i'm in two minds about this one ... if it isn't broke, don't fix it!

i don't know ... i'll make my decision after i've heard some well thought out arguments for both sides.

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

I'm against it. I consider it a gray area, slippery-slope that could be easily exploited by self-linkers. I can easily imagine CBS's marketing company uploading a bunch of clips to YouTube of their "hot new pilot" and then seeding them here.

Sure, they could just change their username and it would be harder for us to detect, but thankfully, most of these posters are drive-bys and don't bother with subterfuge. We would also probably sniff them out, even if it was a different username.

It's just one more level of protection to keep the body of VideoSift as free from self-interest as possible.

There's also the question of motive. Is there a benefit of getting videos that you uploaded to YouTube lots of views? I seem to remember there is a kind of user ranking system there as well. So, that means that a person posting something to VideoSift, might not be doing it because they want to share, but in an attempt to boost oup their YouTube views.

Here is my opinion:

I do believe that posting a video to Youtube and then submitting it to the Sift is of course self-linking and a direct violation of the policies. Thinking that it is okay and trying to excuse it by saying you want to "share" (we can never rule out any other possible motivations) is just a punkish attempt to squeeze through a loophole that hopefully after this thread, no longer exists.

nuff said.

I used to think it was a tenuous rule, but I believe the complete opposite after a few months of Sifting (especially with the increasing number of Astroturfers etc). I believe the rule is needed, and requires enforcing in all instances (no matter who or when it was posted...Hint to the couple other Sifters I know of).

Their needs to be a distinct line in the sand; as the Submission warning says: 'do not submit self-promotion of any kind' - surely any self-submission is self-promotion to both the Sift and original host? If there's a video which can't be found any where on the providers, then it can be uploaded by the Sifter and submitted by another (or vice-versa, sharing the community gains).

I personally think it's a kinda silly rule, because it can be bypassed by submitting it under other usernames/accounts. To be honest the only thing i think works is when someone watches the vid, smells something fishy like a company trying to make a profit or get free name exposure it can be blogged on and then banned.

I said it in the other thread, if people don't like the video it will get downvoted and ejected from the queue, there is no real danger in allowing self submissions as long as it doesn't clog up the queue with spam vids which I can't see happening. The site is of such a sturdy design that imo it should be irrelevant where the video came from as long as it's siftworthy. Guess i'm just the only one.

Folks know the “no self-link” rule now. Why confuse matters by changing it? There are enough other gray areas to argue about already.

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

OK, let's vote!

I think it is easier to apply the current ruling. The situation is nebulous enough, why add gray area?

well ... i am the lone 'other' voter at the moment ... i voted as such because i don't think that a member should be immediately banned for doing such ... *shrugs*

i do like that the poll was posted in this thread here ... very neato!!!

where's joe?

well i don't believe in a universal ban, I just think such videos should be pulled, and that the ban should be applied for either multiple or blatant attempts at gaming. I think the current circumstance was a little more complicated, but support the letter of the law rather than attempt to moderate an alternative.

Ban 'em all, God will know his own.

I haven't been too verbal lately, but really, this rule needs to be reworded if it is to be of any value.

--
1. Please don't self link. While you may see this site as a great way to promote a project you are working on, it would be bad for our content if everyone just put up videos of them and their friends doing random things. If you think that the project you've put together is truly amazing and we must see it, please email us. We'll take a look at it and if we think it's really great too, we'll add it for you. If you skip this step your account will be deleted. Hey it's harsh, but it's harsh love.
--

The bolded parts indicate the sections I am referring to. If I were to upload a Family Guy clip, it's neither a project I'm working on, nor is it anything to do with me and my friends doing random things. This is where the rule gets fuzzy. When I first saw Videosift and went from a lurker to a member, I read this rule and what I got out of it was this:
If you create a video, and upload it to YouTube, and then link it here, it's a violation of the rules.
If you are simply uploading a Public Domain clip to the web, and want to share it with sifters, then it's fine.
Shortly after I joined I saw several members get reminded/reamed for doing just this, at which point I took the rule to mean, "No Self-linking whatsoever, for any reason, at any time." which is really how the rule should read if you're going to enforce it as such.
Even dag's initial post starting this blog discussion says, "a member uploading their own content to a video host and then submitting it to the Sift", which to me says that it applies to creation of said content. As much as I'd love to be, I am not the creator of Family Guy, and so for me to upload a clip of such would not be a violation of the rule in question.

Oh, and my opinion on the matter is that if you're linking commercially available stuff, it should be allowed. (ie trailers, television episodes or bits of...)

http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=CBS

By the way, the few extra hits on my YouTube account from the Sift drives the ladies wild.
All part of my sinister plan to rule the internets and then THE WORLD!!!

Seriously, as the whole Saddam/JFK escapade proved, trying to post absolute rules on matters open to interpretation tends to get messy.
How stunted would American life be today if we stuck to the exact wording of the Constitution, instead of trying to interpret how to best make it work?

And would anyone care to quantify what my "disturbing number of self-links" have meant in hits to the Sift? Hits that may now or in the future generate revenue?
You're welcome.
To suggest that I took the time to edit, download, and link to those videos for any other reason than wanting to share good stuff is, frankly, insulting.

