*SiftTalk: Earning a Star Point in VideoSift
*This post discusses the current star point award system in VideoSift and how it ultimately goes against its mission of collecting a database of better quality videos from the internet.
*The post is made recognizing that a star point is considered a higher commodity value than a power point. Collecting star point allows users to gain higher administrative powers, thus a means of upward mobility in user status and more tools that help their participation on the website. Power points have a lesser commodity value since it only allows users to remain in the same status.
I'll be honest and admit that I'm not the most vigilant sifter when it comes to scouring the internet for new and interesting videos. I do sift when I see a video that I have enjoyed and nobody has sifted it yet, but often good videos get sifted by more enterprising members.
This forces me to scavenge for videos of lesser qualities or contrary to my interests. I was surprised to find myself at one point sifting videos that I did not personally enjoy, but was sifting them anyway because I knew they had a higher chance of being sifted. And at some point of my sifting career I found myself spending more efforts on creating a catchier title for my sift rather than putting more efforts trying to find a higher quality video.
I was sad to find myself censoring my own interests just to gain a star point. I found it contradictory to my own interests and decided to stop myself from doing so. But then suddenly I realized I had placed myself in a situation where I had no other means to gain a star point.
Presenting the video in a more approachable and tasteful manner is a skill and adds to the viewing experience and I am not speaking against it. But I am pointing out the fact that sometimes it is being used to mask the lacking quality of the submitted video, and takes away from putting my efforts into seeking and submitting a video of higher quality.
And I believe this is happening because of the way our current star points system is set. There is no other way to earn a star point other than getting a video sifted. And this system pushes its users to submit any videos, as long as they get sifted. This goes against the founding spirit of VideoSift, setting out to gather quality videos over the internet. The current system no longer promote quality, but promotes more of better presentation skills and identifying existing public interests. Again, both traits are significant in its own right, but often does not necessarily focus on quality control.
I believe that members should be rewarded for contributing to VideoSift by maintaining its higher quality.
VideoSift has grown enough that it is becoming more difficult to notice a good sift through piles upon piles of queued and unsifted videos floating around in the system, which has made it difficult for real quality sifts to be noticed. Members who recognize the values of these unsifted videos and promoting them to the front page to give them better recognition should be awarded for their efforts with a star point.
Members who fix embed codes should also be rewarded with a star point. By making existing good sifts available in the system not only remove redundancy in the VideoSift system, but also gives its members an opportunity to get a star point without having to resort to lesser quality videos, which ends up clogging up the system with junk.
Fixing embeds did give you a star point some time ago, but recently I've noticed that you can no longer earn star points from doing either of these things, instead replaced by a power point. I would like to know why it is no longer the case to earn a star point from fixing embeds in VideoSift, and what different ways are available to earn a star point other than having a video sifted. I visited the FAQ section to see what other ways I could earn star points on VideoSift, but I couldn't find any mention so far.
*The post is made recognizing that a star point is considered a higher commodity value than a power point. Collecting star point allows users to gain higher administrative powers, thus a means of upward mobility in user status and more tools that help their participation on the website. Power points have a lesser commodity value since it only allows users to remain in the same status.
I'll be honest and admit that I'm not the most vigilant sifter when it comes to scouring the internet for new and interesting videos. I do sift when I see a video that I have enjoyed and nobody has sifted it yet, but often good videos get sifted by more enterprising members.
This forces me to scavenge for videos of lesser qualities or contrary to my interests. I was surprised to find myself at one point sifting videos that I did not personally enjoy, but was sifting them anyway because I knew they had a higher chance of being sifted. And at some point of my sifting career I found myself spending more efforts on creating a catchier title for my sift rather than putting more efforts trying to find a higher quality video.
I was sad to find myself censoring my own interests just to gain a star point. I found it contradictory to my own interests and decided to stop myself from doing so. But then suddenly I realized I had placed myself in a situation where I had no other means to gain a star point.
Presenting the video in a more approachable and tasteful manner is a skill and adds to the viewing experience and I am not speaking against it. But I am pointing out the fact that sometimes it is being used to mask the lacking quality of the submitted video, and takes away from putting my efforts into seeking and submitting a video of higher quality.
And I believe this is happening because of the way our current star points system is set. There is no other way to earn a star point other than getting a video sifted. And this system pushes its users to submit any videos, as long as they get sifted. This goes against the founding spirit of VideoSift, setting out to gather quality videos over the internet. The current system no longer promote quality, but promotes more of better presentation skills and identifying existing public interests. Again, both traits are significant in its own right, but often does not necessarily focus on quality control.
