As usual this gripe started when it happened to me. See:
http://www.videosift.com/video/South-Park-The-difference-between-Vampire-and-Goth (26 votes in 9 hours)
http://www.videosift.com/video/Anybody-Who-Thinks-They-Are-Actually-a-Vampire-Is-Retarded (4 votes in 3 months and 3 weeks)

I've only been here two days but I've already run into that issue as well and it's irritating. At the very least I don't see why personal queues are unlimited. (Are they?)

Some videos are great, but deserve to die due to bad titling, tagging, etc. Seems to me it just prevents other sifters from having a go at it with a better title.

Search before submitting.

^no. If it doesn't show up as a duplicate in the "validate embed" or the duplicate screen, then I don't go on wild chases after a potential duplicate.

It's actually a shame that videos are allowed to stay in the PQ, because that particular video, for instance, would have gotten one vote from me and then stay there with 5 votes instead. Personal queue is a bad system. Make it a private q, so we have easy reference for sifting again later, instead of this sheit.

>> ^gwiz665:
^no. If it doesn't show up as a duplicate in the "validate embed" or the duplicate screen, then I don't go on wild chases after a potential duplicate.


Listen to yourself. There is nothing more frequent here than sensationalistic titles and pointless tags made to grab attention. To rely only on the possible duplicates that the submit process gives you is meaningless most of the time. On the other hand It takes 5 seconds to put 2 or 3 keywords and hit search. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't but the search is there for a reason.


>> It's actually a shame that videos are allowed to stay in the PQ, because that particular video, for instance, would have gotten one vote from me and then stay there with 5 votes instead. Personal queue is a bad system. Make it a private q, so we have easy reference for sifting again later, instead of this sheit.

This is not a problem if you think of the sift as a collective effort to filter and expose videos worth watching. If you find a video you wanted to post in a pqueue and are so eager to share it, then a promote will not hurt. On the other hand, if you keep worrying about who got more votes, when, or what, etc. Then you are making yourself miserable over something that is not that big of a deal.

And even if we differ in how we see things and perhaps you have a point that I missed, I still don't think what you are proposing is a good way to go.

>>It seems wrong to me that a video can be "rotting" in the personal queue with a few votes and be considered the "original" when someone else sifts a video. It annoys me to now end when people have several hundred videos in their pq, which essentially prevent anyone else from putting an effort in to sifting those videos.

Then how else would you define 'original' if you feel it is wrong to label it as such if the video has been posted for the first time? How would any other definition of original be logical?

>>I would like to see a change in the personal queue system. Either completely removed or perhaps changed to only keep videos with over 5 votes. This would dramatically clear out many videos that are just languishing in peoples PQs.
Alternatively, we could change it so that videos in a PQ counted as discarded in regard to dupes.

Way to think about the rest of the users. You may have success with your posts so that they rarely need another push, but for others, myself included, the pqueue is something we rely on frequently. If the pqueue did not exist, I would have had 10 posted videos at the most, over the past couple of months. Going that way will shift more the already significant inbalance of popular, quick entertainment, short videos VS rare, long videos.

If you think the pqueue system is wrong, there has to be another option besides completely removing it.

Just a question, what are you here for: to share content, or to compete for votes? is it that hard to give up a post because it was a dupe? does it really matter that much if at the end, the video you wanted to share with us made it to the front anyways? if it is an old published video, is it hard to promote it so that it goes to the first page again? if you find a video you wanted to post here in a pqueue, does it take too much effort to ask someone or promote it yourself so that it gets another chance?

I simply don't understand why you want to go to such lengths over a dupe.

Shouldn't the person who posts it first get the upvotes for it?

Now that we have dupeof, the votes for the newer dupe can be transferred to the rightful place, so we should no longer have situations where the higher-voted, but later-posted video gets discarded, leaving the original to rot.

I'm the proud owner of a triple-digit pqueue. If that destroys your motivation to sift, well, I can't improve on the classics:

My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings: Look on my works, ye mighty, and despair!

dear dear,
i completely disagree with everything you just bitched about. i would elaborate but mauz already handled it nicely.
please take your prozac and stop whining.
love,
bea

^It's not about being first, it's about doing it right.


Mauz, I'll get to you when I'm at work (with time to procrastinate).

Could I pick on Netrunner for a moment?

His PQ has 140 videos. Can we agree that's a bit much? I haven't seen many PQs so I'm not sure if that's typical, but in any case there should be a limit.

This video in particular has been sitting for 9 months and only has 4 votes! His oldest (a full year old) has a mere 6 votes. Are those videos every gonna see the light of day?

>>This is not a problem if you think of the sift as a collective effort to filter and expose videos worth watching.