Bottom line, put a little more trust in the people who so graciously provide you with content.
This place is (was?) more appealing than the YouTubes and other providers with hard-and-fast rules precisely because the community is more intimate.

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

I'll assume that you are speaking to me Theo. I think communities need some rules to keep them from spinning out of control. I also think that those rules need to be applied in as evenly a manner as possible.

I recognize that your posts are made in good faith. VideoSift is more intimate than other video sites, partly because we have a community structure that we are all a part of.

You seem to be saying that we should avoid hard-and-fast rules. Can you give an example of some great online communities that thrive without rules? I'm not baiting you - I'd seriously be curious as to what other kind of structures are out there, that could work for us.

I don't enjoy being put in the position of having to enforce our rules, which I think are actually, pretty loose - we do tend to let some things slide.

You however, are placing pressure on the community to "harden" those rules by pushing against them. I suppose it's inevitable, and if it wasn't you, it would be someone else.

Perhaps this is just a natural stage of evolution in online communities. It does sadden me a bit though, as up to now, VS has been like a big group of friends.

rules are important, but there's nothing necessarily wrong with a double standard. for instance, we have a double standard about the number of posts at once a user can have in the queue. that's a good double standard, because it means a lot more content from the users who have a track record in finding the good stuff.

there's just no comparison between a gold star user and some hypothetical astroturfer making a first post. any attempt to make a rule about self-linking that applies equally to both is bound to be absurd.

i agree that theo47 should be taken on good faith. there's really nothing to gain from doing what he did (except maybe the chance to have an argument about atheism or whatever it was). meanwhile, the community benefits for the chance to watch something and vote on it that otherwise wouldn't have been posted here. without checking the youtube account, no one here associates theo47 with that documentary -- he didn't have anything to do with creating it -- so any votes it received are well earned.

meanwhile, if you want to be so strict about keeping videosift free of self-promotion, fairness will dictate that all user-created content be kept reserved for the Sift Off, or some other designated equivalent. right now, if user A creates a video and uploads it to youtube, user B can post it here without breaking the no-self-linking rule. thing is, everyone knows user A made the video so the votes it gets are really coming from friends. who knows how many votes that same video would get otherwise? so if that post makes the front page, or the top videos list, it's much spammier than anything theo47's been accused of.

sorry, left off the proposal:

suggest that the ability to self-link non-user-created content (like theo47 did) be reserved for gold star users and above. no one's going to go to all the trouble to get 50 videos published here just so they can spam videosift.

would not suggest any change to the rules about how user-created videos can be posted here by that person's friends. just want to point out that this loophole is potentially far more spammable than what you're trying to fix. but since we're spamming the world instead of the other way around, it's okay, right?

still thinking out loud:

the best argument for making this a hard-and-fast rule is that the name of the site is video-SIFT. if we're really "sifting" videos, we have to take what we can find -- no fair seeding the stream with gold ahead of time. if videosifting is a skill, it requires a "play it as it lays" mentality.

but someone who's published 150 videos here, like theo47, is obviously pretty good at this game. as long as the self-linked content is not a major part of someone's posting history, we can probably let it slide...

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

Your proposal has merit PM, and eloquently put. Let me cogitate on that one a bit.

I agree with everything PM says.

Can you add an 'Allow certain users to self-link' option to the poll so I can point my cursor at it and click?

I'm a firm believer that a rule applies to all equally - I assumed the Sift was built on a democratic process (of voting) with the Sift Lord 'government' of admins maintaining it. Now, if we set a precedent for allowing self-links (like in the past); it opens the door for others to walk through. I feel there's often a slight whiff of elitism on here that annoys me - if any form of self-linking were allowed (especially for Golds only) than it would progress to be stinking mass of self-rightous hypocrisy (in my opinion).

Theo: I felt that 5 self-linked Sifts over your time submitting here was a disturbingly high number for someone who should have read and understood the rules by now. The problem I had with your last blogged self-link was that a better quality video was available from the source itself - so submitting your own inferior quality version is pointless to me. The only justification I can see for a Sifter editing and posting a vid, is that it's so rare as to not be available anywhere else. But even then, to preserve any level of honesty - it must be posted/uploaded by another user to share the attention (either here or on the host site).

There's a community of users on here...if you've got something good to share - step out of yor insulated profile and ask a fellow Sifter to help you out - that's how the numerous other Sifters have had their own content uploaded (thereby avoiding Rule 1 and finding good content for the community via itself...isn't that the idea of the Sift?) Oh, and bring back the Sift-Off!

