Improper use of the *dupeof invocation
I already wrote a comment about this subject, but I think it's worthy of a Sift Talk post, because I understand that some people have been improperly using the *dupeof invocation.
The *dupeof invocations is only meant to transfer votes from a new video (the dupe) to the old video (the original). It is NOT meant to go the other way. That is, you're not allowed to go through someone's old discards or kills and transfer votes to your new, identical video.
I understand that *dupeof has already been improperly used. I'm going to assume it was due to a misunderstanding of how it is supposed to work. Anyway, I hope it never happens again, because that is not what is was meant for. We only want to reward the original submitter with what rightfully belongs to them, not copycats. The copycat is already copying someone else's idea by reposting someone else's discarded videos. Don't let them steal votes too.
To recap: *Discarded and *killed videos are fair game for resubmission by any member, provided they are not dupes of videos that have already been posted. HOWEVER, you are NOT automatically entitled to the votes from those discarded or killed videos too. You have too earn all your votes when you go rummaging through someone else's discard pile. The *dupeof invocations is ONLY allowed for rewarding the original submission with votes, and NOT any further submissions for the same video that come later on. Transferring votes should only go backwards in time, not forward.
Let's be careful with the *dupeof invocation, please. It's a great tool that everyone has been clamoring for almost since the beginning of VideoSift, so let's not screw it up now that we have it.
The *dupeof invocations is only meant to transfer votes from a new video (the dupe) to the old video (the original). It is NOT meant to go the other way. That is, you're not allowed to go through someone's old discards or kills and transfer votes to your new, identical video.
I understand that *dupeof has already been improperly used. I'm going to assume it was due to a misunderstanding of how it is supposed to work. Anyway, I hope it never happens again, because that is not what is was meant for. We only want to reward the original submitter with what rightfully belongs to them, not copycats. The copycat is already copying someone else's idea by reposting someone else's discarded videos. Don't let them steal votes too.
To recap: *Discarded and *killed videos are fair game for resubmission by any member, provided they are not dupes of videos that have already been posted. HOWEVER, you are NOT automatically entitled to the votes from those discarded or killed videos too. You have too earn all your votes when you go rummaging through someone else's discard pile. The *dupeof invocations is ONLY allowed for rewarding the original submission with votes, and NOT any further submissions for the same video that come later on. Transferring votes should only go backwards in time, not forward.
Let's be careful with the *dupeof invocation, please. It's a great tool that everyone has been clamoring for almost since the beginning of VideoSift, so let's not screw it up now that we have it.
25 Comments
gwiz665I'm not certain I agree with this, but if dag and lucky both thinks this is the way it's supposed to be, I'll accept it.
If an old user has discarded something, old users have voted on it. If those old users are not here anymore or if someone don't want to watch the same video twice, I would rather that the votes were transfered to the new sift. The new "owner" or sifter then accepts the responsibility of holding the embed undead.
kronosposeidonPer lucky760's VideoSift 3.3 release notes (bold, underline, italics = my emphasis):
Therefore *dupeof should only go backwards in time to the original, not forward in time to the reposted video.
And as far as the English language is concerned, there is only one original of anything. There are no old originals or new originals, just originals. A reposted video is not an original, or a new original; it's just a repost.
burdturglerI've seen people discard a dead video, submit a replacement, and then have it merged. That's obviously not right. At least not in spirit. If you have a fix for a dead video, give it to the original submitter. If that person isn't around anymore then invoke the sift as dead and fix it in 2 days.
gwiz665In Burdturgler's example I completely agree, but if a video is already discarded then it loses all merit in dupe wars, and as such the votes ought to be transfered to the victor.
kronosposeidon>> ^burdturgler:
I've seen people discard a dead video, submit a replacement, and then have it merged. That's obviously not right. At least not in spirit. If you have a fix for a dead video, give it to the original submitter. If that person isn't around anymore then invoke the sift as dead and fix it in 2 days.
Dead videos are NEVER supposed to be discarded, unless it's the original submitter doing it, (EDIT: Or if it's also a dupe). Whoever is discarding dead videos should stop it immediately (EDIT: unless they are discarding a duplicate. In that case, they should really be invoking *dupeof instead of *discard anyway.)
