If the powers-that-be can indeed make *short equivalent to *long, then they're in the wrong internet business.

I like the short (below 30 seconds?) idea, to complement long. It should be a standard box, like long, that one can tick in case of shortness. Not a short channel, that would be inconsistent.

I best tread carefully, lest my words be transmuted into obscure porn references.

But a *short would be good to complement the *long (not that the size infers anything about the quality, ladies).

I think just flagging "look how short my video is, check it out quickly" by mentioning the length in brackets is sufficient. But that's just me.

Also, what practical purpose would the *short tag serve? The *long gives the user a heads-up that the video might take a while to load/view, but what user would benefit from knowing a video is short by looking at the tags?

Maybe we should also create a *shlong invocation for videos that are short but seem long...

But seriously, good idea. blankfist already thought about creating a *brief channel here: http://www.videosift.com/talk/Looking-for-some-feedback-on-channel-ideas-yall

I have had many times that I would see a title of a video and just think, "meh" and move one, where I would probably give it a chance if I already know it's very short.

It would need very specific parameters as to what is *short-worthy.

I like the idea, but probably a channel is better than an invocation.

Less than 20-30 seconds, would be great. I mean, we could just have a vote one it and see what length people think it should be.

I decidedly think that it should be its own thing like long, instead of a channel, because there is a maximum of channels associated with a video and short shouldn't take up the place, just in case.