I self-link.

it's not elitism -- it's friendship, or community at least. we all have reputations here: every comment, vote, submission, and discard is recorded and available to anyone to review. so it's easy to be authentic, because we all know each other (at least in this context) well enough to know more or less what to expect. it's not elitism when you post something that you know a couple of specific users will like, and they do like it and upvote within the first couple hours -- it's just a good community.

like any community, it can be a bit challenging for newcomers to fit in here, at least until they've established a good reputation. overall, we're pretty friendly (i think), and there's a nice pattern of newcomers who do great here right from the beginning. it all depends on how they fit into the mix -- just like anything in life.

the main problem with astroturfing and spam is that it's an abuse of trust. but that's not a major concern when you're dealing with people you know, because there's no way someone with a good reputation with you is going to ruin it for so little benefit. the trouble with treating what theo47 did as if he's an astroturfer is that it ignores his well-earned and longstanding reputation here (likes: atheism, politics -- dislikes: family guy). that's what's absurd about it -- no one's actually worried that theo47's a spammer, we know the guy.

again, the best argument against this kind of self-linking has nothing to do with astroturfing. it's that sifting is a game we're all playing by the same rules. you don't let your friend cheat in scrabble, but there's no suspicion of hidden motives -- just the rules of the game.

again, if the ideal behind the rule is to ban self-promotion of any kind, there are many other common practices here that will have to be reviewed. submitting your friend's self-made video; saving or promoting your friend's post (especially at their request); even a pattern of consistent quid-pro-quo voting would all be targets of suspicion. yes, in all these cases it's friends helping friends, but on the public face of it (how many people a day come to videosift's main page, tens of thousands?), we're all raising our profiles.

but that would be silly and absurd. because we'd be treating each other with a kind of distrust and disrespect that's just unnecessary among people who know, like, and trust each other.

benjee, I didn't know Obama had his own "official" YouTube site until I had to go searching for the video again after my version had been yanked.
If I'd known that, of course I would've linked to that version because of the better quality, among other reasons.

It was (I thought, anyway) important, breaking news - and I gave my reasons for why I posted it myself in the thread.
With 40+ upvotes and who knows how many hits, turned out I was right.

PM is right - this is VideoSift; the peer review process happens every time someone up or downvotes a video.
Obvious spammers are usually spotted almost instantly.
I was amazed how quickly that "Armed and Famous" clip (submitted by CBS, the producers, or who knows who) was shot down and the account deleted.

So farhad's done it, too, and admits it freely. I had suspicions about that Robert Johnson video, this one is from the same google video user. Personally, I think it'll be a worse can of worms if we allow members to link to content they've uploaded, even if they didn't originally create it.

Sure, I've found videos that I wanted to submit but weren't at youtube, etc., or embeddable, it happens occasionally. Usually if I wait a day or two someone uploads it and I can post it here. Have I ever considered uploading it myself? Sure, but I didn't because I value this place too much and didn't want to cheat it.

Personally, I vote to keep the rules as they are except to add that even starred-members may be banned for repeated violation of the guidelines.

farhad self-linked!

Burn him! Burn the witch!!!

Crucify him! Crucify him!!!

Yes I admit it, I don't want Theo being all alone

But I doubt you will ever find Robert Johnson or the documentary on Robert Capa out there uploaded either. They aren't Family Guy, Colbert or Obama clips. However this doesn't mean I intend to continue doing so. And I actually agree with MLX though support the peer to peer supervision outlined by PM.

FYI: I switched out the embeds out for the Spaced one as I found one that was similar quality.

there's nothing wrong with keeping the rules as they are. and there's nothing wrong with discarding any self-linked videos.

but the reason should be some kind of "good sportsmanship" ideal, not out of some unrealistic fear of spam originating from known members.

it's not going to help the community to ban good members over this. if you read the original thread by krupo on self-linking, you'll see that oohahh's done it (for a gene kelly video -- probably the one where he's dancing with the newspaper? -- that's since been pulled for copyright), and that joedirt's (king of the anti-spammers) attitude is "don't ask, don't tell".

for the record, there are no plastiquemonkey self-links. it's tempting -- whenever something already posted here gets taken down by the youtube user and becomes unavailable, the videosift post gets marked dead and discarded. we have copies of a lot of these videos (using the firefox plugin to download), so we could easily replace them.

the last time this happened was 6 year-old boy plays boogie woogie piano & sings the blues. the youtube poster took it down, but there's no notice saying it was pulled for copyright reasons (maybe it was, but who knows?). we could have uploaded the .flv file to a generic user account on youtube, preserving this rare video (now unavailable anywhere online) and the votes it received here. like mlx, we didn't do this because it's clearly against the current rules. so the video's gone, and the post is dead. maybe someday someone else will re-post it to youtube, but i wouldn't bet on it.

the site is a better place for having the videos people have self-linked to (especially that amazing gene kelly video). too much of that might be a problem, but i honestly don't see who's going to go to so much trouble. and in practice, this rule is nearly unenforceable, unless we're going to put every submission from a possibly unreliable source (youtube poster with no long track history) on probation.

it's not a perfect rule (there are no perfect rules) -- it's a reasonable rule. but enforcing it too strictly is a bit silly.

Why not link the video and ask someone to post it, an easy way to get around the problem. As this site is about the videos (and chat about them).

There is a great deal of satisfaction when you find a video you like and no one else has posted it, but I don't think any form of self linking should be aloud ( bring back sift off )

Before reading the thread I was of the mindset of "let's keep it simple" and keep things the way they are. I voted accordingly. That doesn't mean in any way that I think Theo or any other gold star member that's bent the rules should be banned. They have earned the right for consideration.

PM has made some great points that should be taken seriously. I want to simply say "right on!... let's get to re-writing the policy", but like James and Dag have said before...we're going into a gray area. The no self-linking policy is what has helped make VS so successful.

