Untill now we've gone with the rule of thumb that if one video is long, we're allowed to post smaller snippets, if they highlight a certain point. Like, posting a specific joke from an otherwise sifted stand up show.

The FAQ does indeed say what you say: If you had posted first and she after, there would be no problems.

I'm all for changing the rules to make this like you wish, if the video has significantly different content, they both should be allowed to stay. This requires us to change the letter of the law to come closer to the spirit of the law, and is a good idea.

This is a discussion that's been underway for a while, so it's good that you're bringing it up, grimm. I'll return your video, pending the outcome of this thread.

This falls in a broad grey area, in my opinion, but I'd have to vote dupe for your post. I feel mint's post just isn't long enough to warrant highlights. Mind you, I'm not sure where I'd put the line for "long enough" either.

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

It is a bit in the gray area, but I agree that in general a shorter clip of a longer version is in most cases a dupe. Especially since with Youtube at least you can embed from a specific starting point.

>> ^dag:
It is a bit in the gray area, but I agree that in general a shorter clip of a longer version is in most cases a dupe.

Only if the longer clip is first. If the shorter clip is first and the longer clip has a significant amount of extra content they both stay.

Long clip first, short clip second - short clip gets killed.

Short clip first, long clip second - both videos get to stay.

My point is if it benefits the sift if both videos would be left alone in one scenario then why not the other?

Again let me clarify...we are talking about a significant difference in content. This one for example puts a focus on one question and answer from an entire 8-9 minute interview. If you look at the comments you can see it sparked a very decent debate that did not happen with the full interview.

What I didn't like was that the shorter clip got a vote that pushed it to the front page with 4 votes and mine dropped to the second page with 3 votes atm and nobody saw it and voted for it.

That's why the shorter clip sparked a long conversation and nobody paid attention to my whole clip. - Which I was SO happy to have found and posted first!

After yelling to NetRunner for quite a while and saying 'WHY THE F**K isn't Grimm's a dupe???' he asked me to calm down, mumbled something about shorter clip, that he didn't know if it was considered a dupe. And he suggest I'd just refer to the longer video and let others confirm whether it is a dupe instead of me calling it a dupe, possibly unfairly.

I had calmed down and was waiting, untill MGR was claimimng a video of mine a dupe. So here I am, kinda ticked off again, hoping an answer for both videos and thinking after that I am going to take a lONG break from VS.



>> ^Grimm:
>> ^dag:
It is a bit in the gray area, but I agree that in general a shorter clip of a longer version is in most cases a dupe.

Only if the longer clip is first. If the shorter clip is first and the longer clip has a significant amount of extra content they both stay.
Long clip first, short clip second - short clip gets killed.
Short clip first, long clip second - both videos get to stay.
My point is if it benefits the sift if both videos would be left alone in one scenario then why not the other?
Again let me clarify...we are talking about a significant difference in content. This one for example puts a focus on one question and answer from an entire 8-9 minute interview. If you look at the comments you can see it sparked a very decent debate that did not happen with the full interview.

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

The main reason is because the the bigger clip contains all of the information of the little clip .

The little clip (if second) is only a subset of the first.

We would let a 2nd submitted longer clip go because it contains information not included in the little clip. I feel like I need a Venn diagram or something

>> ^Grimm:
>> ^dag:
It is a bit in the gray area, but I agree that in general a shorter clip of a longer version is in most cases a dupe.

Only if the longer clip is first. If the shorter clip is first and the longer clip has a significant amount of extra content they both stay.
Long clip first, short clip second - short clip gets killed.
Short clip first, long clip second - both videos get to stay.
My point is if it benefits the sift if both videos would be left alone in one scenario then why not the other?
Again let me clarify...we are talking about a significant difference in content. This one for example puts a focus on one question and answer from an entire 8-9 minute interview. If you look at the comments you can see it sparked a very decent debate that did not happen with the full interview.

I think there's also a case to be made if the relative lengths of the two clips are very different. Posting a 2 minute snippet of a 90 minute video that's already been sifted should probably be okay, especially if it's highlighting a bit of commentary that might have gotten lost in the rest of the vid.

With clips that aren't long enough to warrant the long tag, I think that's more questionable, but in the world of politics it seems like most people don't have the patience to watch a 7-9 minute interview, they just want the juicy soundbite.

I also told mintbbb that I upvoted both because anything that helps more people see what a mendacious war-crimes committing idiot Bush is, the better, and that I kinda expected the shorter vid to get more attention because of the aforementioned effect (i.e. that people have no attention span), but I think she and I have different motivations for sifting *cough*.

Want to know what is MORE retarded.

If you posted the smaller clip first, then BOTH are allowed to stay.

It is 100% stupid.

Any clips over 30 seconds in length that are a subset of other clips (and not edited) should be dupeof the larger clips. Obviously highlight videos that are edited are excluded. Now the only thing up for debate would be a 5 minute clip that comes from a 30minute original.. I don't know if we should remove more reasonable 5 minutes for a whole documentary..

What did we end up deciding here?

For now videos marked LONG are allowed to have smaller "dupes" which focuses on a specific point, yes?

A) Should this rule of thumb be expanded to include any video with substantially different content? This would mean that there would be a greater gray area of dupes, but it would seem more reasonable to, well, everyone.

B) Should we keep it as it is? Shorter videos which are subsets of other non-long videos are considered dupes and are killed or dupeoffed. This means that if video 1 is a subset of 2 which is a subset of 3 is posted in the folowing order: 1-2-3 all three would be allowed to stay, but if it was 3-2-1 only 3 would be allowed to stay. If it was 2-1-3, only 2 and 3 would be allowed. You see the weirdness, yes?

Any other options? Let's gather them up and take a vote. (someone promote this so people see it.)