>> ^gwiz665:
In Burdturgler's example I completely agree, but if a video is already discarded then it loses all merit in dupe wars, and as such the votes ought to be transfered to the victor.
Like I said, *dupeof is only meant to transfer votes to the ORIGINAL (lucky760's word, not mine), not reposts down the road. Reposts are not originals.
gwiz665Hm, I suppose you are right.
volumptuousI've submitted dupes before and didn't know I could transfer any of the votes to the original until reading this thread. Woops!
I'd like to remedy that if I can, *if there's a relatively easy way.
[*edit]
thinker247DUPE FIGHT!
kronosposeidon>> ^volumptuous:
I've submitted dupes before and didn't know I could transfer any of the votes to the original until reading this thread. Woops!
I'd like to remedy that if I can, and there's a relatively easy way.
Only a Bronze Diamond or above can invoke *dupeof.
ZifnabWell said KP, I was thinking about this exact scenario with Karaidl killing all his vids...
CaptainPlanet420*anal
SDGundamXI'd * quality this if I could. I've discarded a couple of my vids that turned out to be dupes. One had over 40 votes. I'd have gladly given the votes I'd gotten over to the rightful person if I'd known how to do it at the time. Until this post I'd had no idea *dupeof even existed. Even though they're discarded, is it still possible to transfer the votes? Or do those get lost after the discard? Maybe functionality could be built into *dupeof that checked to see which of the vids was submitted first before transferring votes?
arvanaMaybe Lucky could script *dupeof to only allow allocation of votes from a newer video to an older one.
Yes, SDGX, discarded vids can still have their votes transferred, though it may depend what version the SiftWare was at when the discard was made -- I haven't had enough experience with it myself yet to know for sure.
dagComment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)
I 100% agree. dupeof is not for going from old to new. If we need to prevent this with a change to the invocation logic we can, but there are so few of us who have the power - let's just agree on this as a rule for now. - and thanks to Kronos for bringing this up.
rasch187*quality stuff, kronos. And there seems to be something a bit wrong with the *dupeof invocation as well. Whenever I've used it on one of my own posts (that were dupes of older vids), a lot of my votes have gone missing. For example, I used *dupeof on a vid of mine with 8 votes and siftbot removed 16 votes from my profile. That's just one example.
siftbotAwarding kronosposeidon with one star point for this contribution to Sift Talk - declared quality by rasch187.
maatcAgreed on the "new to old only" rule, but I have a question:
What happens if the video the votes are being transferred to is a discarded, dead or killed clip?
Anyone ever come across this scenario? Does *dupeof resurrect the old clip? Just wondering, because that could happen in some cases...
blankfistGood point, Kronos. I knew you were good for something. I vote for us to add a new to old script behind the logic and maybe open that invocation up to gold 100+ stars? Just the other day I posted a dupe and someone caught it who wasn't a 250 diamond, and he typed "dupeof=[link] * discard". If I didn't catch that he discarded my video, I would've never been able to give it the proper *dupeof invocation giving the original video my votes.
I think this is a very important invocation, and I can see it being abused without a time date stamp behind it. I also see those below 250 diamond invoking discard when a dupeof is more appropriate.
burdturglerI don't see a problem with discarding dupes as long as it gets added to the dupe playlist. I saw doogle discard the post you're talking about and I stuck it in the playlist, so someone would have merged it. But yeah, if they aren't going to add it to the playlist then don't discard it.
eric3579Therefore *dupeof should only go backwards in time to the original, not forward in time to the reposted video.
My bad. Thanks for the clarification kp.
GrimmHmmmm...I didn't know about the dupeof command. I had a sift about a month ago that got only 3 votes (even after a beg). Then about a week later I see my video in the Top 15 list. I knew I had the right to claim "dupe" but it seemed kind of pointless if that meant all those votes would be lost and not very likely that many people would bother to re-vote. If I'd known of the dupeof command I would have done something at the time. I'm guessing that it's still an option?
xxovercastxxdupeof is too restricted to be very useful at the moment. At least let anyone call dupeof on their own posts (transferring votes they received to the rightful post, that is) the same way anyone can discard their own post. The probability of someone who can call dupeof actually seeing the video before it's discarded just isn't high enough. If the original poster can do it then that at least guarantees that the opportunity to call dupeof will present itself in every case.