As much as I would like for us to make exceptions for those who have proven themselves in rank and contributions, the current policy has served us well.

If it's time to evolve..so be it. The community will decide. We're really exceptional in this way. We respect each other's opinions and protect the integrity of the community. There aren't very many places to find that these days.

To Dag, don't dispair. We are all "friends" in this community, and I believe as long as we remember that...then everything will be fine.

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

OK, that's two of our most prominent members who are admitted self-linkers. I'm sure there are many more. Maybe then, it is time to change the rules.

As we are really hitting a growth surge at the moment, I don't think we can afford to just put the rules to the side. With more members, comes more diversity, and the need, unfortunately, for rules that we can live with, and refer new members to.

So the idea, raised by PlastiqueMonkey - is to allow Gold Stars and above to post videos from their own accounts on videos hosts, as long as they are not self-promotional in any way, (watermarks, URLs, yada yada). Do we need to take another vote?

It is more complex - but I think we can spell it out succinctly in the guidelines and on the submit page.

I'm confused, the vote says 63% (19 votes) for no rule change, 27% (8 votes) for self-links and 10% (3 votes) for others & suggestions.

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

Yes it does, but we are exploring other solutions in this thread. We could make a new poll - but I'm afraid of inflicting voter fatigue.

It's a bit off is. Shame............. So now golds can self link. This takes the power away from the group as a whole. As you said dag

''I'm against it. I consider it a gray area, slippery-slope that could be easily exploited by self-linkers.''

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

We're just discussing Nicky. Nothing is final yet.

Does anyone think that allowing double standards would weaken the entire rules system?

Ultimately I have to agree with wildmanBill and say that stringent rules win over any possible gain we may attain from sifter selected content seeing as there is quality out there if one looks for it.

The only bypass would be asking another Sifter to sift something for them. Or as mentioned brining Sift Off back leave it to voters.

Slipping into a discussion of the hows and whys of regulating content by Gold Star 100s would get too complicated and grey, furthermore as the user base increases there will be more and more Goldstars until we can't really regulate it as much.

I would say axe it and keep rules as rules.

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

I have to say that your position seems a bit hypocritical Farhad, considering you are an admitted breaker of the rule that you think should stay.

popcorn anyone?

i think the gold star rule would be a fair and effective way of dealing with it, theres obviously enough police around to stay on top of the problem imo.

Not as hypocritical as discarding other self-linked vids...but hey, that's Farhad.

I think the Gold allowed self-links would completely erode the core concept of Sifting - and would certainly discourage me from taking part here. As the definition of elitism states:

Elitism is a belief or attitude that an elite— a selected group of persons whose personal abilities, specialized training or other attributes place them at the top of any field — are the people whose views on a matter are to be taken most seriously, or who are alone fit to govern. Thus elitism sees an elite as occupying a special position of authority or privilege in a group, set apart from the majority of people who do not match up with their abilities or attributes.

My sifts are there for any administrative action to be taken down (I discarded them all). Obviously no one has. And this claim that it's hypocritical of me to discard what are clearly self promotional virals? Maybe I should leave it now and not help out.

I don't see how exactly it's hypocritical to provide good content for this community and then come clean if I broke a rule doing so. Maybe I should just stop and that will be better for all of you. Nothing that I have self linked has been promotional and was simply the provision of good content to make this website content better then the fodder one finds at MetaCafe and others.

I see what Theo means now by witch hunt. Sort it amongst yourselves clearly coming clean and pitching in what is and will be a community wide decision has repercussions.

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

mmmm, The great Sift schism of January '07. Let's everybody just take a deep breath ...

This is obviously an important issue for all of us - me included - and perhaps we're getting a bit too ... passionate. I think it's an important point, one that we should work out as a community, but lets take a 1 week break, and then revisit this topic.

I apologize for saying your statement was hypocritical Farhad, perhaps "contradictory" would have been a less hurtful way of phrasing it.

Oh I had no problems with your statement at all.

And rightly so it may seem contradictory, but obviously I came clean for a reason. It doesn't mean that as a Gold Star user and an active contributory of this site am not allowed to change my position, come clean and try to mend things. Maybe I should have added this in the post above.

I just dislike the vilifying attitude assumed against large contributors to the site, just because we sifted something all users enjoyed.

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

I hope no one is vilifying. I don't care who the "other sifter" that's being alluded to is. I would just like to reach an agreement on policy.

I suppose it would be a lot easier if James, Lucky and I got together and said "this is the way it is", but I'd rather not do it that way.

So, we'll try another vote in a week, and we'll include Plastique Monkey's idea. I'm happy to keep the discussion going, but let's bring the tone down. (including me)

well said dag,

sunshine today for me too, after the storm the sun comes.

Honestly, I don't know about this policy anymore, am really getting conflicted now. Now am thinking out loud here but...

Part of me thinks that yes we should go all draconian and disallow user sifted content. This seems logical and straightforward since this is the philosophy that the website is based on. Not to mention the other reasons raised by everyone else here...

But then again one of the biggest factors in me staying here has been the community that has arisen out of this, the stars and comments and all make this really an enjoyable website.

