You have just sowed the seeds of terrorism. 1 person 1 vote. Just like good ol' democracy.

Ooooh! Ooooh! How 'bout you save up your sift dollars and then use them to buy a double vote!

haha raven thanks for playing.

K0MMIE... it IS one person one vote, but senior sifters would have the power to help things out of the queue.

there is a difference between a video dying because it's bad and dying because not enough people lol'd. some things get loads of votes because they are 20 seconds long and make you laugh. fine. but is VideoSift a lolmeter? or a place to find the best archive of video links?

lol does not equal ultimate truth.

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

Yeah, I think that might be a step too far. We have toyed with the idea of a *supervote that would give people an extra vote every four days or something.

oh ... and... Sift Dollars! Just wanted to get that out.

a step too far towards what? variety?

the way i see it there are 3 levels a video can achieve, unsifted, sifted, and loadsavotes.

bad videos (dupes, selflinks, crap bitrate) should remain unsifted.
good but niche videos should be sifted but not get many votes.
good and broadly popular videos should get loadsavotes.

surely the aim is to have as many as possible of the good quality videos on the internet out of the queue? regardless of hive mind or lolcatfactor?

anyway i might not have the solution, but dag, are you just totally against distortion? because that means lolcats get an advantage, and the sift converges on certain kinds of clips (you know, the ones we all posted just to get a gold star)

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

I'm afraid it would turn the Sift into an oligarchy with too much power over the content in too few hands.

I will admit that I tend to view more and therefore vote more for sifts from long time siftbuddies than noob submitters. It's not a conscious thing - but it happens. So if all of us hardcore sifters are voting out each other's posts, it becomes even more difficult for noobs to get out.

I think the Sift is well-served by a mix of quirky, short entertaining clips and longer thought-provoking ones. Looking at the top 15 at the moment- I'd say that's what we have.

my proposal would only give a little bit of power to senior members to help videos out of the queue a little bit. the worst that can happen is more videos make it out of the queue. they might only get 11 votes total but at least they are on the Sift and searchable.
giving people double downvotes would be very different, then i would agree with you.

About the top 15, yes it is not bad, it's the best on the internet.
But that's the popularity contest side of things, don't you see the Sift also as a library (perhaps with a larger selection of long documentaries that aren't about iraq?)
if you attract the kind of person that wants more than lolcats, the whole Sift benefits.

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

I do see it as library for sure. I don't think it's accidental that we have librarians here that are prominent Sifters.

Do we really want more videos coming out of the queue - that is to say, videos coming out at a faster rate than they are now? I'm on the Sift pretty much all day- and I have trouble keeping up.

Also, I think the "top 15 expiring soon" does a good job at catching gems that might be otherwise neglected. Between that- *s4ve and *r3queue I'd say we have a nice system of devices to keep it from becoming a straight popularity contest.

That said, I think people would enjoy the occasional *supervote invocation for stuff they are really passionate about.

The downside though of any kind of double-vote system- is that it makes voting seem a bit flawed. When you look at a vote tally- you won't know quickly, how many of the votes are double, or true individual votes. This has the potential to devalue the voting process overall.

If what we're really talking about is getting stuff out of the queue- maybe a power to push things out early would work. *earlyexit could make a post publish with 7 votes instead of 10.

yes, now we're understanding.

the double vote should definitely revert to single vote once there are 10 upvoters, like i said, because the vote count should be the votecount.

this proposal is only about getting things out of the queue that aren't instant hotbutton upvote things. the top 15 is ok, but they are all "look!" kinda short things, variety but no depth.

about the vids coming out too fast, well i don't check ALL the vids, i doubt many people do, and i shouldn't have to check them ALL, or what's the point of the hive mind, playlists, user profiles and search?

maybe I'm just n00b but what's the purpose of *s4ve and *r3queue and *pr0m0te? Upper stars already have "powers" and special abilities (can you tell I game?) just for the purpose of plucking a worthy but ignored vid out of the queue. You give them double-vote and its all just more "nyah nyah I'm gold and you're NOT" to some of us.

and to take your own viewpoint in a different direction, what's to say that upper stars should have the ability to be "better critics" than everyone else? I mean, I have been here long enough to have earned silver, maybe even gold, but I keep putting up vids that I LIKE. Not stuff I think will get me my stars. I'm not lolcatting even though I understand that would get my star rising faster. Fine strategy for others but I'm not interested. Yeah half of my stuff ends up being a dupe but honestly I am flattered by that because it usually means I'm picking good stuff - just too late. It hasn't escaped my notice that some types of vids are harder to get sifted than others but that's fine. If a philosophical vid or obscure music vid or art vid actually does get sifted, I feel even more satisfied that it was a good pick. Sorry but people naturally vote up things that make them laugh or give them warm fuzzies. So, there's going to be a lot of lolcat sifts. Is that bad?
Keep the voting the way it is please. Maybe hand out more star powers or give them more often because I DO trust the upper stars to pick good things and bypass the system occasionally, but please, the symbolism of "one person, one vote" is too powerful.

No to doublevotes here. We do have the power to *save and at most I could see gold 100 sifters getting an extra one of those.
But let's face it, how many of us actually use our saves consistently to help out "deserving" videos? Let's do more of that before we make major changes.

Ooooh! Hot topic, hot topic!

Do people who know a lot about politics get more votes in an election than non politicians? Isn´t that what is being suggested here? I am with KOMMIE on the 1 person 1 vote thing and keep it the way it is, for democracies sake.

I believe the invocation tools available now do a good job at keeping this place clean and are also able to point people in a direction at times through saves and promotes.

