I noticed this is the same "kick" of this one http://www.videosift.com/video/Penalty-shot-stopped-10

but i really do hate the videos who replay in slow motion, especially if including audio, like that one.


if the other post is edited to embed this one and not the other, i'll discard this.

I will now give a transcript...

Kick
Ping
Whap
Grunting

that is all.

grunting was actually laughing.

i think i watched it 20 times in a row and laughed every time

Me too!

.... so you knew it was a dupe, but you posted it anyway..? I don't think this is different enough to not be a dupe. *blog

Sending this video to Sift Talk for discussion (sent by gold star member djsunkid)

shit sunkid, now y' got me looking at the whoriginal....)1 moment please

yeah a dupe, with the slow-mo ending that is always welcome for the audio alone, but here, it neither detracts or compliments the first viddy, which DOES, I must point out again, HAVE the slo-mo sound, so....yeah, nice try looris, but the first one got lke 60 somthing votes......ooooops!....

*dupe ...but so what, it is a completely different as well as the same event, with another spin, and another embed code so


*return

I don't know why sifty didn't do as he was told, but I'm glad, because i'm still not 100% certain.

That isn't to say that I disagree with looris' point- I think this one is better too, but the fact of the matter is, the previous poster found the vid first, and this is a dupe. We're pretty strict about the no dupes policy around here. Sure it's better, but it's only very slightly different.

*return

Returning this video from Sift Talk (Returned by gold star member James Roe)

interesting... this is almost like those ppl in youtube putting up copies of popular videos just to increase their view counts and egos. this should be discarded and the original promoted.

The argument that you hate videos with the slow motion added seems like a weak excuse to submit this to the sift.

Of course anybody who knows me a little knows you are completely wrong.

In past i've already not-upvoted or downvoted some videos because of stupid "features" like these slow motions, or the lame intros/outtros.

They are two different editing of the same event, no more, no less. A nice feature would be to be able to "group" them someway, but it does not only mean coding it, it also should be designed (i.e. how could it really work?), so i don't think we can see something like that soon enough.

But it is important that things like this are not to be considered dupes: quality is important! If a video has some flaw (such as poor image quality, screwed aspect ratio, bad editing, spanish subtitles, etc.) you do really want to keep the bad one instead of allowing a new one to be posted? Nonsense.

thing is, this video has the exact same content as the other clip (I *thought* I had seen it here already, but was too tired to go searching... oh wait, it's the first related vid. zing).

anyway, this really *IS* a dupe (if it was the other way around, where the other vid is shorter than this one, then this one would be kosher). There are TWO saving graces which prevent me from discarding:

1. I have a personal bias in favour of google vids vs. youtube vids (IMHO superior quality controls, often video too).
2. In this case, the lack of the second half of the video is a positive - the laugh was annoying; the slow motion laugh was even MORE annoying. I made that comment ages ago in the second comment to the original post. http://www.videosift.com/video/Penalty-shot-stopped-10#21643

For the above reasons, I'm leaving this post alone - I'm doing the anal retentive measure of typing out my reasoning of course, because in my little Chronicler of the Sift mindset, this does set a small precedent for the Dupe Rules.

The first reason, for precedent standards, is of course completely irrelevant - that's just me doing the soapbox thing about my preference for Google Vids.
The second reason, though, is crucial, because it adds another exemption/clause to the "select shorter clips are acceptable" concept.

We've already accepted ultra-short cuts of very longer vids (think seconds of a minutes/hours long video). In this case, it's just a few seconds of a another vid that's mere seconds longer. BUT, it omits something that Sifters have generally agreed (in this case, in the original vids comments), is an Irritating or Low Quality flaw to the original vid.

So in the spirit of preserving the best vids, like a butcher choosing the best cuts of meat or whatever.

You can see the kids right leg snap and the tibia coming out right under the knee.

yeah krupo, thanks for understanding my point.

it would be a nice feature to be able to group together in a single post video so similar as this one, and maybe show by default only either the one that have more votes, or one that has been "declared" *better.

but since we can't do that yet, i really think we MUST improve the average quality of videosift by posting better quality videos, if we find them.

I suggested a fix for this a while back, for merging the votes from the new submission into the original... don't think anything will be done about it tho
Personally, this is a dupe, no ifs ands or buts

completely a dupe . . .but maybe I can find that Jake video with SLIGHTLY better sound quality and exploit this for all it is worth. (ah, now here is a version that krupo would appreciate

<embed style="width:400px; height:326px;" id="VideoPlayback" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" src="http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docId=1352016870638076087&hl=en-GB" flashvars="">

looris' superior embed code should simply be substituted in the original link by either the original submitter or an admin. and then this one should be discarded.

please notice that i said IN THE FIRST POST that if the original submitter changed the video to use this one, i'd have discarded it.

dunno why an admin should step in, though. if the original submitter abandoned his video, it's his problem, not mine.