So then part of me thinks that would be limiting of potential of this website to really differentiate itself in terms of content, because like PM I believe top sifters could upload content that wouldn't be online otherwise for a new audience to enjoy. And not be at the whim of what other video content providers have.

I mean we embraced the Web 2.0 concept when it comes to letting users decide on what content is the best. But then limiting what those users can put into the website out of their own accord, wouldn't that go against the whole web 2.0 ethic?

Now am not advocating self linking and I apologize for having done so, but I believe there other ways this could be sorted. I remember someone mentioned the possibility of a communal sift upload space? Users can upload, other users can see if the content is good enough for the Sift and off it goes?

I mean these kinds of features could be worked into the whole system of community rewards via number of posted videos. Maybe when a sifter reaches Gold Star 100 they are allowed access to the Sift Vault, where users post videos they have uploaded and it's then to the discretion of other Gold Star 100s to decide if it should be let in the queue (i.e. not promotional, of good video quality, not available on other content providers, not a video that is bound to show up sooner or later, that is Daily Show, Colbert and so on).

Why do I think this is a good thing? Because the users in the TOP 15 are there for a reason and I would love to see what they would upload and could provide for VS in terms of actual content that really differentiates the Sift from all other Video Aggregators out there. Because it's not hard to see the VS concept being copied and reapplied elsewhere under a different guise and then we are basically fighting someone else based on the same pool of content instead of taking the concept further with the community and simply applying that community to again see if the videos are worthy of front page space.

This is the same exact reasoning I used when I recut the TED Talks for James and CosmicShame to post. Since they were not on YouTube at the time. And look at the amount of user response we attained from that. And that was content you would not find on other aggregators.

As I said earlier. Just thinking out loud.

cmon benjee, make it a true witch hunt and link to my self-sifts already!

I made a wing in ground effect vid compilation from other videos, and one of some of my 3dsmax work on a car model because i thought they might be educational/interesting to those that had never looked into the fields. I really didn't deem it that important to add to the conversation but maybe you can explain to me what was so bad about both of those submissions. I actually think someone posted them for me to avoid the rule problems, which illustrates my point about the rule in question being null and void because it's so easy to bypass.

This isn't about elitism either in my humble opinion, the gold star thing, seems like a decent way to reward those that have gone out of their way for a long time to submit at least 50 other videos.

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

I think that's a stellar idea Farhad. We could have a "self-link incubator queue"

We could limit it to Gold Stars, or perhaps all stars. (with a graduated submit limit depending on star level)

These self-links could graduate out of the self-link queue to the regular queue if they receive, say, 3 votes.

I say we allow gold stars to self-link, but ban any user who's self-link videos make it to the front page. Thereby satisfying all factions of this soul crushing dilemma.

(haha, joedirt...)

agree completely about waiting awhile before coming back to this.

want to remind everyone that the sense of self-linking that's being discussed here is *not* clearly spelled out in the videosift user guidelines, as phoenix noted. it was only codified in krupo's sift talk post (in august?), at which time several longtime VS members were surprised to find that such a thing was out of bounds here. the context for that post was the strenuous efforts being made by krupo, joedirt, and a few others to police the new member submission queue (now gone).

despite all the talk in this thread and others about the dangers of spam and astroturfing, i don't know of a single attempt here that's been successful. no doubt this is due to the vigilance and excellent detective work of many of the most-active VS members.

there is no reasonable sense in which this type of self-linking (call it krupo #1) is self-promotion, as most people understand it. it does however break the rules of sifting. we're free to change those rules, if we want.

in this case, there are a number of good reasons for considering this, not least of which is that the current policy is *completely unenforceable*. we posted this video last night from a 4-day old youtube user account. we've seen this video before on youtube, but it got taken down (copyright, probably). we have a copy of the .flv file for "tango" from that earlier posting. so is that youtube user account legitimate, or is it a dummy account we set up? it's only been active 4 days, with 18 videos watched, and 8 videos posted.

it so happens that it is legitimate, but i don't think i could prove it to anyone, let alone a user account on some other video hosting site that includes less information about the uploader. unless you're going to move all sorts of posts into that new self-link queue (siftbot command: *self), it will remain entirely up to users who know their way around here to voluntarily comply, like mlx did, like we did.

since the rules in this case have to be followed voluntarily (whatever they are), we're in a position of having to trust each other. personally, i don't think the kind of rule-breaking we're talking about here is that serious a betrayal of trust (because, again, it has nothing to do with self-promotion). i don't want to see anyone banned over it, and i think that threat needs to be taken off the table upfront to make it easier to come to an agreement about what the rules should be.

"We could limit it to Gold Stars, or perhaps all stars. (with a graduated submit limit depending on star level)

These self-links could graduate out of the self-link queue to the regular queue if they receive, say, 3 votes."

..to add to Farhad and Dag's idea:

You could make the communal self link queue anonymous also. So the post can be chosen for it's quality and not from popularity of the sifter.

More thought has gone into this issue than to the reconstruction of Iraq.

The rule desperately needs clarification. I feel that tapping your own YouTube account for posts violates the sifting ethos of the site. It is like fishing with the catch already on your hook. Or in your pants.

