What would be really nice but maby hard to implement/introduce problems would be a user definable value, so that users who come on alot but don't want such a high filter can reduce it and then have a wider range of videos available.

but yeah i don't know how much it matters ether way because i go through the front and then unsifted. I don't know what other peoples viewing patterns are.

would be nice if there were at least 10-20 vids on the front each day.

How about we only up the vote threshold for videos that include cats/dogs and stupid people hurting themselves?

Seriously, how about this: Make it so you can't vote for your own videos. We already can't vote for our own comments, so why not make it the same for videos? Effectively the escape threshold right now is 9 votes, because virtually everyone except unknowledgeable newbies votes for their own videos, so the first vote is always a given. So take away the automatic first vote and it will increase the escape threshold by 11%, and yet it will still make 10 the golden number.

What say you?

hide videos' vote counts until they're out of the queue, have them promoted when they hit a number decided by an algorithm which takes into account time of day, activity levels etc. when it's really fucking busy, videos will need more votes to escape, when it's a slower time of day, the opposite. that way you could always have vids hitting the front page at a consistent rate.

I don't know what you guys are talking about. All of my submitted videos seem to do this, much less "rocket" out of the Unsifted.

I think 10 is a nice round number of votes. I say it's fine the way it is. If you can find that many people willing to upvote your video, then it's worth sifting.

My videos don't do much rocketing. I think it's fine as is, especially considering that since we now have personal queues, there's little functional difference between a published and non-published video.

Count me as another person who's fine with where it is. If a vid "rockets" out, you've got a good sift, not a fundamental problem with the way the sift works.

I tend to feel like I can predict how many votes a sift will get based on how long it takes to escape. If I submit it, and it's already published in less than an hour, it's going to get at least 100 votes. If it publishes in 3-4 hours, it's going to squeak onto the top 15, and probably top out at 80-90. If it's still unsifted after 24 hours, and doesn't have at least 8 votes, it's going to pqueue.

Personally, I'd rather have the queue time shortened to a day, and the escape level lowered, but mostly I think it's Working as Intended^TM.

Rottenseed, you forgot this is my favorite topic.

Seriously folks - please don't forget the motto for this site is "Quality Control". The average number of users that are voting must have AT LEAST doubled since the introduction of the 10-vote rule. The escape threshold should be at least somewhat proportional to this ratio, otherwise there's bound to be more un-quality stuff published.

I think that quality control lies within the fact that it has to meet approval of at least 9 other people to make it, rather than some "this is how my day went" or "watch me do something no one cares about" shit that plagues YouTube.

I guess what I'm saying here is it's getting too easy to find 9 other people that like the same crap I do...

...and that means too many people

Or we could hide the submitter's name until the video has been sifted, since I'm betting there's alot of buddy-voting going on. If that's indeed the case, then it'd be much more of detriment to the quality control idea.

I like blankfist's comment in having a round number of ten.
Once videos get sifted they all end up in the videosift archive anyway.
Is there a problem with too many videos being sifted?
Is there really a problem?

The votes in themselves make a spectrum of videos. It's not binary - sifted/unsifted. Even the "unsifted" are in the archive now because of the PQs. The only difference is that we get star points easier.

Whether it is 3, 10, or 100 votes to "put out" a star point, it doesn't matter all that much, in my opinion.

Kill the PQ and we can talk.

Mine seems to come in waves, but I discard a bunch a stuff that doesn't sift and I have been watching my PQ grow a bit (so, almost time to cul a few of those). I must say I agree with Blankfist here. It's easy to call a raise on "vote escape threshold" when you are diamond but a lot of sifters are still struggling to get sifts. There are weeks where I feel I have gone as far as I can go because I can no longer find anything sift worthy.

It takes a lot of hours and a lot of luck to find the "Gems" - Make it harder and many of us just might give up... Sure I might have just crested 150 stars but I'm on here 3-4 hours a day plus surfing other video sites.

I think 10 votes is enough! - If Ten people liked it, then it's worthy!
Rottenseed, if you find you are sifting too much - Discard anything you sifted with less than 14 votes

>> ^blankfist:
I think 10 is a nice round number of votes. I say it's fine the way it is. If you can find that many people willing to upvote your video, then it's worth sifting.

So is this really about the videos then, or are you just afraid (Latent Phobia) that your style of individuality is becoming to boring and you are afraid of slipping into obscurity.

No one could ever have tastes like Rottenseed, then you would be..., well..., 'Common"

>> ^rottenseed:
I guess what I'm saying here is it's getting too easy to find 9 other people that like the same crap I do... ...and that means too many people

>> ^Sagemind:
So is this really about the videos then, or are you just afraid (Latent Phobia) that your style of individuality is becoming to boring and you are afraid of slipping into obscurity.
No one could ever have tastes like Rottenseed, then you would be..., well..., 'Common"
>> ^rottenseed:
I guess what I'm saying here is it's getting too easy to find 9 other people that like the same crap I do... ...and that means too many people

No, sifting videos used to be a challenge. And maybe it's because I'm rottenseed and I've done a good job marketing myself, that my name gets out there and people visit my unsifted. But I'm leaning towards the idea that perhaps the amount of people here make it so that the demographic of people that would vote for my video is a lot higher than it used to be.

Remember, 10 wasn't always the word of dag and lucky. It started out much lower and moved up as the site grew. How come that has changed? Because 10 is a pretty number? (it's only a pretty number because we have 10 'fingers')

Embrace the metric system.

>> ^MrFisk:
Embrace the metric system.

pentadecimal or die!!!!!!!

I think 10 votes is enough! - If Ten people liked it, then it's worthy!
Rottenseed, if you find you are sifting too much - Discard anything you sifted with less than 14 votes

Just yankin' your chain, Rottenseed.. I hear what you're sayin'
Cheers!

*quality

Awarding rottenseed with one star point for this contribution to VideoSift - declared quality by kronosposeidon.

>> ^Kreegath:
Or we could hide the submitter's name until the video has been sifted, since I'm betting there's alot of buddy-voting going on. If that's indeed the case, then it'd be much more of detriment to the quality control idea.


Couldn't agree more. Absolutely. 100% This isn't the first time this has been suggested but it's still a great idea and it always gets overlooked with very minimal discussion which only proves how valid a suggestion it is. SEE HOW EVERYONE IN THIS THREAD COMPLETELY SKIPPED OVER THE TOPIC? It just goes to show that the ONLY rational argument to be made against it is that you can't upvote your friend's videos.

And just so you understand where I'm coming from: I'm FOR this idea.

Sooooo...you look at the poster before you vote? I don't.

Nope. And if you don't either, then let's fight to implement the change and no one should have a problem with it.

Wait... wait...

Upon further review I have come to the conclusion that if the aforementioned rule were to be implemented, it would require the elimination of all personal queues. Since I prefer to have the PQ listings available, I will now change all previous statements to reflect my obviously infallible logic.

Thank you.