Circumstances have pushed us into a discussion on what constitutes a self-link. To be specific, we need to decide whether a member uploading their own content to a video host and then submitting it to the Sift should be considered a self-link.
Up until now, we've been working under the policy that yes - any member uploading their own content is self-linking.
However, there are quite a few people who think this is over-zealous policing, and the rule should be changed to allow self-links of these kind.
I'll put my position in the comments, - please give your input. After that - in a little while, I'll post a poll
Update: I've put the poll up. Please read the discussion thread before casting your vote.
Update 2: I've removed the poll, we'll revisit this topic in a week. In the meantime, please use this thread to talk about fluffy bunnies and how much you like flowers.
i don't know ... i'll make my decision after i've heard some well thought out arguments for both sides.
Sure, they could just change their username and it would be harder for us to detect, but thankfully, most of these posters are drive-bys and don't bother with subterfuge. We would also probably sniff them out, even if it was a different username.
It's just one more level of protection to keep the body of VideoSift as free from self-interest as possible.
There's also the question of motive. Is there a benefit of getting videos that you uploaded to YouTube lots of views? I seem to remember there is a kind of user ranking system there as well. So, that means that a person posting something to VideoSift, might not be doing it because they want to share, but in an attempt to boost oup their YouTube views.
I do believe that posting a video to Youtube and then submitting it to the Sift is of course self-linking and a direct violation of the policies. Thinking that it is okay and trying to excuse it by saying you want to "share" (we can never rule out any other possible motivations) is just a punkish attempt to squeeze through a loophole that hopefully after this thread, no longer exists.
nuff said.
Their needs to be a distinct line in the sand; as the Submission warning says: 'do not submit self-promotion of any kind' - surely any self-submission is self-promotion to both the Sift and original host? If there's a video which can't be found any where on the providers, then it can be uploaded by the Sifter and submitted by another (or vice-versa, sharing the community gains).
I said it in the other thread, if people don't like the video it will get downvoted and ejected from the queue, there is no real danger in allowing self submissions as long as it doesn't clog up the queue with spam vids which I can't see happening. The site is of such a sturdy design that imo it should be irrelevant where the video came from as long as it's siftworthy. Guess i'm just the only one.
i do like that the poll was posted in this thread here ... very neato!!!
where's joe?
--
1. Please don't self link. While you may see this site as a great way to promote a project you are working on, it would be bad for our content if everyone just put up videos of them and their friends doing random things. If you think that the project you've put together is truly amazing and we must see it, please email us. We'll take a look at it and if we think it's really great too, we'll add it for you. If you skip this step your account will be deleted. Hey it's harsh, but it's harsh love.
--
The bolded parts indicate the sections I am referring to. If I were to upload a Family Guy clip, it's neither a project I'm working on, nor is it anything to do with me and my friends doing random things. This is where the rule gets fuzzy. When I first saw Videosift and went from a lurker to a member, I read this rule and what I got out of it was this:
If you create a video, and upload it to YouTube, and then link it here, it's a violation of the rules.
If you are simply uploading a Public Domain clip to the web, and want to share it with sifters, then it's fine.
Shortly after I joined I saw several members get reminded/reamed for doing just this, at which point I took the rule to mean, "No Self-linking whatsoever, for any reason, at any time." which is really how the rule should read if you're going to enforce it as such.
Even dag's initial post starting this blog discussion says, "a member uploading their own content to a video host and then submitting it to the Sift", which to me says that it applies to creation of said content. As much as I'd love to be, I am not the creator of Family Guy, and so for me to upload a clip of such would not be a violation of the rule in question.
Oh, and my opinion on the matter is that if you're linking commercially available stuff, it should be allowed. (ie trailers, television episodes or bits of...)
By the way, the few extra hits on my YouTube account from the Sift drives the ladies wild.
All part of my sinister plan to rule the internets and then THE WORLD!!!
Seriously, as the whole Saddam/JFK escapade proved, trying to post absolute rules on matters open to interpretation tends to get messy.
How stunted would American life be today if we stuck to the exact wording of the Constitution, instead of trying to interpret how to best make it work?
And would anyone care to quantify what my "disturbing number of self-links" have meant in hits to the Sift? Hits that may now or in the future generate revenue?
You're welcome.
To suggest that I took the time to edit, download, and link to those videos for any other reason than wanting to share good stuff is, frankly, insulting.
Bottom line, put a little more trust in the people who so graciously provide you with content.
This place is (was?) more appealing than the YouTubes and other providers with hard-and-fast rules precisely because the community is more intimate.
I recognize that your posts are made in good faith. VideoSift is more intimate than other video sites, partly because we have a community structure that we are all a part of.
You seem to be saying that we should avoid hard-and-fast rules. Can you give an example of some great online communities that thrive without rules? I'm not baiting you - I'd seriously be curious as to what other kind of structures are out there, that could work for us.
I don't enjoy being put in the position of having to enforce our rules, which I think are actually, pretty loose - we do tend to let some things slide.
