up to it is already a hard enough road, this just kinda seems like salt in the wound.

If nothing else, this should probably have been held off a month or so for those who already got the shaft by the ranking changes to get their status back.

One vital thing you people forget....a LOT of new members are gonna join now that the Sift looks so awesome! In a couple weeks we will be asking for another raise of the siftlimit.

+ even if the siftlimit is 5 or less votes, there are always gonna be under appreciated gems in pqueues. and that's the beauty of the current system in which unsifted vids don't dissapear. If you're ever bored of Fry, Dawkins and puppies there are always pqueues to explore.

I don't like this change. Most vids that used to end up with ~15 votes only did so because they getting exposure as sifted at 10 votes. Now it will be a long road through promotes and begs for those less popular vids. We'll see...

What is the argument for upping the threshold now? Are more videos getting submitted? Or has the member population grown? In both cases, that just means that the site's relative attention span for videos has gone down.

A video will have to receive 15 votes on the first 3-4 pages of Unsifted, since people don't (I think?) want to browse backwards more than that. One could argue that the gallery listing option makes it possible to browse many videos more efficiently, but my guess is that most users still use the traditional listing mode.

Strangely enough I have sifted 4 videos since the change including one Bravo video. Just lucky I guess...

Heh... I'm on your guys side now. Not feelin' it.

Kinda sad, I self-promoted a vid with 7 votes, and it's re-PQ'd with 13 votes now.

Not digging this so far.

If it needs to be increased, why not 12 votes?

I know it's not a pretty divisible-by-5 kinda number. But 12 IS divisible by 4. And 3. And 2. (And 12 and 6, and 1, I know). But perhaps if there needs to be a bump, then it's clear that 15 is pretty tough.

Either go back to 10 or 12 (if it MUST be increased).

I've mentioned it before: Tiered rewards.

Give star point at 10 and 25 and 50, for instance. It will inflate the number of star points, but will give more for more popular things. while still rewarding the more obscure, but still good things.

I was wondering why sifting to the front page slowed to a crawl and then I remember this.

If you raise the vote requirement you're essentially making the site more mainstream oriented. What makes it to the front page is something people probably already universally liked, such as a mainstream band, a clip off of a popular show like Colbert/Daily Show. Something you probably already knew about it because it's plastered over every other aggregate video sharing site. That's not what VideoSift should be about.

Yes, traffic has obviously gone up over the years and sifts were flying through to the front page incredibly quickly. So?

There are a ridiculous amount of ways that you can cater what you see to your interests. You can sort by channels, you can sort by what's hot right now, you can sort by what the top voted videos are in the last few days, you can look at what's been viewed right now, with the update you can now look at what is specifically recommended to you.

It almost makes you think the 'sifting' aspect of the site has more to do with the endless ways you can sort what's posted up here to your liking.

So why would you need or want to put a compulsory filter for everyone on what makes it to the front page.

Just seems completely nonsensical.

Kinda unrelated but I've seen sooo many Comedy Central clips lately. Seems to be where people go to when they can't find anything else. I've started downvoting all of them, because there are just way too many on a site that has such a broad range of users from different countries.

RedSky - Best argument so far.

"So?"

The front page doesn't get clustered with new vids when 15 votes are required. That's a good thing imo. But, as several people have pointed out, it makes it much more difficult to sift eclectic and obscure vids. RedSky made a great point about how the 15 limit could mean that only mainstream vids get sifted, and that would be a shame.

12 votes to get sifted sounds like a good compromise imo. That way the frontpage traffic would slow down a little bit compared to the 10 votes limit, and lesser known, more obscure vids would still have a good chance at getting sifted without relying on too much *begging and *promoting.

216 out of 361 of my sifted videos are below 15 votes..

The way I've always seen it, the 10 (well 9) vote requirement is there more to ensure that complete nonsense doesn't make it to the front page.

So in that sense it really shouldn't matter that traffic has gone up, as long as 9 other unique people find your video interesting, it's probably something that's worthwhile checking out.

If it's such an important issue to some people, why not simply include some functional filter that allows you to limit the videos you see on the front page to those that have at least 15 votes, or whatever threshold you want to set? 10 could still remain the default then. Although ... I guess a problem with that would be you would miss the videos that just made it out of the queue with 10 and then only got to 15 votes once they'd reached the 3rd or 4th page.

>> ^EndAll:
... because there are just way too many on a site that has such a broad range of users from different countries.

Hello, Canada calling. They seem to really hate us up here in the land of "it's not available in your country, but we broadcast it in parity on TV." Still haven't quite figured that one out, but agreed 100%

>> ^Mashiki:
>> ^EndAll:
... because there are just way too many on a site that has such a broad range of users from different countries.

Hello, Canada calling. They seem to really hate us up here in the land of "it's not available in your country, but we broadcast it in parity on TV." Still haven't quite figured that one out, but agreed 100%


They probably haven't found advertising sponsors who want to promote to the Canadian market through web based showings, and nobody is keen on footing the bill of the bandwidth pro bono. Either that or whoever owns the distributing rights to it in Canada thinks they can juice you viewers over there for more money without an online alternative.

Actually ... wait isn't there some Canadian Comedy Central site where you can watch it already?

>> ^RedSky Actually ... wait isn't there some Canadian Comedy Central site where you can watch it already?

You'd think so wouldn't there? Funny enough, there is a large degree of difference between the comedy network in Canada, and in the US. The same as the history network in both countries, and the Cartoon Network. In Canada, all three versions take on a new meaning of the word "suck." Not only that, but the sites are so poorly designed that you can't find half of the stuff, and most of the shows aren't actually on there. Take that as futurama and others.

Now, as for advertisers? If you didn't notice, 80% of the Canadian population lives with 200mi of the US border. We see the same stuff, we buy the same goods(sometimes in the same packaging for more money), sometimes we even buy the same goods in smaller packages(for more money). And we even see the same commercials on Canadian TV(with a label switch), sometimes not even then.

I still haven't figured out what the issues are.

Whatever happened to that proposed welfare system where every submit gets 9 votes?!