The way I understand it...yes.

You are allowed to post a significantly longer version then what may already by posted. But you are not allowed to post shorter clips from a longer video if that longer video is already here.

I was wondering about that as well. With longer videos such as this I usualy try to make a playlist (if youtube's the source, that's not a problem). Another thing - though this new VS search engine is pretty awesome now I found 2 dupes just today. Some people don't have the time to do a proper search before posting and sometimes the tags on original posts are just useless, so this is still a problem, imo

I don't know what the official rule is. But I disagree with Grimm.

There is a different value in a short clip, even when the full length version is posted.

For Example I like this Bill Hicks JFK joke, and I appreciate that just that one joke was sifted and made available, even after the full length comedy feature was posted. If I want to direct somebody to just that joke, it means they don't have to watch the full feature.

This would also be relevant for documentaries. Althought we have the 3hr documentary "The Corporation" on here, we also provide shorter clips that get right to certain points.

This is called convenience, it's a good thing and it would be backwards of us to ban clips simply because they are available in longer sifts.

I see the value in Fedquip's position. This whole SiftTalk post was spawned because I discarded one of GreatBird's posts. To me, it's a dupe, although some would and could argue it serves to better make this site a kind of catalog of video content. I think if it lives on the site somewhere else in some capacity then it's a dupe.

Of course, to be honest, I really don't care one way or the other. I'm not gonna sit here and pretend my heart will be broken if the rule changes one way or the other, because it's kind of a trite thing to get my blood boiled over, so I won't. I still think they're dupes, and whenever I post something that is part of another video, and it's brought to my attention, I discard it. Period.

I think the rule should be: if the video you posted is adding more as opposed to showing less of an already existing video, I think the consensus is that you can safely post it. Though, who gives a shit?

--Signed, the apathetic blankfist

Ah, well that's good to know Blankfist, thanks for the link.

Again, I think GB's Weinberg clip ads value to the sift.

The Original Atheism clip is 30 minutes long, GBs clip was a 2 minute snip from the 30 minute clip. The snip is titled to answer a specific question.

It is a question of what benefits the sift. Deleting the short clip, Was it necessary? Did it spoil the sift environment? Did it make the users experience less enjoyable? Where those Seven voters Wrong to vote on this? Was that bookmarker wrong to bookmark this?

IMHO no, I think this smaller clip enhances the users experience because they have the opportunity to see a small clip from something that is much longer, call it, a preview, or a trailer will you. Adding to the users experience, There is a link available right there for that users to view the longer clip...If they have the time.

>> ^blankfist:
This whole SiftTalk post was spawned because I discarded one of GreatBird's posts.

Well, yes and no. I was actually looking for a good Bill Hicks clip, because he's great, and I found one from his Revelations show. I checked the sift to see if there were any dupes. My recent experience with the Stephen Weinberg clip is what sparked my post here. I agree with Fedquip's possition that there is value in short clips even though we have the whole thing. Just look at how well all the other Hicks clips have done.

As an example, I was hanging with some friend and they were watching the new American Gladiator show. That was the perfect opportunity to pull out Hick's American Gladiator post. If I had to go though the whole video I would have lost interest and so would they.

I'm not trying to make waves or anything. I just am looking for some rule-of-thumb consistency in these types of situation.

>> ^GreatBird:
I just am looking for some rule-of-thumb consistency in these types of situation.

Consistency on the Sift? lmfahs!

>> ^blankfist:
I see the value in Fedquip's position. This whole SiftTalk post was spawned because I discarded one of GreatBird's posts. To me, it's a dupe, although some would and could argue it serves to better make this site a kind of catalog of video content. I think if it lives on the site somewhere else in some capacity then it's a dupe.
Of course, to be honest, I really don't care one way or the other. I'm not gonna sit here and pretend my heart will be broken if the rule changes one way or the other, because it's kind of a trite thing to get my blood boiled over, so I won't. I still think they're dupes, and whenever I post something that is part of another video, and it's brought to my attention, I discard it. Period.
I think the rule should be: if the video you posted is adding more as opposed to showing less of an already existing video, I think the consensus is that you can safely post it. Though, who gives a shit?
--Signed, the apathetic blankfist

...apathy never appeared so long-winded

>> ^Fedquip:
I don't know what the official rule is. But I disagree with Grimm.


I was commenting on what I believe to be the official rule...not stating how I think it should be. The reason I believe this is the case is because I myself have had at least one short video discarded because it exists elsewhere on the sift in a longer format and that's how it was explained to me.

Well, this is a question of the text and the spirit of the law. The rules lawyer in me, and I do assure you this is a significant part of me (I play Magic and Warhammer, you can't split more hairs than that) says the the law technically says that 6 through 10 must be discarded.

But, we really need to review and amend that particular law, because the fragmentation of the full video in your example (Bill Hicks) adds to the experience, in that I can reference an actual joke, without having show the whole thing.

Hmm, a solution could be that we could allow for parts of a *long video to be sifted?

>> ^gwiz665:
Hmm, a solution could be that we could allow for parts of a long video to be sifted?


I think this is the best solution to the problem. Is there a way to amend this rule to allow for this exception?

To show you there are no hard feelings, GB, I will give you your 21st star point! *quality!

Awarding GreatBird with one star point for this contribution to Sift Talk - declared quality by blankfist.

>> ^blankfist:
To show you there are no hard feelings, GB, I will give you your 21st star point! quality!


Wow, thank you blankfist! I appreciate that very much. It's encouraging to get recognized for contributing to the community. I've been frequenting the sift for over a year now, but in the last few weeks I have been dedicating myself to being a contributor rather then just a leech. I hope to be able to bring a lot more to the sift. Again, recognition like this is very gratifying.
Thank you

*gay: for that last comment

Moving post to Gay Talk - requested by rottenseed.

I agree with fedquip, but with the stipulation that sifted excerpts should link to the sifted full version

Excerpts of existing long sifts should only be posted if they're particularly poignant parts, but voting can take care of that.