I think it's still a problem, because they're not gonna be exposed. In the case of the South Park video, Zifnab had only 5 votes for his video. Now, Gwiz could've upvoted it and moved on, but then it would've had 6 votes. And then it would've sat there and continued to rot, maybe never seeing the front page.

So where's the collective effort? There's no easy way to just browse PQs. You have to go out of your way to do it, wade through the videos, and then find something you like. I mean, shit, barely anybody even browses the unsifted videos, let alone random PQs.

Original or not, they're rotting. And it's depriving the front page of some pretty good stuff.

I'm still of the opinion that the package you wrap your video in has as much to do with the video itself in terms of getting it sifted. Some videos are just badly titled (no offense) and need to die.

But certainly don't just get rid of the PQ. It needs an overhaul - A video limit, a time limit, a minimum vote count, and a reliable way to browse a general PQ listing are all things to consider.

Take it for what it's worth from the newbie. I know my lack of star damages my credibility, as does my constant offer to send you guys pics of my junk. (Seriously though, it's free!)

Oh, and Netrunner, I know how distraught you must be since I picked on you. I realize over these last two days you've grown to harbor an immense amount of respect for me, and I can't imagine how soul crushing that musta been. I'm here for you.

>> ^mauz15:
>> ^gwiz665:
^no. If it doesn't show up as a duplicate in the "validate embed" or the duplicate screen, then I don't go on wild chases after a potential duplicate.

Listen to yourself. There is nothing more frequent here than sensationalistic titles and pointless tags made to grab attention. To rely only on the possible duplicates that the submit process gives you is meaningless most of the time. On the other hand It takes 5 seconds to put 2 or 3 keywords and hit search. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't but the search is there for a reason.

The reason for the search is not to exhaust every eventuality that there may be a duplicate of something your about to sift; the search is there to help you find videos that you want to watch. If the search had been made a required or even recommended step in sifting a video it would be used for this more, but as it is now, it's a terrible idea to require users to go through all the added complexity of making external searches for a given video. If this is indeed a required step, then it should be added to the sifting process.


>> It's actually a shame that videos are allowed to stay in the PQ, because that particular video, for instance, would have gotten one vote from me and then stay there with 5 votes instead. Personal queue is a bad system. Make it a private q, so we have easy reference for sifting again later, instead of this sheit.
This is not a problem if you think of the sift as a collective effort to filter and expose videos worth watching. If you find a video you wanted to post in a pqueue and are so eager to share it, then a promote will not hurt. On the other hand, if you keep worrying about who got more votes, when, or what, etc. Then you are making yourself miserable over something that is not that big of a deal.
And even if we differ in how we see things and perhaps you have a point that I missed, I still don't think what you are proposing is a good way to go.

I don't just see it as a collected effort to filter and expose videos, I see it as much as a game, where users are rewarded for their effort and ability to sift a video. The filtering is a side-effect to the game, which results in that. A promote costs a power point, sifting does not. One argument is the greed factor, another is that I may not have that power point available and I may not even want to use a promote on a poorly framed video. There is some reason the video is not sifted yet and "just" in the PQ, that doesn't necessarily go away with a promote.


>>It seems wrong to me that a video can be "rotting" in the personal queue with a few votes and be considered the "original" when someone else sifts a video. It annoys me to now end when people have several hundred videos in their pq, which essentially prevent anyone else from putting an effort in to sifting those videos.
Then how else would you define 'original' if you feel it is wrong to label it as such if the video has been posted for the first time? How would any other definition of original be logical?

In my mind the only logical "original sift" is the one that get sifted first, not the one that is queued first. If it has made its way through the sifting process, I would have no problem handing over any votes. I mean, I could for instance queue all south park videos from their original site, just named as integer numbers - these would probably not get any votes, but when at some point if someone else decides to sift it, and makes an effort with his tags, title and so on, I could later swoop in and say, "ha ha, mine now". That is a Bad Thing(tm).

>>I would like to see a change in the personal queue system. Either completely removed or perhaps changed to only keep videos with over 5 votes. This would dramatically clear out many videos that are just languishing in peoples PQs.
Alternatively, we could change it so that videos in a PQ counted as discarded in regard to dupes.
Way to think about the rest of the users. You may have success with your posts so that they rarely need another push, but for others, myself included, the pqueue is something we rely on frequently. If the pqueue did not exist, I would have had 10 posted videos at the most, over the past couple of months. Going that way will shift more the already significant inbalance of popular, quick entertainment, short videos VS rare, long videos.
If you think the pqueue system is wrong, there has to be another option besides completely removing it.

