yes, I would like a *notadupe invocation	(30 votes)
	no, *notadupe is not needed	(14 votes)
show votes
A total of 44 votes have been cast on this poll.

First let me say -- it is just vids. No lives are on the line. It's just a bunch of pixels and a big dose of Loving Our Vids and Our Stars and Our Votes.

And -- making things work a little smoother is nice. Slick. Happy. Ease.... I love the ease....

So having established that this isn't a huge tragedy, just a nicety...


Sometimes, a dupe is called when it clearly isn't a dupe according to Sift guidelines. This usually happens inadvertently (I've been told that there have been folks who have flamed out doing it, but I have never seen that. Before my time.)

The problem is, once a *dupeof is called, all it takes is for a well-meaning person to come along and *isdupe without fully investigating -- or without reading the whole comment stream where the lack of dupeness is acknowledged and agreed upon.

It was pointed out to me that even if the original *dupeof person realizes they made a mistake, removing the comment won't stop an *isdupe from happening. Once the invocation has been called, it is permanent.

Here is the situation that prompted this sift talk post:

There was a 4:40 minute vid posted. Someone came along and excerpted 11 seconds of that vid and posted it. Unfortunately, the time signature on the really short vid wasn't completed, it was left blank.

Someone else came along, saw what looked like a dupe (the topic, the thumbnail, it really looked like a dupe) and duped it without watching it.

But now it is a permanent thing -- that dupeof is sitting there like a ticking time bomb. There is nothing to stop the vid from being duped out of existence.

I know that there is a presumption that dupes are fully investigated before being called, but hey. Human error. It happens. (I even duped myself once, when it wasn't a dupe -- same situation: saw the topic and thumbnail but didn't see the huge time difference and rushed to dupe myself, which of course was permanent. D'oh.)

I don't know how hard it is to program a new invocation. Hopefully it is easy. [edit] To be clear, this would be an invocation after dupeof and before isdupe is called. I understand once the dupe has been "completed", it is a done deal.

If folks agree that we need it, of course.