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

I don't know - I think our dupe level is still very, very low- all things considered. It's good to remember that many sites don't give a flying frack about dupes - though I'm glad we do.


It's an interesting idea to reward dupe finders- maybe a *dupe invocation? What's the penalty though for a false dupe ID? I can see the shit storms brewing on the horizon already.

If we want to be fun but evil, we could give very high ranking members a general *penalty invocation which would dock members for dupes or other infractions at the whim of the penalizer- though the criteria would need to be clearly spelled out.

It could be in the form of *dupe=LINK and then another member should second the dupe, by affirming the link. Much like the *ban.

In essence the form that rottenseed describes, is probably the best way to go, so that the population of the sift becomes self-regulating on that matter, like we already are with votes.

Invocations (ban) cannot be called by gwiz665 because gwiz665 is not privileged - sorry.

how about if the duper must relinquish a power point to the dupee.

This would be of some sort of consolation to somebody that may have lost votes due to another copy floating around.

I don't think dupers should be automatically penalized. Often if tags or titles for the original post (especially from the early days of the site) are not sufficiently descriptive, it's hard to catch them. Plus, some search terms are just so common that they spawn pages and pages of videos, making dupe-checking difficult. But rewarding dupe spotters is a good idea.

^ I agree with this wholeheartedly.

I think dupes would be a lot easier to see if people labeled their submissions properly. i.e. a couple o months back I submitted Dio's song Holy Diver. There was an existing one but it didn't have Holy Diver in the tags or title. So when it was pointed out by a member who was pretty irate with me that it was a dupe. I had no way of knowing because a search for it and the possible duplicates didn't bring it up at all.

The moral of the story: give your video proper tags. Not only that but it would clear up a ton of videos in the dead pool that say stuff like "Holy Crap!" and "Unspecified humanoid in Unspecified State does Unspecified activity."

...if only we could get that vote transfer system and search update going...*ahem*

I thinks there's something to be said about the tagging issue and I agree with what Fjnbk and Gorgonheap have to say about it. Gag tags are funny and all, but the accurate tags are sometimes lacking. I think if anyone should get penelized it should be the bad taggers. Although I don't really think anyone should be penelized at all. Sometimes it just happens. Maybe tag-fixers should get some kind of bonus if enough sifters agree the new tags will greatly improve the search results. A vote slot on sifty's tag change comment. But that might all be too complicated.

Being accurate with your title and tags also helps siftbot catch dupes in the dupe checker screen.

Tag School!

I think the current system works well enough, it's (as has been stated) more an issue of tagging.
Punishing people for posting a dupe would be stifling to the sifting community. It's not like people post dupes knowingly, and a looming threat of punishment would most likely do nothing except to keep people from posting videos.
A reward system also seems unnecessary to me. If a video is a dupe then it'll be discovered either while it's unsifted or when it gets promoted to the sift. This particular stage in dupe spotting is a system that has worked very well in the past and which doesn't really need a carrot to make people comply.
What I do believe would be a good idea is to have a dupe button, which opens a popup window where you can paste the link to the original sifted video. The site then checks who voted for the dupe and not the original, then transfers their votes from the former to the latter before discarding the dupe. Of course there's the risk of someone abusing it, but in reality I don't think that's any problem at all any more than the discard invocation has been thus far.

Seriously a big part of the reason for dupes is that sift search is not that thorough... I've now been resorting to googling the site when I'm looking for something lately.

Ex: just posted a dupe of the pee-drinking monkey a few days ago because searching for "peeing monkey" or "peeing AND monkey" or a variety of other combinations found NO dupes. Later, when the dupe was pointed out to me, and I looked at the original post, I noticed it actually had the tags 'peeing' and 'monkey'. WTF... I don't know how that's supposed to fly.

Hmmm seems like search is down now... maybe being updated?