I was also going to suggest what arvana said... have dupeof check queue date before it does its thing. You can do one better, actually. If someone calls dupeof backwards, attempting to transfer from old to new, since you've checked the dates you can kill the new and transfer to the old, even resurrecting the old with a new embed if necessary.
KrupoIt was kindly pointed out to me that I have just established a precedent at odds with the nascent opinion in this conversation.
As I wrote on the previous post, "I consider this action infinitely more efficient than waiting for all 105 (as of this time) voters to enter their votes a second time."
The only major downside to such an action is the scenario of people entering downvotes which they would've have upvoted had the video been sifted up differently.
To that, however, I say people should vote carefully. If the re-sift is to correct a wrong (in this case, poor video classification to the point of malice), then anyone who decided to upvote based on the proper video classification is vindicated.
The primary downside is anyone who decided to downvote for the reason of malicious classification (and who has not yet upvoted the new sift) will have a downvote transferred over.
The example linked above resulted in 4 downvotes getting transferred - my rudimentary cost/benefit thought-moment argued that 105 up's more than makes up for 4 down's in such a scenario.
>> ^xxovercastxx:
dupeof is too restricted to be very useful at the moment. At least let anyone call dupeof on their own posts (transferring votes they received to the rightful post, that is) the same way anyone can discard their own post. The probability of someone who can call dupeof actually seeing the video before it's discarded just isn't high enough. If the original poster can do it then that at least guarantees that the opportunity to call dupeof will present itself in every case.
I was also going to suggest what arvana said... have dupeof check queue date before it does its thing. You can do one better, actually. If someone calls dupeof backwards, attempting to transfer from old to new, since you've checked the dates you can kill the new and transfer to the old, even resurrecting the old with a new embed if necessary.
Now you see, the logic I have described above argues against xxovercastxx's idea - there may be some kind of reason the original sift was discarded and a resuscitation is not called for, such as in this case.
maatc: "What happens if the video the votes are being transferred to is a discarded, dead or killed clip? "
Sifters have the power to obliterate their submission to the Sift. An electronic "right to die", if you will. You don't want the code bringing discarded/killed vids back to life in this manner.
Restoration of dead clips, however, completely kosher because the sifts themselves are "alive", it's just the video code which needed fixing.
KrupoUpon further reflection, I've realized there's additional reason in favour of the precdent I'm arguing in favour of: if you were to deny this option, someone with a political ax to grind or other grudge could sift up a video likely to be popular that's opposed to their viewpoint.
As soon as it achieves critical mass, hits top 15 and the majority of active sifters vote for it, you kill/discard it, causing it to disappear from the top 15, which visitors to the Sift arguably rely on to see "what's hot".
This could reduce the top-15 exposure time by half or more, depending on how well it's timed.
Allowing for exceptional "forward-usage" of dupeof is an administrative remedy to discourage someone with negative intentions from gaming the Sift's quality control systems.
We already permit limited exceptions to some sift rules - such as ultra-brief extracts of longer clips (see "I'm a Unitard"), where the edit is so short as to present unique value, thereby disarming the dupe rule in those scenarios.
I would argue we can accept KP's rule as promulgated above, but should preserve the ability to pull exceptions in unique scenarios such as this. Given that the power is restricted to diamonds, you figure this entrusts use of this exception specifically for those scenarios where one's good judgement says it's for the greater good.
xxovercastxxI still say anyone should be able to "kill" their own post with a dupeof, regardless of rank, just like anyone can discard their own post.
Right now I'd guess most dupes are still just being discarded because they're identified by one of us sub-diamonds. The poster is almost guaranteed to know when their post is discarded as a dupe, so they'll be able to call dupeof themselves at that time.
Discuss...
Enable JavaScript to submit a comment.