The shorter one is missing the part where the guy stops to carry over the girl. It's a dupe, because the fact that it's shorter does not carry any additional benefit. In fact, it omits part of the event.

It's not attempting to. It's not focusing on the chivalry part at all. It's focusing ont he guy wake-boarding down the street.

Now explain why the other linked videos are not dupes.

If the answer is "It's 100% subjective based on the whims and moods of 2 gold level sifters" then at least that's something.>> ^campionidelmondo:

The shorter one is missing the part where the guy stops to carry over the girl. It's a dupe, because the fact that it's shorter does not carry any additional benefit. In fact, it omits part of the event.

There will never be guidelines that are perfectly applicable to each and every dupe scenario. It will require some insight and fine feeling on the part of the dupers to determine the right course of action.

So then "It's 100% subjective based on the whims and moods of 2 gold level sifters">> ^campionidelmondo:

There will never be guidelines that are perfectly applicable to each and every dupe scenario. It will require some insight and fine feeling on the part of the dupers to determine the right course of action.

The Technogic video is not a dupe because it is an (apparently) unabridged version of the video and contains almost twice as much content as the original submission.

The He Man video is not a dupe because it contains significant additional content.

In both cases, if the original submissions were submitted after the newer submissions, they would be dupes because they'd be a subset of the existing content. This is the reason the flooded street video is a dupe.

I did not expect undulation on the water.

I am just happy we are talking and not bottling it up, Good job everyone.

I see, it all makes sense now. If I sift videos that are identical to, but a minute longer than any existing sifts, then they are OK.

They are too close. That is my royal decree.

It adds nothing, it only subtracts.

Knivesout, here is another similar situation:

http://videosift.com/video/Not-enough-Women-on-QI-Here-s-why?loadcomm=1#comment-1239971

Are they dupes? Yes. And no. Both answers are correct, yes?

I'll add a little to it. If the video had only been the last 15 seconds, I would not have duped it. But we spend 30 sec out of the 45 looking at the target of the other video, that's 66% of the video. Add onto that, that the last 33 % is wholly included in the first video as well.

Again, if it had been a cut of only the guy on the wakeboard, maybe with 3-4 seconds of filler around it, I would not have duped it, but as it is, dupe. Even though the tags and title and description pointed to the "second act", so to speak.

Do you follow my thinking? It's not just about them being longer/shorter, it's about a significant difference in the video.

It's a borderline case, certainly, but I'd say it's fairly on the side of dupe for certain. On the other side, we find the technologic video - some would say that it's clearly a dupe (looking in the comments), but I say no, because it essentially is a different piece of music: Radio cut vs. album version. Now, they are pretty close, and I'll agree that it's an even closer borderline case - had the song been only say 30 seconds longer, then it would get hard to justify, but it's a full 2 minutes longer - almost double the length. I'd say that as a music act, that's significant enough to leave both.

So, Knivesout, use TubeChop (or whatever you do to the embed) to focus on just the wakeboard and post again?

I'd upvote that.

Isn't this talk a dupe of some other talks about dupes of some other talks about dupes?

*discard

Discarding this post - discard requested by original submitter KnivesOut.