Totally ignored?
No response at all?

It's not a dupe. Two responses have said that exact thing.
Then your call of dupe was passed over. Does that not tell you something?

I agree with you, the new video is worthless, but the sift as a whole does not.

http://videosift.com/talk/Accute-Dupitis
http://videosift.com/poll/What-is-a-dupe

out of 4:25 minutes, there's 3 minutes in common, which is shown in little chunks on the Olbermann video.

apparently since Olbermann shows most of the new video, you think it should be deleted.
Personally I don't care about dupes.
Dupes only exist so that original submitters get the votes they deserve.

If I have an CD of Metallica, and they include a live version of the same song recorded earlier on the CD, do I have to scratch that track off the cd?

I'm don't appreciate people making choices for me, just because they think one sift is 99% as good as another sift.

quoting boise

Out of 4:25 in your video a total of two clips are directly out of this video--one of 1:46 duration and the second is 1:07.
KO's story is about 2008. Now--in 2012--this is again a story of interest. The commentary completely changes the video. Without any commentary the raw video is again relevant.

I suck. I just duped it without reading any of the comments or controversy. I'm sorry.

There have always been disagreements over what one user or the other feels is a dupe. I'm sure mine are different from yours which are different from Boise_Lib.

I'm just going by the currently posted guidelines for what counts as a dupe.

**********************************************
A duplicate video is one which contains content already wholly available on VideoSift in a published, queued, personal queued, or dead/deadpool video submission. Minor changes in content, like a few additional insignificant seconds of video or alternate background music, will still be considered dupes. The only exception to this is if the change in audio makes a significant difference to the video content.

If a newer submission's video is a clip of content found within an existing post, it will be considered a duplicate unless it meets both these criteria:

The original post is at least 15 minutes in length
The original post is at least 3 times longer than the clip
**********************************************>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

I suck. I just duped it without reading any of the comments or controversy. I'm sorry.

and the post that got duped isn't a dupe according to the rules.

KHAAAAAAAN!!!

to clarify, a few minutes of additional content, can't be construed as a few insignifigant seconds. therefore, not a dupe

Explain. The dupe only has 30 seconds of content that is not in the original. Those 30 seconds are of another reporter asking an unrelated question....the reason it was most likely cut from the original.

"Minor changes in content...will still be considered dupes".

What am I missing here?>> ^marinara:

to clarify, a few minutes of additional content, can't be construed as a few insignifigant seconds. therefore, not a dupe

>> ^Grimm:

Explain. The dupe only has 30 seconds of content that is not in the original. Those 30 seconds are of another reporter asking an unrelated question....the reason it was most likely cut from the original.
"Minor changes in content...will still be considered dupes".
What am I missing here?>> ^marinara:
to clarify, a few minutes of additional content, can't be construed as a few insignifigant seconds. therefore, not a dupe



Say there is a video in which the exact same parts of the clip were used with the exact same length of commentary--but from Glenn Beck's show.

Do you see that this would make a significant difference?

Presentation matters.

Yeah, but you're talking about the second video having a lack of presentation. If that counts then any video here that is preceded and/or followed by commentary/setup/introduction can be resubmitted with those few seconds chopped off the beginning and or end. I might agree if the original video had commentary during the video or something else that changed the context of the video. But I don't see that in this case. In fact in this case the "presentation" as you call it puts the event into context and also offers Romney's rebuttal to the incident. You're Glenn Beck analogy implies that Olbermann in this video goes on a biased rant about Romney. While Olbermann can go on a rant I don't see that here. >> ^Boise_Lib:

>> ^Grimm:
Explain. The dupe only has 30 seconds of content that is not in the original. Those 30 seconds are of another reporter asking an unrelated question....the reason it was most likely cut from the original.
"Minor changes in content...will still be considered dupes".
What am I missing here?>> ^marinara:
to clarify, a few minutes of additional content, can't be construed as a few insignifigant seconds. therefore, not a dupe


Say there is a video in which the exact same parts of the clip were used with the exact same length of commentary--but from Glenn Beck's show.
Do you see that this would make a significant difference?
Presentation matters.

discard