And keeping the rule basically as it is would allow me to poach the great discoveries of others with a lil' communication with some Sifters.

I also like the communal self-link queue or communal YouTube "SiftCabinet" page idea, even though the filthy socialism of it all would rankle some members.

Finally, this site has gotten far too ban-happy. The ban should be reserved for the worst instances of gaming the system and should not even be mentioned when a Sifter is merely being mildly sneaky and trying to preserve lost or endangered content.

ok ... guess it's time to really chime in on this ... since the consensus seems to be heading in this direction ...

a spin-off from ms plastique's idea, i propose that only diamond stars (250+) be afforded this privilege. after reaching said status, the sifter would, undoubtedly, be MORE than well aware of the sifting rules and be an integral member of our community.

at such a time that a member reaches their diamond and chooses to post a vid that they uploaded to another video site ... their should be a separate channel for self-submissions and labeled as such, therefore allowing members that don't care to look at self-submissions the option to exclude them.

i also second, swampgirl's idea of making the submitter anonymous until the vide gets posted ... should we go this route.

*waves to joe*

It seems my comments have been mis-construed into some kind of Witch Hunt, which I never intended...And I know only too well what one is; as a relative was burnt as a witch (possibly why my mums side of the family is full of martyrs!) Plus, I've been on the receiving end of incorrect 'trigger-happy' discards myself in the past (but I certainly don't blame anyone, as the rules are vague). Anyway: I'm a person of principle - if somethings against my ethics then I'll have no conscious part of it in a very vocal way (what hasn't helped me gain friends or votes here!) This is certainly one of those occasions, so let me explain why:

A. Like I've said previously, I think the change would create a two-tiered level of users - those who've earned the right to bend the rules and the new/unappreciated users. I'd find that a little hypocritical and certainly a confusing rule - this would have put me off when joining a few months ago (and repulses me even more with my 'in' status).

B. Instead of searching the web video portals, the bit-torrent network would be more reliable source of videos to submit. Thereby adding another barrier to those who won't look into the darkside of the internet or don't know how to edit/convert video, which leads to:

C. Allowing self-links maybe seen as encouraging copyright infringement - at the moment we're finding links posted by others, if Sifters are adding content (such as the multitude of BBC/C4 docs I've sifted) it will reflect badly on the site itself. For instance, if I worked for major media looking for copyright web-videos to take down, the Sift would be my favourite site (we do all the work they don't want to!)

1. A corporate marketing employee/self-employed agency registers on the Sift and publishes 50 good videos/SiftTalks, easily done as a full-time job spent astro-turfing. After getting a foot in the Gold door (possibly using the same corporations sub-companies virals etc) - the marketer can get down to work.

2. I could make a video directly promoting my work or that of my employer, even submitted to my own host account and add everything except an email address. Basicly, anything I wanted to Sift-Off could be easily submitted at will and commented as such - I'd prefer it's return as a separate section with the top 3 prize of being allowed.

3. In protest of the rule change; I sell my profile to the highest bidder on e-Bay...Thereby earning a nice profit on the cost of the (then) 6 months upgrade and time spent. The buyer is then well within the rules (of the proposed and current ones) to post whatever they want, from whatever source they like.

Self-link replacements to dead Sifts could possibly be an exception, but difficult due to explanation C (dead for a reason?)

The Gold, Silver & Bronze Sift-Off winners (or more from channels?) get their video legitimately published to the Sift's front with a trophy - as the prizes for a more frequent event (weekly/fortnightly/monthly)

In all seriousness, this is the stupidest thing to have a great-one-year-siftversary-schism over.

(a) it is really, really a bad idea to allow some folks to have special permission to self-link.

(b) it is really a bad idea to go all banination and discard-nazi over some post by a trusted member and sound the self-link alarms.

Let's just agree to look the other way. If you start this formally codified self-linking for elite folks, you will get people who specialize in promoting their own vids. I don't mind at all if someone uploads their own video every once in awhile. So I want to see 5 videos of the same self-uploaded crap in the queue? no. But that is where we are headed. The ZOMG-Check-Out-My-MonChiChi-videos type users.

Ok, here is a compromise. Include a new checkbox called self-link. Like the nsfw checkbox, your video is tainted and can be filtered out by all users. So they also will have more trouble getting votes by people who filter out selflinks.

sok benjee, I assumed incorrectly.

Joe, it's hardly a schism, people are discussing their opinions rationally without resorting to "your mumma is an astronaut" type comments which is rare for the Internets.

oh dear. look, no one is talking about allowing people to upload videos that promote themselves in any way. that includes "ZOMG-Check-Out-My-MonChiChi-videos type users" and corporate marketing employees, however cunning and well-funded.

what's being discussed is just the type of self-linking that involves uploading someone else's content to your account at a video hosting site, then posting it to VS. just that, nothing else.

any viral marketer clever enough to evade joedirt's bullshit detector would probably be clever enough to set up a dummy youtube account or three, as well. so it's not like this rule is the one thing separating videosift from a deluge of spam.

the "let's just agree to look the other way" plan for this limited type of self-linking (krupo's #1) is what's been in place until now. it's a pretty good plan. it might be possible to make the rule clearer, but it's probably not worth it, if it causes significant dissent. no matter what the rule says, we're going to have to depend on the trust and goodwill of other sifters to play fair.