My nightmare is having Bart's funny line from Simpsons Treehouse of Horror 33, the whole episode of Treehouse of Horror 33, Bart's and Lisa's funny lines from Treehouse of Horror 33 which includes Bart's funny line from original post one, and bart + homer + lisa plus maggie's funny face which includes content from all of the previous posts but in Brightcove which is prettier . . .

and of course they would all be on the front page and in the top 15 at the same time because the Treehouse of Horror is so damned funny.

You should send a profile message to original poster first with the new link, then an admin should see if they can fix it, and only then should we discard the original "dupe" for neglect.

Overwriting a duplicate post just because you or I like sound quality, picture quality, or music in another embed code seems to be unwarranted and punishes the casual submitter. Some people go to India or drop out of sifting for a few months. They should still retain their votes/status if they have an actual live link. And the Sift should be spared of having five versions of a dope being hit by a football.

but please, think of the quality!

youtube is full of dupes and that's bad.
youtube is also full of shit-quality videos and that's bad too.

now, the sift exists mostly to clean this mess, so we must try to enforce quality too.
a great feature about this matter would be to merge some posts so that the users or the admins will be able to chose which is the best video.
but such a feature would have to be designed and implemented, so don't hold your breath.

i'll profile comment the submitter of the other one, but i don't think it will work, otherwise he would have already noticed my comment in the post, wouldn't he?

There is no question in my mind that the looris post is higher quality. (Hah . . . odd to use the word "quality" and "kid pwned by soccer ball" in the same comment thread)

But if the ockhamist post was indeed so low-quality or no-quality, then why does it have 68 votes? People are really desperate for bank shots, I guess.

All I am saying (besides what I have already said) is that this Sift should not have 125 or so votes divided between two duplicate pieces of content. And the admins can replace faulty or less desirable embed codes with relative ease. Merge it or re-embed and then go take that Jake Shimabukuro down from its permanent #1 perch.

There is no question in my mind that the looris post is higher quality. (Hah . . . odd to use the word "quality" and "kid pwned by soccer ball" in the same comment thread)
luol

But if the ockhamist post was indeed so low-quality or no-quality, then why does it have 68 votes? People are really desperate for bank shots, I guess.
lol! no, come on, people see a nice video and think "hey quality could be better but fun anyway". That's not the point, you know

i agree with you it's pointless to have both videos award points to both, we'll think of something.

Dupe. Same shot, same camera. Dupe. Whether YOU like the slo-mo or not doesn't matter. K.I.S.S. It's the same vid. It's a dupe. If a few extra seconds of a 10-second video bother you so much that you would ignore the fact that someone already posted this video 217 days before you did, quality notwithstanding, and then submit the same thing and defend it, apparently forgetting your own mantra that dupes are "bad", then you are talking out of your ass.

This is a slippery slope that I don't think VideoSift should go down. With the same videos posted on so many different hosting sites (from which Sifters can... errr... sift), there will be as many arguments about why this one is better than that one, or that one is longer, or shorter, or better quality than this one as there are people on here who can form a unique thought (unfortunately, a number somewhat lower than the total number of members). If quality was the only issue here, then PM the original submitter and let them relink it (if they choose to). If they don't want to, or don't agree with your reason for wishing it... too bad, so sad. He/she found it first. It's the same courtesy you would (should) extend to a submitter if you happen upon a dead link.

The content is what makes the video. If I had seen this "version" first, I wouldn't think it any funnier than the original posting. If a videos' content or quality isn't different enough from the original post to alter the experience for a viewer (a music video, say, with much better sound), it's a dupe, IMHO. Sheesh... if I cared so much about quality (in this case, a SLIGHT increase in quality), I wouldn't hang out here and watch videos in a teeny weeny 3" square on 24" LCD. It's a 4 second clip of a guy getting hit by a soccer ball, for crying out loud! How much quality do you need?!? And I'm still typing about it! OMG!

downvote for the dupe. sorry looris

Meh. Is having his re-cut so bad?

Fletch: what you said makes no sense *AT ALL*.

I'm not talking about video quality: it's the same in both. I'm talking about overall video quality, and the "cut" is a vital part of a video.

It's not a dupe, it's a director's cut

And then you had the gall to go downvote ockhamist's submission after you submitted this dupe.

I'm sorry such a simple concept is so difficult for you to understand. I would guess that the percentage of videos here with "better" versions out there somewhere is pretty significant. Most people here (almost ALL, I would say) would have stopped the submission process as soon as they saw ockhamist's post. Or at MOST, PM'd him with a link to what one felt was a better version.

