Well, Herbie, selflinking videos is prohibited on this site. Please refer to posting guidelines.

However, if you wish to avail yourself of this site to post videos, those other than self originating, and can see your way to abide the rules then please appeal the ban. I am fairly certain you will be dealt with in a even handed manner.

Then, post well and often.

@drawatiger, btw, this place welcomes new contributors...however, as I think you are aware...selflinking is a bannable offense.

Please appeal if your wish is to truly and properly participate and you will find an even hand.

...search @ YT w/ sifter's nomme de selflink...YT origin account pops up. Correlations on Google as well.

*ban

*ban selflinking

*ban selflink

The youtube video (posted today) had exactly 1 view.... after I viewed it.

Uploader and sifter have the same username.

Definite selflink.

*ban possible selflinking (check yt account)

*ban selflink

*discard re: selflink

Precedent...an interpretive error repeated, popular or otherwise? Nothing but slippery slopes here.

Plenty of precedents on this matter...and a plethora of interpretive variance by very experienced and intelligent individuals and groups alike.

A dupe is a dupe is a dupe(.)(?)(!)

An excerpt is not a dupe? So, let's see now. Someone posts an hour and a half video. One hundred Sifters divvy it up with little to no overlap and the resultant flood of videos are viable for submission? A line or a paragraph out of a speech or a dissertation is illumination of a specific point, contextual coloring by isolation from the whole makes it a viable and independent submission? Every video sifted is ripe for dissection and resubmission?

How about spatial variation on the same incident? Two vantage points represented by two recorders of the said incident that are spatially side by side separated by inches is or is not a dupe? Yeeha! What degree(s) of separation of vantage therefore might be considered variant enough? Certainly ninety degrees or more in any plane, right or not? That can get interesting.

What about footnotes, subtitles, added music, added commentary in what language(s) or the lack thereof, color added or subtracted, graphic artifices added or subtracted, different playback speeds resultant in different timestampings or video lengths, or additional dubious footage before, during, or after an incident of note? When do these variances qualify for independent submission and *nondupe/*notadupe status? The initial citing and often repeated criteria by the implementors of the dupe invocation of adding substantive comment at once a blessing and bane due to the inevitable interpretive dance that ensues.

The points regarding ownership, identification, current or active status or lack thereof of submitters, and competition are salient and contributory to the exacerbation of the problems.

The issues can be more simply laid out and have been innumerably. The first submission is sacrosanct whether submitted one second ago or five years ago and the submitter active, inactive, alive.... Submissions are not the submitters' property or they would/should be banned for selflinking. Votes, rankings, comments and such accolades are desirable for most here but are they or should they be the only reason to be present and contributing here? Not providing substantial additional content, what is hard or hard to take about that? Is the meaningful content of the video represented on the Sift already in another's submission?

Dupes take up Sifters' queue space and detract from the site. New Sifter's have not seen a video? So what? I have been to every PQ under the 500 mark save certain new arrivals having moved up quickly. If a noob or otherwise is so inclined, there is the archived videos of the Sift to by enjoyed, appreciated, worshipped...but not served up again by another submitter intentionally or unintentionally.

I do not believe I have added anything new to the tableau of discussion. It has all been said here before somewhere sometime. Better perhaps...certainly more succinctly. It is fairly simple to implement using the guidelines originally cited. Personal interests and desires serve and do so quite capably to obfuscate. Significant additional content, present or no, dupe or not.

Change...acceptable...inevitable. Have at it and good luck. Truly. The above cited proposal of promoting and transferring promotion to the original of a dupe is interesting. The specter of abuse is always lurking, however. Grace periods and fanciful or imaginative interpretations serving to hold onto votes or position are problematic.

Mistakes...I've made them. Fortunately they were minor except to the submitter at times and easily rectifiable. I have seen one dupe that was consummated, deemed erroneous and caught by the invokers themselves, and fixed by lucky760. Hard feelings, hurt feelings, disagreements, outrage, and more over duping(s). Yes. Actionable? How many so far and how often? That may be telling. If there were more wrongful dupes, truly wrongful, there would be more attention from on high I think.

Is there a real or perceived lack of original videos to submit or must the bones of successful or unsung videos be picked over imaginatively in order to derive some benefit of participating?

Yes, as well, the system of checks is imperfect. Some dupes are inevitable. However, I submit the are a few here that seem to manage finding dupes on a regular and consistent basis. Ant, pardon me sir, I have seen dupe his queue's capacity and otherwise one or two daily for good periods. He unfailingly was and is a gentleman about it when a dupe occurs often upvoting the dupage comments. He almost never dupes for an extended period of time now. Others are ongoing, some struggling some gracefully confronting the phenomenon. I duped once and only once. Granted, I am possibly to probably the least of those represented here but diligent titling and tagging has proven an antidote to the plague. I have seen cases that I felt almost certain dupes were intentional using imaginative titles and tagging or a lack thereof.

Too long...I'm sorry.

I also thought we weren't supposed to selflink. Oh the burn feels so good.

>> ^paul4dirt:

cute vid
probably a selflink though, i guess (which isn't allowed here)
http://vodpod.com/quetzal/tag/kevin (same dog, same username)
http://www.youtube.com/user/cormoranPg#p/u (youtube page, vids same as on vodpod)
http://www.trinivideos.com/videos/4516/yorkie-terrier-k
evin-swim-through-the-balls.html (same username, same vid)


Good catch. Hate to do it, but I'm willing to throw out the first *ban.

cute vid

probably a selflink though, i guess (which isn't allowed here)

http://vodpod.com/quetzal/tag/kevin (same dog, same username)
http://www.youtube.com/user/cormoranPg#p/u (youtube page, vids same as on vodpod)
http://www.trinivideos.com/videos/4516/yorkie-terrier-kevin-swim-through-the-balls.html (same username, same vid)

So can InsideOutMedia be banned for posting their own video?

See, the winkey smiley makes it okay that I asked that. But seriously, *ban for selflinking.

*discuss selflinker

posted same vids on funnyordie and vimeo, on same day, with no other posts, and here seems to say he made the (youtube) title

(also posted http://videosift.com/video/Best-Worst-Pose-Down-presented-by-BEST-WORST-MOVIE )