I believe that members should be rewarded for contributing to VideoSift by maintaining its higher quality.
VideoSift has grown enough that it is becoming more difficult to notice a good sift through piles upon piles of queued and unsifted videos floating around in the system, which has made it difficult for real quality sifts to be noticed. Members who recognize the values of these unsifted videos and promoting them to the front page to give them better recognition should be awarded for their efforts with a star point.
Members who fix embed codes should also be rewarded with a star point. By making existing good sifts available in the system not only remove redundancy in the VideoSift system, but also gives its members an opportunity to get a star point without having to resort to lesser quality videos, which ends up clogging up the system with junk.
Fixing embeds did give you a star point some time ago, but recently I've noticed that you can no longer earn star points from doing either of these things, instead replaced by a power point. I would like to know why it is no longer the case to earn a star point from fixing embeds in VideoSift, and what different ways are available to earn a star point other than having a video sifted. I visited the FAQ section to see what other ways I could earn star points on VideoSift, but I couldn't find any mention so far.
14 Comments
HybridYou can get star points for *quality sift talk posts.
siftbotAwarding legacy0100 with one star point for this contribution to VideoSift - declared quality by Hybrid.
dagComment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)
Definitely some good points raised here. We're open to ideas to reward the quality of a video. What we always get bogged down in is the notion that "quality" is a subjective factor in the eye of the beholder. For the sake of furthering the discussion let's not go down that rabbit warren and we'll assume that quality is a measurable outcome.
Now, bring on the ideas!
legacy0100It would be great to know all the different ways of earning a star point in the current system.
VideoSift has gone through multiple upgrades and rule changes throughout the years. So for those of us who hasn't been keeping track are lost without a proper information listed on the FAQ section.
Sarzy>> ^legacy0100:
It would be great to know all the different ways of earning a star point in the current system.
VideoSift has gone through multiple upgrades and rule changes throughout the years. So for those of us who hasn't been keeping track are lost without a proper information listed on the FAQ section.
I believe that currently, the only way to earn a star point is by getting a video sifted -- all the other things that used to reward star points (e.g. getting 15 votes on a comment or fixing a dead embed) now reward power points.
legacy0100>> ^Sarzy:
I believe that currently, the only way to earn a star point is by getting a video sifted -- all the other things that used to reward star points (e.g. getting 15 votes on a comment or fixing a dead embed) now reward power points.
Also having your post nominated for * quality, as Hybrid has pointed out. Any news on FAQ updates?
bareboards2It was interesting to read this sift talk post.
This was exactly my journey. Posting things I didn't much like, but knew they would sift was certainly a phase I went through. And also stopped doing, when I didn't like how it felt.
I think the journey is the journey. Sifters come and go. Tastes change. As has been remarked often, the old days of great science vids are long gone. I miss them, not that I always understood what was happening.
One thing I do is post vids that I KNOW won't sift. Because I want what I consider to be quality here on the Sift. Or I will post something that is close to my heart, personal, and having it here is a repository and a place to visit it later.
I don't think that star points should be awarded for embed fixes. I am a bit concerned at present that some fixes are done sloppily and quickly, just to earn the power point. If you got a star point? Now that Galaxy is out there as a goal? I shudder to think of what might happen with that lovely prize out there, beckoning us on.
longdeWhen we talk about something sifting, we really mean something sifting in 2-3 days. However, given that anyone can upvote (lurker or sifter), in the long run, if your video is truly high quality, it will be sifted. Actually, I think in the long run any video with even a minimal appeal will get sifted. In other words, if you have a PQ of 1000 vids of some nominal quality, you can do nothing and in 5-10 years you will reach crown.
I think the sift will reach a steady state, where the tastes of outsiders (vs. active sifters) will affect the overall popularity of videos (as measured by votes) on the site.
So, I sift what I like, knowing that in the long run, 10 votes is a low barrier.
dagComment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)
But the "eventually it will Sift" model - doesn't give the video the exposure on the front page that a "hot" video would get. Just something to consider.
>> ^longde:
When we talk about something sifting, we really mean something sifting in 2-3 days. However, given that anyone can upvote (lurker or sifter), in the long run, if your video is truly high quality, it will be sifted. Actually, I think in the long run any video with even a minimal appeal will get sifted. In other words, if you have a PQ of 1000 vids of some nominal quality, you can do nothing and in 5-10 years you will reach crown.
I think the sift will reach a steady state, where the tastes of outsiders (vs. active sifters) will affect the overall popularity of videos (as measured by votes) on the site.