Quality IS better in this one. Still a dupe. You don't like the slo-mo... hit the "stop" button. You didn't go looking for a better version after seeing the other one. You saw it was already posted and came up with a lame excuse why yours should be legit. All these votes should go to ockhamist, but he probably doesn't give a shit, so... whatever.

OF COURSE i downvoted his video after posting this one. That's why i said, in my FIRST COMMENT, that if he replaced his with this one i'd discard this (and upvote his, of course).

He didn't, so i didn't discard this, and downvoted his. You should think sometimes before accusing people of random things, i'm really upset, i can't stand you anymore.

You are not saying something constructive, you always attack with random reasons that could be easily avoided just knowing the facts. Which you probably don't, because you don't care.

Why was this not discarded? It IS clearly a dupe and frankly, the behaviour of it's poster (namely the going and downvoting the original post) is not something I feel should be condoned...

*blog

I mean, c'mon looris, this is pretty clearly a dupe, be a man, discard it, and stop being so petty every time someone points out the possibility that you have done something even a bit shady.

Besides, this is a pretty slippery slope, the allowing of vids that are essentially the same, I don't think the sift should start heading down that road.

Sending this video to Sift Talk for discussion (sent by gold star member raven)

The unwritten rule that's always been observed is to allow a near dupe if the content is very different (in this case it is not) or the dupe contains much more content in addition to the original post (again, not the case here).

There is really no reason this should not already be *discarded. We can not establish the precedent that everyone should go about finding what they feel are "better" embeds and intentionally posting dupes.

Discarding this post (discard called by gold star member lucky760)

Thank you lucky, my sentiments exactly.

Wow, it took 35 comments to sort that out. It was a straight up dupe, and posting while knowing of the original was simply childish.

i've already explained my points MANY times. it's clear as crystal you didn't even read it.

now am I childish or YOU are?

You did a lot of explaining but never actually made any points. Talking for hours while not actually saying anything is the characteristic of a child. So is an infallible ego and belief that guidelines apply to everyone but you.

or ignoring what other people say, like YOU are doing.

moreover, this had ALREADY been blogged, and RETURNED. MANY other gold stars passed by and if they did not plainly approve, they didn't even disapprove.

discarding this after it was already discussed is just like saying that all the other members opinions are worthless.

i'm tired of talking with people who aren't bothering to even listen.

(as i wrote to raven)

thanks, THIS does make sense.

first of all, please not i really couldn't care less about the votes. i told it MANY times already: i care about the quality. i told in my first post i'd have discarded mine if the other post was edited to embed that one i posted.

what really upset me now, was the fact that is was already been discussed, and then somebody passes by and discard it. this doesn't make sense. what's the point in discussing anything if when you are not watching somebody else ignores whatever has been done until now and disrupts it all?

that's the point.

there should be some policy about this kind of thing, if users don't have enough sense to figure it out.

In reply to your comment:
“looris, just so you know, I reblogged that sift because I felt it had not been resolved... the arguments for or again' it seemed to dissolve into circular fighting... and, most importantly, I agreed with what rickegee had said:

" My nightmare is having Bart's funny line from Simpsons Treehouse of Horror 33, the whole episode of Treehouse of Horror 33, Bart's and Lisa's funny lines from Treehouse of Horror 33 which includes Bart's funny line from original post one, and bart + homer + lisa plus maggie's funny face which includes content from all of the previous posts but in Brightcove which is prettier . . ."

By allowing that sift to continue hanging about I felt a dangerous precendent was being set and frankly, four seconds or so of some guy injuring himself was not worth opening that door for. I'm sorry if you're upset but there are rules here that need to be upheld. I'm sure you'll make up for the lost votes in no time.

>> this had ALREADY been blogged, and RETURNED.
Choggie made the wrong call in trying to return. James Roe's was only in response to seeing Siftbot's lack of response to Choggie's attempted invocation.

I've read through all of the comments and viewed both videos and I still see no reason for you to have posted this or to continue with the bickering.

The situation is very cut and dry: You posted a dupe. It was discarded.

Regardless of your logic (even if your goal was to blackmail the original poster into using an embed of your personal preference), you posted a dupe. Furthermore, you cannot in any manner force other members to use embeds you find more to your liking.

I know you're having trouble agreeing, looris, but that's really all there is to it.

