...and there was me thinking that if only this had Yakety Sax playing in the background...

You're right that it's a subjective question. I was trying my best to stay dispassionate about that particular instance because, well, I think both videos suck balls. A fucking cat pawing at a printer? Obviously, at least 90 people disagree with me, so I'm probably out of my realm of expertise.

I like your analogy about paintings with mustaches. But we're not hanging originals here at all. We're handing out prints. Yeah, the prints have all been signed by a forger, or even worse by a forger that thinks he has a better sense of style than the original artist. If the forgery hides the original artistic achievement, we should offer copies of the original. But if doesn't, there's only so much we can print up.

I agree - this one is right on the edge. The fact that the 'original' sift had the added effects, though, I think influences the decision. Had it been the other way around, I think the added sound effects would have been quickly deemed to not add anything, and Lucky's post would have been easily declared a dupe. So why should it work differently in reverse?

In reply to this comment by MaxWilder:
The addition of sound effects absolutely makes it different!

If there is a clip of Star Wars where Porkins explodes, it might get sifted. Then if somebody makes a version where a farting noise is added just before he explodes, would that not be different enough to warrant a separate sift? It's just one sound effect, but it changes the meaning of the clip.

The question is, how different does a video have to be in order to be considered not a dupe? And should that decision be made by one person? That seems to me to be contrary to the spirit of the sift.

I don't want to make a big deal out of this, but (forgive me the hyperbole) it seems like a work of art is being refused because this museum already has a copy of the painting where somebody scribbled a mustache on it.


In reply to this comment by jonny:
I should probably let Lucky answer for himself, but here goes anyway.

A different audio track on a video must provide some significant change in the content, not simply a more pleasurable viewing experience in the opinion of some. So, for instance, if someone posts a video of cats being herded with the native sound, and someone else posts the same vid with 'yakety sax', then that might be considered different and not a dupe. In this case though, the only difference is the presence or lack of a few sound effects. Your opinion that those sound effects suck isn't really relevant. The fact that gwiz's video did not have them does not make his post "different" or "original". It might make that particular copy of it better, but that's not the point of duplicates.

In reply to this comment by MaxWilder:
I really don't understand your point here. Those crappy sound effects dramatically change the tone of the video, from a cute cat vid to a goofy over-the-top sound effects vid. Perhaps you were watching with the sound low?

If there wasn't a significant difference, I don't think my preference for the original version would be so strong.


In reply to this comment by lucky760:
FAQ: Minor changes in content, like a few additional insignificant seconds of video or alternate background music, will still be considered dupes. The only exception to this is if the change in audio makes a significant difference to the video content.

The audio can in no legitimate way be validly considered as making a "significant difference to the video content." Claiming that it does when the only difference is a couple of minor sound affects is surprising and disingenuous.

*return

The addition of sound effects absolutely makes it different!

If there is a clip of Star Wars where Porkins explodes, it might get sifted. Then if somebody makes a version where a farting noise is added just before he explodes, would that not be different enough to warrant a separate sift? It's just one sound effect, but it changes the meaning of the clip.

The question is, how different does a video have to be in order to be considered not a dupe? And should that decision be made by one person? That seems to me to be contrary to the spirit of the sift.

I don't want to make a big deal out of this, but (forgive me the hyperbole) it seems like a work of art is being refused because this museum already has a copy of the painting where somebody scribbled a mustache on it.


In reply to this comment by jonny:
I should probably let Lucky answer for himself, but here goes anyway.

A different audio track on a video must provide some significant change in the content, not simply a more pleasurable viewing experience in the opinion of some. So, for instance, if someone posts a video of cats being herded with the native sound, and someone else posts the same vid with 'yakety sax', then that might be considered different and not a dupe. In this case though, the only difference is the presence or lack of a few sound effects. Your opinion that those sound effects suck isn't really relevant. The fact that gwiz's video did not have them does not make his post "different" or "original". It might make that particular copy of it better, but that's not the point of duplicates.

