Or we could offer an invocation to reverse the dupeof (available to the one who made the dupeof call), so people can take care of their own mistakes.

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

Automatic deduping is tough. So we declare a dupe and move all the votes to the first video, and then to dedupe we move them back. But if someone actually voted on both we don't want to remove the vote from the new one. ... anyway.

If you had extra metadata about each video like running time the dupeof invocation could take this into account and fire a warning. Or maybe just pop up a warning anyway with the chance to cancel.

Well dupeof is a pretty powerful tool, and personally I don't have a problem with there being severe repercussions for misusing it. Next time watch both videos more carefully before firing dupeof from the hip.

This:
http://www.videosift.com/video/Pat-Robertson-Haiti-made-a-pact-with-the-Devil

and this:
http://www.videosift.com/video/Pat-Robertson-Haiti-Made-a-Pact-with-the-Devil-1

Look exactly the same to me. Why am I being punished for Mycroft's inability to not post duplicate videos?

Well yeah, that's definitely a dupe. The embed code may be different, but the vids are identical.

Free SlipperyPete!

Longde's video was originally an embed that didn't work. In that regard it was a faulty dupeof, obviously. They do look pretty much identical now though. I dunno.

I don't know how you store votes, but it would be a relatively simple matter to make a little data redundancy to make sure you can dedupe as well.

Have a variable number of lists with votes that merges within 1-2 days, so more than one dupeof can happen within a short period of time and you'd still be able to revert.

>> ^dag:
Automatic deduping is tough. So we declare a dupe and move all the votes to the first video, and then to dedupe we move them back. But if someone actually voted on both we don't want to remove the vote from the new one. ... anyway.


There are many ways to go about making it possible and it would sure as hell beat micromanaging all these instances of dupeof grief.

hmmmm, maybe if you tried to post something that everyone could give a fuck about, like art, good music etc., instead of stooping to the lowest common denominator of voyeurism, finger-pointing, and sensationalist hoo-ha, the dupe factor would be minimal.

Who gives a fiddler's fuck about Pat Robertson anyhow? He's a goddamn snake-oil piece of shit, drunk on his own cult of personality.

>> ^gwiz665:
Longde's video was originally an embed that didn't work.

No, it worked just fine for me when I watched it. Others were obviously having trouble, but what I saw was what I saw.

The two vids in question have the EXACT same title. In longde's previous embed, there was a slight difference in content; Mycroft's vid had an extra few seconds at the beginning that longde's original video didn't. Regardless, the 'meat' of the video is Robertson's asinine quote. We didn't need two of these here, so I merged them.


>> ^gwiz665:
In that regard it was a faulty dupeof, obviously.

No, not obvious, nor faulty, IMO.

^If the embed doesn't work, then it is obviously not a dupe. If it did work for you, then you're in the clear, I'm just saying that it didn't for me and others. If the meat of the video is identical, plus only a little filler on the ends, then yes, it would be a dupe. Only something notably different; different angle, voice over, further explanation etc. would make it not a dupe.

I don't think there's any need to remove your dupeof privileges over this, because in the end I think you did the right thing, it's just unfortunate that a bunch of the rest of us couldn't verify it immediately. I don't know how much difference there was between the original videos, but it seems that mycroft believes there is, and since the other one changed embed mid-stream, it's hard to tell, really.

In any case, I think it's a good talk post, since I think it would be prudent to make some sort of security against such dupeof situations - lord knows the admins don't want the grief, and neither do we, the users.

The votes disagree with your assessment. Everyone is not you, everyone is the lowest common denominator.
>> ^choggie:
hmmmm, maybe if you tried to post something that everyone could give a fuck about, like art, good music etc., instead of stooping to the lowest common denominator of voyeurism, finger-pointing, and sensationalist hoo-ha, the dupe factor would be minimal.
Who gives a fiddler's fuck about Pat Robertson anyhow? He's a goddamn snake-oil piece of shit, drunk on his own cult of personality.

