And yet you voted against the other spider pig video. ???

Slightly longer (but not significantly so, imho), and better aspect ratio, but still a dupe.

http://www.videosift.com/video/Spider-Pig

Also, downvoting mycrofthomlz's submission before posting this was poor form. I might add that BOTH showed up in a VS search for "spider pig".

well theres the original spider pif which is just like it, i was sifting one night and i saw that and thought meh already been done. then about an hour later my friend sent me a link to this one, and i saw spider pig, and i was like, sigh already seen it dude. and he's like NOT THIS ONE! and it was the complete one. so there

Tags changed from "spider,pig,simpsons" to "spider pig,the simpsons,not-dupe" by gold star member looris.

that's not a dupe, come on, the other one just sucks.

Here we go again....

*blog

Sending this video to Sift Talk for discussion (sent by Gold Star member Fletch)

I think it's a dupe. I think oink should have just PM'd fedquip (original submitter) with the newer link and let him re-embed what he felt was a better version. I also think down-voting another (non-dupe) similar video recently posted was lame, and equates to fragging.

Anybody else?

EDIT: Yes, this one is slightly longer, and contains a short bit original doesn't, so I can see the the argument against dupe. But is it enough?

My thoughts exactly Fletch.

The Rule is: "Please search the site first or check the tag cloud to see if your video has been previously posted. Duplicates will be removed"

Definition of 'duplicate' is: "an identical copy of the original" (from a google search)

The question: Is this a duplicate video?


Seems to me that its similar but not an identical copy of the original. So if we were applying the rule literally and to the letter then technically, this is not a dupe. However, in keeping with the spirit of the rule and the sift's community value, I'm with Fletch on this one.

It's not identical. That's why I blogged it. Is it different enough to warrant a new post? see lucky's comment here on what is considered a dupe.

" The unwritten rule that's always been observed is to allow a near dupe if the content is very different (in this case it is not) or the dupe contains much more content in addition to the original post (again, not the case here).

There is really no reason this should not already be *discarded. We can not establish the precedent that everyone should go about finding what they feel are "better" embeds and intentionally posting dupes."

I suggest this is included in the sift posting guidelines.

Discarding this post (discard called by gold star member pipp3355)

lol

You didn't really mean to discard this did you, pipp? Damn, I'd save it so there can be more discussion, but I don't want to waste a save. Always new members that can benefit from these sift talks.

shit, i didn't mean to discard that. as fletch said this is a useful post for new members and to refer back to in the future.

*save

why can't i *save this?

sorry guys, i'll save or promote a post by whoever saves this.

try *return maybe? call the admin?

*save ?

*return

lol

Although siftbot is definitely a higher form of life, and seems omnipotent to us sifters, he still lives in a GIGO universe.

ok i just left a message on james's profile

*return

ask and you shall receive. I personally think that you should have probably just asked fedquip to swap out the embeds, and voting against his was pretty lame. I am in the discard camp myself.

actually I downvoted after this other video, that is clearly not a dupe, though related, and is way better

anyway I just proposed to fedquip a fixed version and he didn't use it, so I guess he shouldn't have used this one too.

looris, I think James was referring to oink's downvote. That's what I was refering to, anyway. Edit: as I read it again, he was referring to your fedquip downvote.

Not sure what your second sentence means. If you sent fedquip a link to the newer version and he decided against using it, that's his prerogative. Then the question, I think, is whether the newer version is different enough to warrant another posting. I don't think it is. I just wanted to see what other sifters thought.

"If you sent fedquip a link to the newer version and he decided against using it, that's his prerogative."
sure! I mean, I do not agree, but that's the rule, and I DO know that.

the second sentence is related to this by JR:
"I personally think that you should have probably just asked fedquip to swap out the embeds"

jeez....What would Homer have done???

Saw it was a dupe at the "Possible Duplicates" screen, slap his forehead with a loud "doh!", and discarded it.

PRESS ANY KEY...

wheres the anykey?

Where's oink in all this?

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

Yeah, I don't see any major differences to the other version - yes it's better quality, but the content is the same. Lets *discard it.

Discarding this post (discard called by gold star member dag)