It's obvious from this and other threads that you have a couple really serious problems, looris. First, you think that saying something over and over will eventually make it true. Second, you think that if people disagree with you they obviously weren't listening or paying attention to you, or must not have understood you. Apparently, you feel your words are Holy Edicts or something. Those are the big two, I think. They don't include your blatant, self-serving, self-righteous cockiness, your inability to comprehend even simple concepts when they contradict your wants, and your complete incapacity for forming a logical, coherent argument in defense of your actions when they are duly and reasonably criticized. Look at what I said to you in this thread and what you replied, as if I hadn't read anything up until that point, accusing me of spitting out "random" things" and attacking you with "random reasons". I don't know where you can buy a clue in your neck of the woods, but maybe the local shrink can help you. Do they even have shrinks on Looris Island?

do you realize that nobody *AT ALL* ever said the quality of the other embed is superior to this one?

instead, many people actually said this is superior.

so, please, tell me why on Earth you are so deeply concerned in forcing the sift to have a video of inferior quality when a better one has been found.

because this is what happened. plain and simple.

this video is better (and nobody ever argued about that, not even you), and you are doing whatever it takes to preserve the poorest video.

this is dumb!

maybe i exagerate sometimes, but this is irrilevant faced to the simple fact: we have two videos, one better than the other, and you are trying hard to save the worst one.

damn, everybody agrees this embed is better, i'd be perfectly satisfied if an admin edited the other one to use this, i don't care for the votes or whatever, i'm simply astonished noticing you are fighting hard to WORSE the quality of the sift! it does not make any sense!

tell me why we should keep a worst video. please tell me, because so far i've not heard even a single argument about that.

Looris, this exact point has been explained very clearly and repeatedly.
The original embed is permitted to stay because the submitter of the original wants it that way. To repeat my answer to your question verbatim: "You cannot in any manner force other members to use embeds you find more to your liking."

>> do you realize that nobody *AT ALL* ever said the quality of the other embed is superior to this one?
The quality of both videos is completely irrelevant. I know you disagree, but read on...

>> tell me why on Earth you are so deeply concerned in forcing the sift to have a video of inferior quality when a better one has been found.
because this is what happened. plain and simple.
What happened, plain and simple, is you posted a duplicate.

>> you are doing whatever it takes to preserve the poorest video.
Actually, what we are doing is whatever it takes to preserve the rights of the original submitter.

>> the simple fact: we have two videos, one better than the other
The simple fact is that there should not be two videos in the first place.

>> it does not make any sense!
It actually makes perfect sense if you are willing to consider ideas other than your own. You cannot strip the rights of the original submitter by posting a duplicate and demanding yours be used instead.

He has not broken the rules by keeping his lower quality video, but you have broken them by posting a duplicate. There are other ways to go about requesting that a poor-quality video be updated, but, to reiterate, you have no authority/right to force, demand, or order the original submitter to comply, particularly when it involves breaking the rules yourself.

Every Sifter has rights for his/her submissions and controlling the embed is one of them. If he chooses to keep a lower quality video (which, personally, I would do now just out of principle), that is his unalienable right. Please try to understand this.

you are talking about rights and i'm talking about quality.
i don't think we can really understand each other.

so, you prefer to have a site where quality is irrilevant as long as "rules" are respected.
i'm very glad not to be you.

but maybe i misunderstood. maybe you are insisting blindly applying rules just because i overreacted and you feel you must behave this way.

this video is better, and that's not matter of discussion. if you do nothing to keep the good one and erase the bad one, you are "worsting" the quality of this site.

this *is* a precedent. a precedent that means that quality is irrilevant. if you like it this way.

The video is a dupe and NOT OPEN FOR DISCUSSION. JFC, you are the daftest, most thick-headed nub I have ever come across. Now you want to turn YOUR blatant disregard for the rules into some phony Crusade for "quality". YOU have not read or tried to understand a single thing that others with much more patience than I have tried to explain to you. You vindicate everything I've said and embarrass yourself even further with every moronic sentence of every moronic comment. You just repeat the same stupid shit over and over and over and over and over. Your lame attempt at equating to admins, who, btw, have worked their asses off to build VideoSift, the discarding of your stupid fucking video with "worsting the quality of this site" is the epitome of ignorance and low class.

There is no conspiracy, no matter what the voices in your Cornflakes tell you. Lucky is not out of his mind or misunderstanding you. You are not being punished, as you imply. You are simply clueless. Absolutely clueless.

It was a dupe. It was discarded. Quit whining.

i prefer this post but only for the comments.
this has got way out of hand. honestly, i prefer the version with the slow-motion but that's completely irrelevant. looris, you should've just left a message with the original submitter pointing to this 'superior' version. done and dusted.
all of this could've been avoided.
it's not a question of quality looris, it's a question of opinion. just because you don't like an extra slow-mo bit means squat.

"i'm very glad not to be you"

We all are.

Six months later, and Holy shit!