You however, are placing pressure on the community to "harden" those rules by pushing against them. I suppose it's inevitable, and if it wasn't you, it would be someone else.
Perhaps this is just a natural stage of evolution in online communities. It does sadden me a bit though, as up to now, VS has been like a big group of friends.
there's just no comparison between a gold star user and some hypothetical astroturfer making a first post. any attempt to make a rule about self-linking that applies equally to both is bound to be absurd.
i agree that theo47 should be taken on good faith. there's really nothing to gain from doing what he did (except maybe the chance to have an argument about atheism or whatever it was). meanwhile, the community benefits for the chance to watch something and vote on it that otherwise wouldn't have been posted here. without checking the youtube account, no one here associates theo47 with that documentary -- he didn't have anything to do with creating it -- so any votes it received are well earned.
meanwhile, if you want to be so strict about keeping videosift free of self-promotion, fairness will dictate that all user-created content be kept reserved for the Sift Off, or some other designated equivalent. right now, if user A creates a video and uploads it to youtube, user B can post it here without breaking the no-self-linking rule. thing is, everyone knows user A made the video so the votes it gets are really coming from friends. who knows how many votes that same video would get otherwise? so if that post makes the front page, or the top videos list, it's much spammier than anything theo47's been accused of.
suggest that the ability to self-link non-user-created content (like theo47 did) be reserved for gold star users and above. no one's going to go to all the trouble to get 50 videos published here just so they can spam videosift.
would not suggest any change to the rules about how user-created videos can be posted here by that person's friends. just want to point out that this loophole is potentially far more spammable than what you're trying to fix. but since we're spamming the world instead of the other way around, it's okay, right?
the best argument for making this a hard-and-fast rule is that the name of the site is video-SIFT. if we're really "sifting" videos, we have to take what we can find -- no fair seeding the stream with gold ahead of time. if videosifting is a skill, it requires a "play it as it lays" mentality.
but someone who's published 150 videos here, like theo47, is obviously pretty good at this game. as long as the self-linked content is not a major part of someone's posting history, we can probably let it slide...
Theo: I felt that 5 self-linked Sifts over your time submitting here was a disturbingly high number for someone who should have read and understood the rules by now. The problem I had with your last blogged self-link was that a better quality video was available from the source itself - so submitting your own inferior quality version is pointless to me. The only justification I can see for a Sifter editing and posting a vid, is that it's so rare as to not be available anywhere else. But even then, to preserve any level of honesty - it must be posted/uploaded by another user to share the attention (either here or on the host site).
There's a community of users on here...if you've got something good to share - step out of yor insulated profile and ask a fellow Sifter to help you out - that's how the numerous other Sifters have had their own content uploaded (thereby avoiding Rule 1 and finding good content for the community via itself...isn't that the idea of the Sift?) Oh, and bring back the Sift-Off!
like any community, it can be a bit challenging for newcomers to fit in here, at least until they've established a good reputation. overall, we're pretty friendly (i think), and there's a nice pattern of newcomers who do great here right from the beginning. it all depends on how they fit into the mix -- just like anything in life.
the main problem with astroturfing and spam is that it's an abuse of trust. but that's not a major concern when you're dealing with people you know, because there's no way someone with a good reputation with you is going to ruin it for so little benefit. the trouble with treating what theo47 did as if he's an astroturfer is that it ignores his well-earned and longstanding reputation here (likes: atheism, politics -- dislikes: family guy). that's what's absurd about it -- no one's actually worried that theo47's a spammer, we know the guy.
again, the best argument against this kind of self-linking has nothing to do with astroturfing. it's that sifting is a game we're all playing by the same rules. you don't let your friend cheat in scrabble, but there's no suspicion of hidden motives -- just the rules of the game.
again, if the ideal behind the rule is to ban self-promotion of any kind, there are many other common practices here that will have to be reviewed. submitting your friend's self-made video; saving or promoting your friend's post (especially at their request); even a pattern of consistent quid-pro-quo voting would all be targets of suspicion. yes, in all these cases it's friends helping friends, but on the public face of it (how many people a day come to videosift's main page, tens of thousands?), we're all raising our profiles.
but that would be silly and absurd. because we'd be treating each other with a kind of distrust and disrespect that's just unnecessary among people who know, like, and trust each other.
If I'd known that, of course I would've linked to that version because of the better quality, among other reasons.
It was (I thought, anyway) important, breaking news - and I gave my reasons for why I posted it myself in the thread.
With 40+ upvotes and who knows how many hits, turned out I was right.
PM is right - this is VideoSift; the peer review process happens every time someone up or downvotes a video.
Obvious spammers are usually spotted almost instantly.
I was amazed how quickly that "Armed and Famous" clip (submitted by CBS, the producers, or who knows who) was shot down and the account deleted.