So, I sift what I like, knowing that in the long run, 10 votes is a low barrier.
longdeTrue, but I'm assuming that most people who vote for a video in the long run, find it through search engines. Or the "related videos" list.
Also assuming that front page exposure matters less to a sifter than powerpoints, though one does generate the other.>> ^dag:
But the "eventually it will Sift" model - doesn't give the video the exposure on the front page that a "hot" video would get. Just something to consider.
>> ^longde:
When we talk about something sifting, we really mean something sifting in 2-3 days. However, given that anyone can upvote (lurker or sifter), in the long run, if your video is truly high quality, it will be sifted. Actually, I think in the long run any video with even a minimal appeal will get sifted. In other words, if you have a PQ of 1000 vids of some nominal quality, you can do nothing and in 5-10 years you will reach crown.
I think the sift will reach a steady state, where the tastes of outsiders (vs. active sifters) will affect the overall popularity of videos (as measured by votes) on the site.
So, I sift what I like, knowing that in the long run, 10 votes is a low barrier.
dagComment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)
I don't know if this holds true for all of us - but what I like - when I get a video sifted, is that it's discussed and shared a lot. This is my "reward" for finding something great. You don't get that Sally Fields "You really like me" dopamine thrill from things that trickle to 10 votes 3 months after they are posted. >> ^longde:
True, but I'm assuming that most people who vote for a video in the long run, find it through search engines. Or the "related videos" list.
Also assuming that front page exposure matters less to a sifter than powerpoints, though one does generate the other.>> ^dag:
But the "eventually it will Sift" model - doesn't give the video the exposure on the front page that a "hot" video would get. Just something to consider.
>> ^longde:
When we talk about something sifting, we really mean something sifting in 2-3 days. However, given that anyone can upvote (lurker or sifter), in the long run, if your video is truly high quality, it will be sifted. Actually, I think in the long run any video with even a minimal appeal will get sifted. In other words, if you have a PQ of 1000 vids of some nominal quality, you can do nothing and in 5-10 years you will reach crown.
I think the sift will reach a steady state, where the tastes of outsiders (vs. active sifters) will affect the overall popularity of videos (as measured by votes) on the site.
So, I sift what I like, knowing that in the long run, 10 votes is a low barrier.
xxovercastxxYou would think that VS would become more and more diverse as it got bigger and bigger but it seems to be the opposite. There are now clearly defined video categories that are a path to success and rarely does anything else get much notice.
If we want to encourage more diversity, I'd say we might consider trimming queue slots.
NetRunnerJust a random thought, but how about make it so when someone receives a quality from another user, the receiver gets an extra star point and a power point. That way the invisible hand would push people towards finding videos that move people enough to get them to spend a power point, rather than just upvote.
Perhaps you could extend the effect to promote as well, so the trifecta (quality + doublepromote) gets you more than a mere single promote or quality.
It'd make a power-point miser like me a lot less stingy about promotes if I knew there was a more lasting effect to it.
Oh, and while we're at it, I want the ability to quality/promote comments.
jonnyI'm a bit late to the discussion, but thought I'd leave some ideas behind.
Videos with the broadest appeal will, by definition, garner the most attention and votes, and sift quickest. Those with a narrower interest group will naturally have a harder time being seen among the significant number of broadly appealing videos submitted every day. This is currently being compounded by the front page and queue structure, which promote those videos which are heuristically determined to be most popular (hottest, most votes/views, etc.).
I think there is a good idea for a solution already in place - the Recommended page. It doesn't seem to work particularly well, though. I haven't been around much lately, so maybe it's working better now? In any case, heavily promoting the Recommended page and perhaps favoring unsifted videos for recommendations would probably go a long way to helping high quality videos with a narrower interest group be seen by those interested.
Another, somewhat radical, idea is to completely overhaul the channel system and return to something more like the Collectives that were used originally. Get rid of the exceptionally broad channels like Comedy and Music, which are little more than tags anyway. Collectives can be made more active than channels by either limiting the number of collectives one can join, only displaying videos from collectives to which one belongs, encouraging competition among collectives with various contests, etc.
Basically, you need to get as many of the smaller number of people that might be interested in certain videos to actually see them, while at the same time not flooding everyone with every obscure video.
Oh, another thing that might help is inverting the channel filtering logic. Make it an opt-in system instead of an opt-out system. One, that forces users to think about what kind of videos they want to see, and two, it prevents the situation of filtering out, for example, a news story about video game legislation in Congress because you have the Video Games channel filtered out. Channel filters might be the most powerful and underutilized tool on the site for focusing users attention on the videos they'll be most interested in.
Discuss...
Enable JavaScript to submit a comment.