so i suggest: leave well enough alone. don't change the rule. have theo and farhad (and anyone else) change the embed code or discard the controversial posts.

but at the same time: suggest setting up a videosift uploading account on youtube and/or google video and/or some other host, run by the admins, where they can mirror videos that our members have uploaded to youtube/googlevideo/etc. that way, farhad (or whoever) can upload his video to his youtube account, email dag/james/lucky, who can download it (here's the firefox plugin) and re-upload the same file to the videosift account on youtube, after which farhad (or whoever) can post it here without offending the self-link police.

this has the advantage of sticking much closer to the original wording of the user guidelines, which suggest emailing the admins if you have self-made content you'd like to see posted here. and if the content is suspicious in any way, or the user is requesting this service way too often, the admins have every right to refuse.

good compromise?

do the self-link police wear uniforms?

*gets lost in thought while looking at escher's waterfalls*

I love the idea of a VS youtube account to use as necessary, just contact the admins.

And I feel like I contributed to, or maybe even started, this 'witch hunt." I really didn't mean to do that, never accused anyone unjustly. I just think that there are those that would, as in Benjee's scenario's above, take advantage of our allowing self-links.

Replace "kill a puppy" with "sell out to an advertising firm" and see what happens...

Quite honestly I agree with LadyBug's addition that only 250+ posted video user would be allowed to going into the Sift Vault. And then again to be entierely annoymous (e.g. posted by Siftbot).

I believe this would circumvent the concerns that Benjee has, especially since alot of the users who reach 250 posted videos would have spent too much time on the site to really contribute anything damaging to the system, i.e. blatantly copyright infringement of movies or new series.

For the reasons I outlined in my larger post above.

This should be a community feature that is only granted with long term dedication to the site, and an understanding what goes here and what doesn't. But it should be so far of reach as only be given to true Sift Lords.

And furthermore, I believe in the reliance of the Sift users to be able to judge correctly the merit and origins of Sifts.

As Phil Collins once said, I don't care anymore.

LMFAO@rickegee&Iraq Because it's true...

This thread is epic - my eyes started to hurt - I need to go to sleep - but I'm also strangely compelled to read all 70+ comments - damn friendly/chatty community!

Anyway, I suppose it's fitting to post my own comment, considering I've received a couple of shout-outs (thanks pm) because of the earlier self-link codification post.

There's been many points made in this thread, and, not surprisingly, one of my ideas was thought of by another clever user before I got here - joedirt, and his "nsfw"-style "self-link" flag.

I had a very similar suggestion: IFF (sic) you allow a loop-hole/double-standard for 'experienced' users, then add an "I made it" flag, telling voters that this has only gone through a "single vetting" process (i.e., it's self-linked).

When I watch a vid in the queue, I take it on good faith that the submitter is a "second judge" of the video's sift-worthiness. The "first judge", so to speak, is the original creator/uploader. If the creator/uploader and the Sift Submitter are the same person, that violates that trust. It means rather than being vetted by "two parties", it's only been vetted by one. And I think that's been the greatest strength and most important reason for keeping the rule "as is", in a Strong Position - i.e., the relatively "absolutist" interpretation I drafted.

Now, to conclude my comments concerning "future solutions/changes", I'll say that Consensus is Good, and I'm not a big fan of taking a hard core approach one way or another. Having read everyone's comments, I think the 'slightly more complicated' suggestion is preferable to the 'half-assed' (my term, used with affection here) solutions.

The "full-assed" solution, as I see it, involves:
1. Limiting the ability to diamonds (they should have some sort of fun, I suppose) [wait, does this mean anyone can submit to this queue, and only diamonds can vote, or that only diamonds can submit and vote - this should obviously be clarified in advance!]
2. Set-up a vault/self-post-queue with anonymity enabled until the post makes it out.
3. When the post makes it out, it would still be preferable to either A. Have a "self-linked" nsfw-style flag, or B. start it off with only 1 vote, of a 3rd party voter.

I do not believe it is actually necessary to adopt the "full-assed" solution - I think we can happily continue to live with the rules "as is", and I would rank "status quo" as my #1 preference (here he goes with his "preferential balloting").

The "full-assed solution" would rank a distant second, but I wouldn't be violently opposed to it (should the demand *really* exist).

I would, however, be very much opposed to half-measures. They have too many failings on their own to work very well. Besides, for those who worry about elitism - for argument's sake, let's disregard the existing comments on the topic - the fact that this issue receives so much attention and can lead to a possibly convoluted solution too is evidence that we care too much about the community to look that way. The goldies&diamonds truly care about preserving the integrity of the Sift.

Going back to my original codification post, I wanted to mention something I haven't said earlier: I didn't add a comment to the original post, because I unconsciously realized that this would unleash a torrent (no vague geek pun intended) of comments - I didn't have time to engage in a discussion like that at the time, although the net effect was to allow the issue to 'fester'.

In addition to wanting to put off engaging in this kind of long-winded debate, participating at the Sift has helped me realize that as I've gotten older and more mature, I've grown tired of the idea of playing net.cop.