Also: If you start the "we want to be a library" argument you have two ways to go about it
1. You go for a "complete" library (which would eventually mean everything would have to be included on a long enough timeline, but then you could just build a video aggregator site that includes all of YouTube and other sites without any quality thresholds.

2. You go for a "quality" library that is ultimately based on the taste of a lot of different people. That can only be handled through a truly democratic vote system like we have now.

I however, also see the problem MINK mentioned of the stuff on the fringe not getting enough exposure and I would like a place for the "hey, take a second look" videos, that went unsifted because they were too long, had a shitty title, were posted by new members or were just posted at a time of day when they got less attention.

Here is a possible solution in my eyes:
A way to list all recently * saved vids, which essentially makes it a list of senior sifter recommendations. That way you don´t get another invocation like *recommend, just a way to filter the content better...

PS: No siftmoney exchanged hands before writing this

See: Playlists, bookmarks. No double voting. It alienates the senior sifters from the juniors. Besides as Eric pointed out a month or so ago there a dozens of playlists specifically for the purpose of archiving the "almost out of the queue" videos. Personally I bookmark videos I'm going to save and do so as soon as they become available. And lets keep the sift a democracy not a capitalistic bureaucracy. Power to the people! No Sift Dollars!

1 person 1 vote.

actually, gorgon, the sift dollar question is not related to the double vote.

sift money could be used to better handle things like saves or promotes.

we have a save each 5 days and a promote each 7 days, right?
so in 35 days we get 7 saves and 5 promotes.
you could get 2 sifty each day, and pay 5 sifties for a save and 7 sifties for a promote.
and have a limit of 12 sifties, limit that can be increased as star ranking increases.

Absolutely no double votes or early exits or preferential treatment to any videos. Period. You want to talk about popularity contests, giving extra votes etc. would only make things worse. A hundred star, gold star, diamond, whatever are not automatically a better judge of quality especially as the site continues to grow and would be just as likely to use the power on something you or I may not consider quality. I may happen to really like "lolcats" and double vote everyone I see (not really). Would that improve anything? Some things you just can't fix easily. One sifter one vote.

First it´s siftmoney and before you know it siftpimps will be selling sifthookers on siftcrack to you at every corner...

0.o I declare aristocratic shenanigans.

What if high-star members simply had the ability to *requeue a video that wasn't their own?

hmmm, i actually agree with all the objections here, on second thoughts i don't want doublevotes, i just want to help things out of the queue. i don't think that gold stars are better judges of taste or style, but they can be relied upon to say "this video is not bad quality, not dupe, and has good tags, so why not sift it". then any member can say "lol" and it gets 60 or 6 upvotes, what's the difference?

here's the thing: getting out of the queue doesn't mean your video is a winner, it just means you have passed the basic quality check to ensure crap doesn't end up on the Sift.

So, giving trusted members the power to say "that video meets our quality guidelines" is not giving them much power. they can't put it in the top 15, it's just out of the queue, stored by siftbot, searchable, available.

Being out of the queue should just mean "this is not shit" ... and nothing more. there's so many good discarded videos and * save doesn't seem to be working well enough. i like maatc's idea with the "recently saved" list, and i think "please save these" playists should be standardised and automated somehow so it's easy to find vids that the submitter thinks deserve it.

on average, maybe the sift doesn't like long documentaries about russia, but if someone is looking for long documentaries about russia, he doesn't care about the average opinion, he only cares that it is not shit and the list isn't full of dupes. see the difference? look at my current queue for details. Are we saying the doc in my queue doesn't belong on the sift because it isn't the kind of thing that 10 people vote for in 4 days? We really are running a popularity contest and that's a good thing? That doc should be discarded and left on the same level as dupes and racist jokes?

jeez all this talk of oligarchy, it seems maybe the utopian egalitarian system is more important than having a good body of videos to search. equality at any cost!!! Let the Lowest Common Denominator Reign Supreme! Attention span maximum: 20 seconds and counting!

Another idea - what if there was a search option that allowed you to see all videos that didn't make it out of the queue? Then you could use your already-present *save powers to help it out.

or, for when someone with *s4ave power tries to submit a video thats discarded, inform them of that, so theres the option to invoke that, if they chose, or to submit as is, if they chose (could be valid reasons to do both, and their save so their call).

I like the theory of *requeue for someone else, but it has a minor problem in maintaing a spot in a persons queue, beyond their choice for it (I know, they could discard to free the spot if an issue, just not black and white).

*assist as a stars version of requeue, extending the dead drop off time?

or 7 votes == 1 more day to try and get sifted before auto discard?

Thylan, if a queue is full and I were to save a video, it would simply add an extra slot to the queue.

and this is dumb, it should add ANYWAY the temporary extra slot, not only if you have full queue.

about requeueing other other users' videos I disagree, everyone should be able to organize them on their own.

Marine actually suggested something similar... not too long ago. *supervote is a little lame(No offense Dag). I think we can come up with a more creative invocation than *supervote.

Personally, I think the idea of a doublevote could be kind of fun. But I can see why it might be a bad idea.

but seriously... raven's official vote on the matter (and she knows she only gets one), is NO to doublevotes, supervotes, any sort of oligarchical shenanigans... she would, however, be interested in a link that led to a collection of recently saved, but still unsifted videos... yes, she likes that idea very much.

As per looris's and MH's comments, I give you this:
http://www.videosift.com/talk/Max-submissions-in-the-queue-include-saves

lol I kinda remembered I already said this thing

-one sifter one vote
-maatc "recently saved" list, good idea!