Yours was a dupe because the extra content it contained wasn't enough to "add" to the video.

If a newer video adds substantial content, it's not a dupe.

Title your submission "Attenboroughs Greatest Moment" and link to the original submission and I would not call it a Dupe.

It creates a whole new context to what you are sifting, and the added information is then relevant.

I'm not bothered that so much that my video was discarded, but more by the fact that these cases come up every so often and there never seems to be any consistency to how they are dealt with.

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

It's a bit of a gray area, but in general we say that if the content is "substantially" the same as the original it qualifies as a dupe. So, for example- if it just has different background music, that doesn't change the essential meaning of the clip, then it's a dupe.

If the extra bit on the ends of the video adds substantially to the clip, provides extra meaning or insight - then it should be considered distinct.

As for who gets to decide- we generally leave this up to the community. Unless you want to appeal the decision.

Personally, I think the two windmill posts were dupes. I was hoping the submitter would have had the grace to discard it, but he didn't. I tend to be nervous about hitting * discard unless it is exactly the same. Close to home, someone submitted this: http://www.videosift.com/video/Missile-Command-on-Multi-touch-Wall

which isn't identical code to this: http://www.videosift.com/video/Giant-Missle-Command-using-Multitouch

but it is the same event, with worse filming and no added value. It was different enough that I didn't feel right hitting discard, but honestly, it is the spirit of a dupe. I thought about a * discuss, but it seems so trivial in terms of discussion. I just hope it goes.

I think we should be liberal in our definition of dupes, because I think dupes dilute the sift more than the recently mentioned chunks of flour.

i agree. dupes are a problem. there's so many of them lately. it pisses me off, frankly. I found 13 dupes in the last 2 weeks alone.

We really do need something a bit more concrete because I think it's left too much to opinion. Take this video that, IMO, got duped here. The poster disagreed with me that it was a dupe because there's a few extra seconds of bouncing on a trampoline and hearing a Japanese commentator speaking in Japanese.

I really think we need to add a dupe invocation so *someone* can make a call on these. Obviously we will always have disagreements. Maybe we need some kinds of means to appeal, etc.

What Aemaeth posted about is clearly a dupe. so clearly that I * discarded the dupe. SAME event. SAME feed. I don't even like the new version better, but the correct thing to do would have been to offer the embed to the original poster and not repost it. Diluting the sift by puting in extra versions of the same trivial event is not good.

In my discard, I said that, and I said perhaps it should be sifttalked. I've given my opinion.

It is the number of identical videos that gets me... and then highly ranked members vote for both of them instead of exercising their discard muscle!

It makes it look like people just upvote videos without even watching them.. imagine that.

http://www.videosift.com/video/Disproving-Intelligent-Design-with-a-Mouse-Trap this is a dupe.. how exciting!

I think these types of dupes might be more down to people putting stupid tags/ not taking time to think what someone else might have used.

Ahhh, but Debacle, we're not talking about those. Those are easy. Someone points it out in the sift, the poster acknowledges they are the same and it is discarded. I think we're talking in this case about when a dupe is pointed out and disputed. We're talking about more distinct guidelines on when something is a dupe and when it's not.

..and what about when it's an identical post, the previous one is dead and the original submitter is not around anymore (dead)?

It seems like the new post is allowed to stand.. but what about using the ability to .dead and then fix embed code (or admins swapping it out).

Anyways,
I'm sure a lot of the resistance in the disputed cases is due to people not wanting to give up the votes... which is sad.

I deleted a vid I posted because I was told it partly duplicated another (it was lotsa clips). Next time I'll say no

I've been thinking about this quite a bit since I made this post, and every time I think I might have a rough idea of how to deal with it, I immediately think of an example that breaks it.

If a case were to come up and a few members were to see it and think it was ok, it only takes one member to disagree and discard. So who's opinion overrules who's?

perhaps it should be up to an agreement between the original submitter and the new submitter. But that certainly isn't a solid solution either.

I think a *dupe should be added and available to standard members. This would add it to channel "dupes" but not do anything else and leave it in the queue and available to be voted on.

The reason I say this is because obviously a lot of people view and vote on videos without ever going to the specific page for it where the comments are (and where a member may be pointing out that the video may be a dupe.

The channels the video are associated with are however visible without ever going to the videos page so with *dupe at least someone scrolling through unsifted page (or similar) would see that channel and then discuss, discard or at least be aware it might be a dupe before voting.

This creates a sort of dupe notification system so that the members with the ability and inclination can deal with these dupes, remove the *dupe tag if it's not a dupe .. whatever.

I say standard members should be able to do this because higher tier members already have tools to deal with the situation.

We will need to form a more concrete definition of "dupe" for this site. There is so much being sifted lately that this dupe issue is almost like being a victim of your own success. For the goldies and above it might not seem like a problem. They have the ability to deal with it when they see it, or if it affects their submissions. But for the others .. and for those who think dupes dilute the Sift and the concept of "Online Video * Quality Control" .. there's a growing problem here.

What do you want the sift to be? An indexing service for the wide array of video sources it pulls from? Or should it be the place to find the best of the best .. as voted on by the community?

I'm not saying this has to be the highbrow or bravo sift .. there's plenty of room for drooling kittens etc .. I just don't want to see the SAME damn cat shot from a different angle .. or with Beethoven instead of Bach playing while it falls asleep. Or that there was that five seconds extra of it purring. Especially if the first one queued doesn't get sifted.

I think the FAQ is clear, but there's a lot of subjectivity to interpret it. I think we should at least start by finding a definition for "same event" videos. ie it's not an exact dupe but it's the same thing .. sharing same video etc .. windmills .. rocket people .. etc.

Just my thoughts .. trying to be part of the solution. Love the Sift but I do think we need to work on the dupe situation.