Aside from the playful bangangings (which I don't consider net.cop'ing, since A. the user's already dead, gone and punished, B. it's fun! , I hesitate when it comes to firing off the *-ban gun with 'lethal rounds' because we really haven't codified the precise "grey-area" scenarios for using it.

Should any probationary user be insta-killed, or should there be a pause in case of accidental self-links (the user honestly made a mistake)? This is an important tangent to this conversation, although one that admittedly doesn't happen too often. Or hasn't happened too often... yet!

Just to clarify the idea about the Sift Vault/Incubator/Self-linker (sounds like such a dirty word now).

1. Access to post granted only at 250+ Diamond Level.

2. Content has to be non-promotional, non-affiliated with the poster, should not be content that will show up in the next few days (this includes all serials and TV shows).

3. Self Linked posts will be posted by Siftbot not the user, whether or not the original user is revealed is up to the community to work out but this should only happen after it reaches frontpage status. The identity of the sifter will only be know by siftbot and administrators until it is posted to the front.

4. The voting on incubator sifts should be open to all registered star members of the site. This is in line with our community rewards and what not. Creates an incentive to register and contribute to the site but is open enough so all members of the community can administer and over watch.

Krupo ++, I agree that it could stay as is right now and be solved a bit later, but it has to be discussed so when and if the time comes we know of our options and not provide a half ass solution.

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

I think bronze diamond is too high a bar. I know there will be more of us coming on line soon. But it's getting harder and harder to obtain diamond.

I think we should open it to gold stars.

I saw a bunnie munching on a flower this morning, true story

In hopes of not letting this discussion fizz out, for your consideration another sift post where self linking could be raised, this time by bamdrew who posted a video of his friend filming students at sports day.

http://www.videosift.com/user.php?login=bamdrew&view=queued&listsize=full#vids

It would be teh proverbial suck if we had to actually discard videos like that.

In reply to krupo's comment:
“"There's been many points made in this thread, and, not surprisingly, one of my ideas was thought of by another clever user before I got here - joedirt, and his "nsfw"-style "self-link" flag.”


actually krupo ... joe dirt stole my original idea! *I* was the clever sifter!!! granted, i worded it slightly different, but it is so obvious that joe would have never thought of it had he not seen my post!!! ch-yeah!!



In reply to ladybug's 1st comment:
“... there should be a separate channel for self-submissions and labeled as such, therefore allowing members that don't care to look at self-submissions the option to exclude them.

*waves to joe*”


In reply to joedirt's followup comment:
“Ok, here is a compromise. Include a new checkbox called self-link. Like the nsfw checkbox, your video is tainted and can be filtered out by all users. So they also will have more trouble getting votes by people who filter out selflinks.”

LB, by the time I got to this thread it was up at 50 comments, so like my usual modis operandi, I just read one or two comments and then spew forth my opinion. I rarely take the time to read what other say, it cuts in to my typing time.

So, I didn't actually read your comments, but I agree. Now, this concept of a self-promotion channel was brought up by me a few months ago, so I claim prior art. I originally tried to talk dag into a self-link channel to allow for more of a youtube type self-promoting crowd. The original concept was my.videosift.com as a channel name.

great minds think alike! *curtsy* i think our idea rocks, you as the original founder of course!

i was just taking the piss anyway in my previous post!

"Matt Damon"

golds' good for self-post....I'm gold.

I wanna see an unadulterated choggie vlog!

Ah yes - I saw that (and got puzzled by the wave part - but thought it cute!), but my brain didn't register that as the same idea because it neatly compartmentalized "flag"s and "channels" for technical reason. The philosophy is similar, the implementation is just a bit different - kudos to you for being the first one to broach it on this thread. We just refined it in our geeky way.

@farhad; yes, I agree that the time to deal with the issue is 'now' rather than later; my rant had more to due with my study break last summer, that is all.

BTW@choggie: was that a "World Police" reference? I assume so, and laughed accordingly!

Speaking of cute (going back to the wanton compliment directed at ladybug), bunnies *are* cute. Especially when used as letter openers.

If anyone gets out of line here on the eve of the first VS anniversary I'm sending this guy to your house via my self-link:

http://www.videosift.com/video/Bitchslap-from-Hell

And, not-so-by-the-way, what does the poster of the 10,000th video receive?

A life?

Okay since this seems to have died now totally. I guess it's time for SiftOverlords to make a decision about how this is resolved?

http://www.videosift.com/video/Dont-Let-It-End-Threads-about-self-links-and-the-Po-Po

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

We'll start a new thread with a new poll in 3.5 days. We're in the cool-off period.

Is that Aussie time??? Cause, ....how is tomorrow, and what's the winning lottery ###....?

Here are two clichés I'll throw in - for what they're worth:

"Politics is like sausage making, you don't want to see how it's done."

"People support what they help create."

"time is sometimes the wisest counselor" ~ my fortune at the chinese restaurant tonight!

"Your next breath, may be your best!"


-biochemist

Face it. This site is growing too big to maintain that "intimate" feel. Your baby has grown up into a monster and soon enough it'll be youtube's retarded 3rd nipple.

Don't cry for it sifters, for it is already dead.

What are you, Barney Gumble?