Alright, I would like to see a maximum number of videos in a PQ (~50) and a time limit (a month). If a sift can't gather votes enough votes over a month, something has been done poorly, either the video itself - which some obscure videos would sadly fall under more often - or in the tags, title or comment. Then the sifter should just accept the defeat and let it go. The user can always try to sift it again at some point, perhaps with a change in the title and or tag.

I am actually thinking of other users with this proposal, because new users cannot make new posts when so many great videos are being dicked around in netrunners PQ (or someone elses).


Just a question, what are you here for: to share content, or to compete for votes? is it that hard to give up a post because it was a dupe? does it really matter that much if at the end, the video you wanted to share with us made it to the front anyways? if it is an old published video, is it hard to promote it so that it goes to the first page again? if you find a video you wanted to post here in a pqueue, does it take too much effort to ask someone or promote it yourself so that it gets another chance?
I simply don't understand why you want to go to such lengths over a dupe.


I am here for both! The vote / star point competition and sharing awesome stuff! Like I said, a promote does not fix a crappy sift. Some times I do just promote instead when I find something I wanted to sift already sifted. But it annoys me to death, when I find something that I know can do really good, and deserves to be sifted, rotting in a pq with 2 votes.


I think the personal queue system is basically a good idea, but the way it is now is detrimental to sifters. Either there should be a limited time frame for a sift to live in a PQ or a maximum video count, or preferably both. I would also like to see a minimum number of votes for a video to go to the PQ, because a video that gets 1,2,3 votes has something wrong with it and should lock out the video for other users.

Heh, if people can't figure out to sift well, then they will learn or not sift much. That is the natural evolution of the game. Some things are harder to sift than other - as the talks channel owner, I know this well - but the way the sift works now, you don't sift from your personal queue, you sift from your queue, the frontpage, and all the absolutely simplest ways of getting to a video. Search is not one of those. Hell, most of the times I have to use google to find a dupe, because people can't figure out to tag or title well.

When a video is in a PQ it is essentially stifling any chance of it being sifted "well". Some times videos come racing out of the PQ and that awesome, but most of the times they don't.

I want sifting to be about sifting well, not sifting much. Quality over quantity.

^The quoting format is horrible to respond in-quote.

>> ^Edeot:
Oh, and Netrunner, I know how distraught you must be since I picked on you. I realize over these last two days you've grown to harbor an immense amount of respect for me, and I can't imagine how soul crushing that musta been. I'm here for you.


Thanks for your support, but get over the massive ego, eh?

If (sarcasm) do
mea_culpa()
else
above()
end

It was supposed to be self-deprecating humor... you know, cuz I haven't been here very long and he doesn't harbor any respect for me. The joke doesn't work when you have to explain it.

"In my mind the only logical "original sift" is the one that get sifted first, not the one that is queued first. If it has made its way through the sifting process, I would have no problem handing over any votes. I mean, I could for instance queue all south park videos from their original site, just named as integer numbers - these would probably not get any votes, but when at some point if someone else decides to sift it, and makes an effort with his tags, title and so on, I could later swoop in and say, "ha ha, mine now". That is a Bad Thing(tm)."

^ I think that is a good point. It's not cut and dry at all, but I too think there should be some overhaul of the pqueue. It is pretty tired as it is now, it needs some way of making it less stagnant. If there was a time limit or vote limit on the vids in pqueue, it would probably ensure people made more of an effort with their vids ie tagging and titling better, or even sending them round to people they think will enjoy them or whatever else. Sometimes we do get lazy with what we're submitting and that kind of takes the fun out of it. I think it'd be a good thing to be encouraged to take a bit more time on your vids, this would help out overall quality too

>> ^gwiz665:
The reason for the search is not to exhaust every eventuality that there may be a duplicate of something your about to sift; the search is there to help you find videos that you want to watch. If the search had been made a required or even recommended step in sifting a video it would be used for this more, but as it is now, it's a terrible idea to require users to go through all the added complexity of making external searches for a given video. If this is indeed a required step, then it should be added to the sifting process.

I always thought it was self-evident you look for a possible dupe before posting. that's supposed to be one of VS' main features, no duplicate videos. if we say fuck all to hunting dupes, we'll really be just a bad copy of youtube. VS search engine is not exactly the bee's knees, but at least make an effort... and don't fuck with tags, people! it's hard enough to find anything here without people misusing tags
either we stick to some basic rules or we might as well lose that "quality control" from the title
I think pq is here to stay. I mean, what else would you suggest - just keep posting same damn video over and over again every 2 days until by some miracle and good timing it gets through? fucking *terrible idea, gwiz

^Keep posting or don't post. I'm not saying the PQ should be abolished completely, but there need to be some stops put in, so there's less stagnation there. 140 videos is just too much to have in the PQ, it's should be limited like the ordinary queue. Or else we might, as you say, just drop the whole "quality control".