In reply to this comment by MaxWilder:
I really don't understand your point here. Those crappy sound effects dramatically change the tone of the video, from a cute cat vid to a goofy over-the-top sound effects vid. Perhaps you were watching with the sound low?

If there wasn't a significant difference, I don't think my preference for the original version would be so strong.


In reply to this comment by lucky760:
FAQ: Minor changes in content, like a few additional insignificant seconds of video or alternate background music, will still be considered dupes. The only exception to this is if the change in audio makes a significant difference to the video content.

The audio can in no legitimate way be validly considered as making a "significant difference to the video content." Claiming that it does when the only difference is a couple of minor sound affects is surprising and disingenuous.

*return

I should probably let Lucky answer for himself, but here goes anyway.

A different audio track on a video must provide some significant change in the content, not simply a more pleasurable viewing experience in the opinion of some. So, for instance, if someone posts a video of cats being herded with the native sound, and someone else posts the same vid with 'yakety sax', then that might be considered different and not a dupe. In this case though, the only difference is the presence or lack of a few sound effects. Your opinion that those sound effects suck isn't really relevant. The fact that gwiz's video did not have them does not make his post "different" or "original". It might make that particular copy of it better, but that's not the point of duplicates.

In reply to this comment by MaxWilder:
I really don't understand your point here. Those crappy sound effects dramatically change the tone of the video, from a cute cat vid to a goofy over-the-top sound effects vid. Perhaps you were watching with the sound low?

If there wasn't a significant difference, I don't think my preference for the original version would be so strong.


In reply to this comment by lucky760:
FAQ: Minor changes in content, like a few additional insignificant seconds of video or alternate background music, will still be considered dupes. The only exception to this is if the change in audio makes a significant difference to the video content.

The audio can in no legitimate way be validly considered as making a "significant difference to the video content." Claiming that it does when the only difference is a couple of minor sound affects is surprising and disingenuous.

*return

Needs Yakety Sax and a WAH WAH WAHHHHHHHHHH...

Yakety Sax [plus] [blank] = SiftGold

Tags for this video have been changed from 'timelapse, hill, ice, winter, driving, yakety sax' to 'timelapse, hill, ice, winter, driving, yakety sax, Portland' - edited by oohahh

>> ^Kerotan:
the music best known as that music from benny hill.


Yakety Sax. If you like it, take any youtube video id, enter it here...

http://james.nerdiphythesoul.com/bennyhillifier/

...and thank me later.

I very, very rarely downvote videos but this gets my downvote for a number of reasons.

The video and title mock a legitimate and very serious issue that plagues many of the war-torn regions of the past century, and largely in places marred by poverty. The victims of landmines are most often civilians and most incidences happen long after the conflict is concluded. Their use has been viewed as an attack on population rather then on military.

As much as the song often adds humor to otherwise mundane situations, it does not add humor to tragedy. You can comment on the quality of the video, of the acting or that such an incident in North America is essentially impossible, but in reality there is no more humor to the issue then that of rape, or other heinous crimes.

Adding Yakety Sax to a video of jews being marched into a gas chamber "to make it humourous" would be an insult to anyone who did not survive such horrors and even more so to those who did. It would be like saying that the atrocity is okay. It is not okay.


>> ^NordlichReiter:
Death is funny to me. Because its inevitable.

You can laugh at death, all you like. Hell, I do to sometimes. But this isn't about death. It is about life.

The things we do in life are more important then how we die. Arranging for a ten-year-old child, or anyone else, to have their legs ripped from their body (or worse) is a terrible thing to do to someone else, or the life the want to live.

Benny Hill does not make that funny.

The name of the tune is "Yakety Sax".

Plus Finland needs landmines to defend...

If any video ever needed Yakety Sax and a fast forward...

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Shrimp, Treadmill, Run, Water, Show, Music, Song, Rule, Constant' to 'Shrimp, Treadmill, Run, Water, Show, Music, Song, Rule, Constant, Yakety sax' - edited by MarineGunrock

The beginning needs some yakety-sax music

Yakety Sax was definitely the wrong choice for the sound track.

needs more Yakety Sax.