Woh there SP. "Why am I being punished for Mycroft's inability to not post duplicate videos?" Keep your tone civil.

FIrst, he changed his embed. His original video did not include the first segment. My video had 36 seconds of additional content, this I confirmed before posting this.

Here is the chain of events:

1) We both post vids and use the same title.
2) Mine erroneously is declared a Dupe, because SlipperyPete either did not watch both videos or did not care.
3) Longde replaces his embed with mine after people complain that they cant watch the video.

In its present state if anything his video is now a dupe of my original post. I am fine with deleting my post I am just tired of this exact thing happening over and over again. It seems ridiculously easy to script something that prompts the person declaring something is a dupe that the videos are different lengths. At the minimum this is a simple solution to a reoccurring problem.

i just post a link of the earlier post and let the poster decide to do whats right.
no muss...no fuss..
and no ego's get all hurt and bruised and nobody starts fighting over the last beer.
i would have gave longde the longer version to replace the one he had..
but thats me.

Except we submitted the videos within a few minutes of each other... and I didn't see his video at the time I submitted it. It was only after I SP incorrectly declared * dupeof that checked both videos. The point is not the video. The point is that this happens a lot and needs to be fixed.

Also it seems an immature retaliation to downvote a video simply because you got caught abusing your privileges.

I downvoted it because it's already been sifted, and I can't declare it a dupe.

Sigh. You can't be serious. Let me repeat this for you.

1) We both post vids and use the same title.
2) Mine erroneously is declared a Dupe, because SlipperyPete either did not watch both videos or did not care.
3) Longde replaces his embed with mine after people complain that they cant watch the video.

It is true NOW they are dupes, but that was not my doing and they were not dupes when you declared them a dupe. Longde replaced his embed.


Why cant you admit that you declared it a dupe without watching both videos? There is nothing to be ashamed of.

I posted this on your profile, but will post it here as well.

I don't have any hard feelings towards you. I do resent getting stripped of privileges for what I feel was a correct invocation.
You're right, it's not about me.

Here is the chain of events:

1) We both post vids and use the same title.

OK.


2) Mine erroneously is declared a Dupe, because SlipperyPete either did not watch both videos or did not care.

No, I watched both videos and decided to call it a dupe because it essentially was. No, they weren't second-by-second identical, but I felt they were close enough to be declared as such. In addition, your video only had two votes on it at the time I duped it; hardly a sift-shattering event.

3) Longde replaces his embed with mine after people complain that they cant watch the video.

IMO, he just found a suitable replacement for his content. Which happened to be your content. Which would imply that they were worthy of being duped in the first place, no?

How do you expect me to react when you repeatedly get hostile in this thread where the point that I am raising is that dupeof needs to be changed.

Moreover, I don't think the vote count matters here, it is the fact that dupeof should only be used when the videos are actually a dupe and that is not subjective.

Frankly, there is no way that you could confused a video with a full 40 seconds more content and a completely different introduction and source with Longde's video which at the time was less than a minute long. Seriously, you cant expect me to believe that you watched both videos.

3) Longde...
IMO, he just found a suitable replacement for his content. Which happened to be your content. Which would imply that they were worthy of being duped in the first place, no?

That is ridiculous logic. So you are saying that any subset is equal its set. Come on. Furthermore, there is precedence at videosift for that.

How do you expect me to react when you repeatedly get hostile in this thread where the point that I am raising is that dupeof needs to be changed.

I'm so unhostile it hurts. If I were being hostile, I'd use <'strong> tags, obviously.


Seriously, you cant expect me to believe that you watched both videos.


You keep repeating this point. Seriously, I watched them both.


I've said all I intend to say on the matter. Have a great weekend.

Why don't you put your slippery pete inside my croft, holmes.

Sorry about the hubbub. I honestly thought the extra seconds were immaterial to the content. I'll keep it in mind in the future.

Next time you buy something that is on sale for 5 dollars and you give me a 100, I will give you back 60. Because that is what your saying. 5 seconds = 39 seconds for a video that is 59 seconds long. Look get over it, you guys screwed up. I clearly could not care less about the video- I discarded it eventually.