I also think you are missing the point about the sifting process. Sifting is not just submitting a video, it's the whole way through the queue. When something has LEFT the queue it is sifted, everything before is a test of its quality. This is why the personal queue is a bad idea as it is now.

yeah, ok, I'll give you that, time limit would probably be a good idea (say, 3 months - is that too long?) or maybe the video goes straight to hell if it has less than 3 votes (that's usualy my thing). or maybe the view count could be a criteria (views vs. votes ratio)...

Search is not a required step but it is an obvious one. And since when does a search have only one purpose?

>>I mean, I could for instance queue all south park videos from their original site, just named as integer numbers - these would probably not get any votes, but when at some point if someone else decides to sift it, and makes an effort with his tags, title and so on, I could later swoop in and say, "ha ha, mine now". That is a Bad Thing(tm).

Right, and you think no one would notice this rare exception among the other queue submissions? I don't see how this unlikely case supports your idea.

I don't agree with how you are trying to divide posts into sifts/pqueues. A post is a post. The sifted/unsifted is just a status, because it could change at any moment; while a post (with the exception of dying/discard) remains static. Status (relative)should not interfere with organization (solid)*. in this case, control of duplicates.

*you could argue that status does affect it (number of views, top videos, etc, but the kind of organization im referring to is of the indexing kind, not the sorting kind).

A post is not a post. The whole process of sifting is that we siphon out the bad videos, we do this by voting on them. We submit a video post for evaluation in the community, when it reaches 10 positive votes it is considered a quality post (and gives a star point). Until that time it is still being evaluated. Note that the whole package is being evaluated, not just the video. Making a good is part of being a good sifter, the same as finding a great video is.

My example was simply an extreme of the case, my point was that one could just make posts that were completely unoriginal, uninspired and boring, and then gain the payoff of another users good efforts. That is detrimental and demoralizing to sifters. It certainly is to me.

I rather like what jonny is proposing here http://www.videosift.com/talk/Radical-Proposal-for-the-Queue-PQueues-and-Beggar-s-Canyon which seems to be the best of both worlds.

sorry, gwiz, but like most spleen-venting sift talks, the problem you address exists more because of your actions, than despite them.

and here is one big reason why.

"^no. If it doesn't show up as a duplicate in the "validate embed" or the duplicate screen, then I don't go on wild chases after a potential duplicate."

you're too smart for me to have to walk you through this, gwiz.
but if you had but searched for "south park vampire" then you could've avoided duping it. not only that, but your subsequent upvote would've helped keep it from languishing in zifnab's p-q. or you could've promoted it the fuck out of his p-q at once. that's what i do, with anything i was going to sift that hasn't gotten 10 yet.

if you can't spend the 15 seconds it takes, to search for something before you post it?
kulpims and everyone else who winds up spending longer than that, calling dupeof's to clean up, should get turns whacking you with Nerfbats like a bespectacled pinata.

^hehe, gwiz pinata

@my15minutes
I'll just quote from gwiz' law of contributing users "If it's in any way hard, it won't happen"

The submit process should have a window where you can enter a few search parameters and make a search there, so that it's a part of submitting a video. Until then, its a large step around the sifting process, and that is bad.

The submitter only has to go through a few small steps now, exact duplicate embed (validate embed), and an automated search that works on title and tags (I think). A third screen ought to pot up where you could enter your own search parameters, then I would totally do it. If I have to open a new window/tab then it just won't happen.

I don't think it's the obligation of a contributing user to make an exhaustive search of everything, that's part of what the queue is there for.

^as with all my laws, the law of contributing users has weird sexual undertones.. disregard those.

I personally filter my own PQ. If I have a video sitting there with less than 5 votes, I'll kill it after a couple of days. I have two videos in my PQ currently. One has 9 votes and has been sitting there for a while and the other has 2 and has been there for a day or two. All of my other videos that have gone into my PQ have been cleaned out. I know that zifnab sifted a video after I had killed it in my PQ because he was nice enough to send me a PM about it.

I think there should be some sort of limit for videos residing in the PQ or videos with a low number of votes should expire after a certain time, keeping the higher voted ones.

^See, I do that too, and I wish everybody would just do that instead of hoarding piles of crap.

hey since you hate crap languishing in pq's maybe you should take a walk through here later. if you touch the pointly uppy part, theyre no longer flacid and worthless

^I poked around on the pointy part, and they got all moist and warm.

But, see you've only got a single page in the PQ's most of which has 6-9 votes. I can live with that. When people have 4+ pages with videos of maximum 4-5 votes it's just drowning the poor few good gems in a lot of crap.