I tend to agree.

I've been around for a while, but I think I've personally posted/sifted fewer total videos than years that I've been a member.

I understand some of the perks and privileges being reserved to the primary sifters / contributors -- especially things that deal with that specific aspect of the site.

I'm here for two main reasons --
1) to enjoy the content gathered here by the primary sifters and to contribute to the voting process that makes the site great as a normal community member, and
2) to comment on those videos in an environment that is *infinitely* superior to the cesspool that is the YouTube comments system.

Site-wise, I'm stuck in the purgatory between Probie and Star-level. I can get Power Points, but don't really have anything to do with them. Especially since I basically don't ever sift anything myself.

I'm completely happy with how the site works overall, but I think that users/commenters-but-not-sifters like me would probably do good things with a bit more leash; a few more privileges / invocations, as suggested by @Retroboy.

*quality

Awarding Retroboy with one star point for this contribution to VideoSift - declared quality by eric3579.

@dag and @lucky760 seem to be willing to change these things as they have in the past. I think if you put out specific recommendations they would seriously consider making a change.

Personally i think anyone that has been here a year should be able to promote anothers video regardless of star ability (if that's possible to do)

Not bad ideas and I'd be open to making such changes.

Either start a poll or ask dag what he thinks or both.

Is it possible to assign abilities due to time as a sifter? Opposed to star power.

Eric,

Anything is possible.

Okay.

HEY DAG, WHAT DO YOU THINK?

HEY EVERYONE WHAT DO YOU THINK?

I guess instead of reaching out to dag and also creating a poll, you could just reach out to dag's pole. That one method of direct influence can carry the most weight if handled correctly.

-edit- nvm

-edit- nvm

It has always seemed kind of bass ackwards to me that probationary members can self-promote but not promote others' videos. What was the reasoning behind that? Maybe reverse the rule? Or allow probies to do either but require more cost for self-promoting (3 stars)?

While we're talking about abilities, calling dupes should probably be allowed by lower levels. I'm thinking bronze or silver. But it should still require a gold member or above to isdupe it so that a more senior member always double-checks.

Also, as someone who literally spent years at silver, I thought it might be cool to award star points for time spent actively on the site. Like, if you logged in and upvoted something at least 'X' number of times during the year (on different days of course) then every year you earn 10 star points on your anniversary. That would mean after 5 years an active user could be at silver without ever sifting a video. This would also prevent people from ever realistically achieving gold or above without sifting something.

Just food for thought anyways.

Well I have heard he carries a big stick around this place. But I'd hate to ball it up if I did that. Might make him go nuts and then I'd get the sack.

Up.

Vote.

Oops. I wrote a response a day ago and thought I clicked submit, but I guess I forgot and closed the window. So, short version:

@SDGundamX covered the main thing, promoting. But in general, several of the Bronze Star functions that are more like bookkeeping things rather than actual "perks" seem like stuff that members-but-not-sifters like me could help with.

Stuff like invocations for dead, related, length ... that kind of stuff.

I'm definitely not losing any sleep over not having any of those things, but I think that regular members (before star level) could probably be trusted to help with those simple bookkeeping things.

Just quoting this bit. Sure, there's 'privileges' that high-traffic members deserve. I don't believe helping with routine maintenance stuff that helps the site's overall quality without creating any real risk should be in that category.

I also don't believe the ability to downvote a comment or a video should be a privilege that requires a tremendous amount of membership time to earn either. I can understand getting past probation (which in itself is a bit of work) before opening that option up. But it's likely that anyone getting past that barrier is not your 11-year-old foul-mouthed teabagging anarchist-wannabe Call of Duty player who has apparently slept with your mother.

When it comes to voting, shouldn't everyone have the same voice?

Downvoting is an interesting case that I thought about quite a bit.

I think it *could* go to the Regular Member level, but I'm fine with it staying at Bronze Star because:
* Downvoting is a bit more subject to abuse than the bookkeeping invocations I mentioned before, mainly because it can auto-discard things that get downvoted early. Right?
* IF downvoting was as integral a function as upvoting, I'd say that regular members should get it. BUT, either by design or just as the emergent de-facto standard, it isn't used very much -- even amongst those that have access to it.
* There are some exceptions to that trend, like, say, @ant. Even though that seems to get under some people's skin, I like the way ant uses downvoting -- especially when considered to be a perk reserved for the real upper echelons of contributing members.
* BUT, all of that is primarily relevant to *video* downvoting. *Comment* downvoting isn't as critical / exploitable, so it seems like that could be made available to members before they can downvote videos. I would sometimes like to have that ability, but if the powers that be feel that it should be reserved for Star-level, I don't feel strongly enough about it to push.


I think that's probably all my thoughts on the topic. Thanks again to @Retroboy for bringing it up for discussion, and to @lucky760 / dag et al. for considering it.

Handling the dagpole is a videosift institution.

The whole idea is meritocracy - so far only video posts (and starred comments) have been the metric used for establishing this merit, but it sounds like a valid concern/idea to base it on other factors as well, such as high comment engagement, general good behavior etc. it's just hard to automate.

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

I would generally agree with this comment. If we could find another meritocratic point to add to the stew, I would be in favour of that. I don't think it should just be time based. Or number of votes - too easy to game.

Don't touch my pole.

From the FAQ..."Voting is the glue that holds VideoSift together." So it would make sense to use this as a basic metric to elevate and (un)voted comments, then membership time. Elevation limited to basic privileges as discussed above.

-edited-

Maybe start here(suggestion). Promotes available to all non probationary members that have been here at least one year.

http://videosift.com/video/Jon-Stewarts-Secret-Meetings-With-Obama

So it's not playing in my country, so I remembered that there was a way to report to Siftie that a video was region blocked, and hovered over the Invocations help tag aaaaand....

Comments #7 and #8