That did bring up a good point... What if people who haven't reached any kind of star status were unable to comment? This would be an incentive for them to post up to the very basic star where their "reward" is the ability to comment. This would keep the lurkers and false accounts limited. Or better yet... for those who don't have a star status, allow them so many votes (Ala Queue limit) to prevent abuse. What do you guys think?

And while I'm a roll... What ever happened to the *PowerVote Idea (One PV = 20 votes (100+ members only ~ Gold Stars get 10 PV, etc.)

:-D

I think that anyone should be able to submit comments (seems too restrictive to only be allowed to vote vids up without 10 published posts). I've only just hit this bronze today, after being registered & voting up for over 3 months (but only posting vids for about 2 weeks). I like the idea of a profile preference to ignore people (sort of the opposite of a friends list!) Although, the power-vote seems a bit dictatorial; already golds have a large range of powers with Sift Bot - small groups dictating what stays & goes seems to be against the concept of VS (isn't the Sift a democracy?) I think the present system of stars works quite well - being labelled a 'Troll' because no-one votes your vids out of the queue seems a little harsh to me (unless it's based on actual submitted posts rather than published ones).

Troll?

"In Internet terminology, a troll is often someone who comes into an established community such as an online discussion forum, and posts inflammatory, rude, repetitive or offensive messages designed intentionally to annoy or antagonize the existing members or disrupt the flow of discussion, including the personal attack of calling others trolls."

And what are "the benefits of membership that others must now earn?" Currently, they already have to submit a post and have it published (with 2 gold star member votes) before being taken off probation. And then they don't have the ability to downvote til they get a bronze star. There's really nothing wrong with lurking as long as they don't do anything troll-like.

So i'm against the above ideas. i don't see anything wrong with allowing ppl to just comment on videos and stuff even though they don't have stars. Removing the ability to comment without any stars seems kinda antisocial at best.

I think comments should be restricted to people who clear the new member queue, (which is all new accounts) I think currently people can comment as soon as they create an account (or maybe they can only comment in their new member video submission). We haven't had spam problems (beyond what JR takes care of) but I imagine at some point it is possible.

Powervote is a horrible idea.

What is with the punish lurkers concept? The site is about sifting. You can do that without submitting videos. Some people only submit stuff and never comment, some people vote and never submit, some people (usually wingbats) only post random drive by comments. Such is the nature of the internets.

I'm not worried about the downvotes. I don't think that's really gonna discourage any new members, that they can only upvote. Now you could say the bronze -> gold will take new folks way too long... but the only way around that is make gold based on videos submitted, or comments, or votes, or some combo of those. But those methods can be abused and gamed to cheat the system. in summary, i don't think you'll find very much support for these ideas.

I agree with joedirt that comments should be restricted to all members who clear the new member queue. I also think that you can be a valuable member if you only comment and don't submit (it is getting more difficult to find beautiful and unseen treasures anyway), but the downside is that, without some little barrier, you open the door to the worst trolly nonsense.

bnsa obviously hasn't been paying attention to POWERVOTE codes hidden in the Videosift people pages. All the 100 stars have it, but we are merely waiting for the second coming of whoever replaces Jake Shimabakuro to abuse it.

What?!?!? Your hiding domething from lil' old darksun?

We should be encouraging a positive community experience here, not just adding perks to elitism. If a member would rather lurk, that is that member’s prerogative. If a member would rather comment, that is that member’s prerogative. If a member would rather submit videos, that is that member’s prerogative. I am against all this superiority nonsense!

I agree with encouraging a positive community experience Dotdude, in keeping that peace I suggested perhaps those who lurk with intentions to cause turmoil and chaios be limited in their "abilities" to comment. What's to keep someone from spamming or spreading hateful, policital, religious or other from doing so? (Obviously you guys do a good job of catching them while you can)

however that was just a suggestion. As far as your "superiority nonsense", I disagree (respectfully) that it's not a superiority issue but a encouragement system to get people to post more. Example would be your "diamond" next to your name. Who here wouldn't like to have that? Is that wrong to have a desire to have something that distingishes you from the millions of other people out there? (Or in this case, the 4000 other "equals") Imagine when this site grows to hundreds of thousands? (I.e. Youtube)...

Who will be the voice then? Who will be the "elders of VS?" The ones who helped make the site grow so big?

Just my random thoughts...

And the circle continues...

There is no such thing as supreriorty here. I see the higher members as moderators, and i don't think VS can get as big as youtube, as youtube is not for the best videos on the web, whereas VS is.

I think that if VideoSift does become very big and popular, it will be known as a status thing. If your video is accepted on VideoSift, then it is seen as a good video.

" ... but a encouragement system to get people to post more. Example would be your "diamond" next to your name. Who here wouldn't like to have that?"

anyone who has ever posted frequently on any forum can atest to the fact that some people merely post to 'boost' their count and get a star, heart, diamond, etc ... i don't want to see VS comments reduced to nothing but vacuous and/or smiley faced-only comments.

there are times when i have the availability to post a lot more than others (as evidenced by my relatively quick gold star) ... should my VS 'status' be raised due to my comment count given the short duration of time i've been sifting?

i agree with dot ... if people want to post ... they will post! some people are just more chatty than others *blushes* but that's just the nature of the beast. i don't need a physical symbol to distinguish me from others ... i think my avatar and my comments do that just fine!

i can certainly see your point, bsna ...i just don't think it's one that we need to make an issue over. *shrug* but i do understand what you are saying.

This is a little too intrusive. I think the system is good as is.

I just post videos that get universally ignored.

We have been talking about allowing the creation of lurker accounts, which would allow people to sign up and vote but not comment or post videos. As far as doing anything retroactively to the current members that isn't going to happen. I get lots of angry email already, and I can only imagine what the reaction to this would be.

And I think that we will probably limit commenting of probationary members to their own video thread in the new video queue, which should cut down on trolling. Do you have any particular threads where you feel that somebody is being a troll bnsa? I sort of feel like the new member queue has done a lot to discourage that sort of behavior.

Nah, I don't have problems with trolls. I just posted Fletch's idea to expand on his original idea as a suggestion. I care less if people don't submit videos or just watch for fun. Earning the comment right I thought would be a good idea but I could be wrong. The main thing I like about VS is that we do get good discussion and dialog here which makes it like a round table instead of a wasteland like Youtube where no one knows anyone.

I agree with the egalitarian ideas of that fellow with the pretty red gemstone....

[my comment is probably is several hours too old to be funny but I couldn't resist]

In all seriousness, I also agree that the goldie system effectively acts as an automatic mechanism to allow people to gain moderator powers and it's nice b/c it's basically based on merit (ability to sift 50 vids) - on other sites, you either have to suck up to the admins, or... well, I think that's the only way you can pull it off at other sites.

The other crucial distinction is the fact that people with moderator skills don't let it go to their heads b/c if they act like jackasses, people may (silently) ignore their vids, so there's a powerful social code to be civil without actually jumping down people's throats (too often, anyway - once in a while things pop up but they generally get resolved within a day if not sooner). Along with that, most people seem to automatically notice that certain things are gauche, such as reviewing people's voting histories and using them to attack others. It's happened a few times, but the person who committs that social faux pas is politely/sternly informed it's considered impolite and civility reigns again. I really should sit down and codify these unwritten rules in case anyone hasn't picked up on them or cares.

Videosift and member behaviour could be a goldmine for psych/sociology students, or many other academics studying media and human nature, IMHO.