That isn't even the point: the point is dupeof needs to get fixed.

Mycroft and pete: hug it out bitches and let's look into doing something about dupeof instead?

As far as I know, I posted the earliest working embed of this, about 2 hours after longde posted his. Made the first page while his still had one vote. Cracked the top 15 before the "dupeof" was declared. The embed that replaced mine was unwatchable. I netted a single power point and zero star points for the effort. I'm glad to have it, and I'm not asking for anything. Just sayin'.

Tell me about it. Fucking bastard dupe callers (you know who you are).

Since you downvoted my apology, I'll add this.

This quote is a lie. Your video appeared almost 2 hours later. My sift must have come up as a dupe; the titles and tags are too similar to each other and unique in the sift. You decided to passively aggressively scoop my video with 36 seconds of immaterial content.

I thought dupes not only covered exact duplicates, but videos that have spam-like content bookending the money content. If not, can I 'scoop' someone else's sift with one that has 2 more seconds of filler, or even 5 minutes of snow?

What's the time cutoff (question to everyone)? I don't think there is one, or at least I've never seen one explicitly stated.


MycroftHomlz said:◄
Except we submitted the videos within a few minutes of each other... and I didn't see his video at the time I submitted it. It was only after I SP incorrectly declared * dupeof that checked both videos. The point is not the video. The point is that this happens a lot and needs to be fixed.

One more thing, and I'll shutup about this quibble.

1) I think I can be faulted for putting up a video whose code could not be seen by a significant portion of siftites. I think that is a legitimate reason for someone else posting the same content.

2) I also think it's debatable whether the extra seconds are immaterial or not. I think they are spam, but I know there are others who could legitimately feel otherwise.

Why resort to distortion and untruth, when there were strong reasons to duplicate the content? Maybe the other reasons are too soft, or maybe passive aggressive habits cannot be overcome.

"Since you downvoted my apology, I'll add this."

I downvoted the comment that it was "just a few seconds". My post including ~40 seconds where Robertson calls the earthquake a blessing your original did not. I did not see your video until SP declared *dupeof, and I was annoyed because they were not the same video, as mine was ~50% longer and had additional content. I was more bothered by the fact that this has happened before and it still isn't fixed.

"You decided to passively aggressively scoop my video with 36 seconds of immaterial content."

This is crazy talk. I think you think I care way more about my sifts way more than I actually do. I have been on this site long enough that people know I have never done that, if you don't know me it is because my usage has tapered off lately. Irrespective of your conspiracy theory bullshit, SlipperyPete declared dupeof incorrectly. As per the definition of "dupe", it means a copy. If there was black screen or credits something of that degree padding my video, then I would agree it would be a dupe. But it contained ~50% more content and a completely different segment. You know that.

"My sift must have come up as a dupe; the titles are too similar."

The dupe checking function doesn't work that way. My impression is that it takes time to for he database to load the videos. If two videos are posted close together and have similar titles the dupe checker will not see the first one.

Ask Lucky or Dag I am sure he will say the same thing.

I don't know if this were the original embeds, but I watched the posts when they had two different embeds. For what it's worth, one was longer and the other shorter, but I'd consider the more recent one a dupe, because the added length was only leading into the actual content. If some users feel strong about those extra seconds, then maybe the older sift should change its embed to the longer one, but I personally don't think we need two videos of the same thing (especially since you'd just take votes off each other's sifts).

In any case I don't think it's worth arguing back and forth like this, it's starting to get way too personal.

I think the dupeof was correct. I think this quibbling is boring--especially if the duped video had 2 votes. The content is Pat Robertson being a dick: that content made it onto the sift, I"m quite happy that two such videos of the same dickishness are not on the sift.

I think when the quote that makes it interesting is the point, a few extra seconds on the start make little difference.

And for the record, Mycroft was pissy before anyone else was, so his calling other people on being pissy seems, at the least, disingenuous.