Sure, I've found videos that I wanted to submit but weren't at youtube, etc., or embeddable, it happens occasionally. Usually if I wait a day or two someone uploads it and I can post it here. Have I ever considered uploading it myself? Sure, but I didn't because I value this place too much and didn't want to cheat it.
Personally, I vote to keep the rules as they are except to add that even starred-members may be banned for repeated violation of the guidelines.
Burn him! Burn the witch!!!
Crucify him! Crucify him!!!
But I doubt you will ever find Robert Johnson or the documentary on Robert Capa out there uploaded either. They aren't Family Guy, Colbert or Obama clips. However this doesn't mean I intend to continue doing so. And I actually agree with MLX though support the peer to peer supervision outlined by PM.
FYI: I switched out the embeds out for the Spaced one as I found one that was similar quality.
but the reason should be some kind of "good sportsmanship" ideal, not out of some unrealistic fear of spam originating from known members.
it's not going to help the community to ban good members over this. if you read the original thread by krupo on self-linking, you'll see that oohahh's done it (for a gene kelly video -- probably the one where he's dancing with the newspaper? -- that's since been pulled for copyright), and that joedirt's (king of the anti-spammers) attitude is "don't ask, don't tell".
for the record, there are no plastiquemonkey self-links. it's tempting -- whenever something already posted here gets taken down by the youtube user and becomes unavailable, the videosift post gets marked dead and discarded. we have copies of a lot of these videos (using the firefox plugin to download), so we could easily replace them.
the last time this happened was 6 year-old boy plays boogie woogie piano & sings the blues. the youtube poster took it down, but there's no notice saying it was pulled for copyright reasons (maybe it was, but who knows?). we could have uploaded the .flv file to a generic user account on youtube, preserving this rare video (now unavailable anywhere online) and the votes it received here. like mlx, we didn't do this because it's clearly against the current rules. so the video's gone, and the post is dead. maybe someday someone else will re-post it to youtube, but i wouldn't bet on it.
the site is a better place for having the videos people have self-linked to (especially that amazing gene kelly video). too much of that might be a problem, but i honestly don't see who's going to go to so much trouble. and in practice, this rule is nearly unenforceable, unless we're going to put every submission from a possibly unreliable source (youtube poster with no long track history) on probation.
it's not a perfect rule (there are no perfect rules) -- it's a reasonable rule. but enforcing it too strictly is a bit silly.
There is a great deal of satisfaction when you find a video you like and no one else has posted it, but I don't think any form of self linking should be aloud ( bring back sift off )
PM has made some great points that should be taken seriously. I want to simply say "right on!... let's get to re-writing the policy", but like James and Dag have said before...we're going into a gray area. The no self-linking policy is what has helped make VS so successful.
As much as I would like for us to make exceptions for those who have proven themselves in rank and contributions, the current policy has served us well.
If it's time to evolve..so be it. The community will decide. We're really exceptional in this way. We respect each other's opinions and protect the integrity of the community. There aren't very many places to find that these days.
To Dag, don't dispair. We are all "friends" in this community, and I believe as long as we remember that...then everything will be fine.
As we are really hitting a growth surge at the moment, I don't think we can afford to just put the rules to the side. With more members, comes more diversity, and the need, unfortunately, for rules that we can live with, and refer new members to.
So the idea, raised by PlastiqueMonkey - is to allow Gold Stars and above to post videos from their own accounts on videos hosts, as long as they are not self-promotional in any way, (watermarks, URLs, yada yada). Do we need to take another vote?
It is more complex - but I think we can spell it out succinctly in the guidelines and on the submit page.
''I'm against it. I consider it a gray area, slippery-slope that could be easily exploited by self-linkers.''
The only bypass would be asking another Sifter to sift something for them. Or as mentioned brining Sift Off back leave it to voters.
Slipping into a discussion of the hows and whys of regulating content by Gold Star 100s would get too complicated and grey, furthermore as the user base increases there will be more and more Goldstars until we can't really regulate it as much.
I would say axe it and keep rules as rules.
I think the Gold allowed self-links would completely erode the core concept of Sifting - and would certainly discourage me from taking part here. As the definition of elitism states:P.S: At least Farhad's come clean, unlike another Sifter...
I don't see how exactly it's hypocritical to provide good content for this community and then come clean if I broke a rule doing so. Maybe I should just stop and that will be better for all of you. Nothing that I have self linked has been promotional and was simply the provision of good content to make this website content better then the fodder one finds at MetaCafe and others.
I see what Theo means now by witch hunt. Sort it amongst yourselves clearly coming clean and pitching in what is and will be a community wide decision has repercussions.
This is obviously an important issue for all of us - me included - and perhaps we're getting a bit too ... passionate. I think it's an important point, one that we should work out as a community, but lets take a 1 week break, and then revisit this topic.
I apologize for saying your statement was hypocritical Farhad, perhaps "contradictory" would have been a less hurtful way of phrasing it.
And rightly so it may seem contradictory, but obviously I came clean for a reason. It doesn't mean that as a Gold Star user and an active contributory of this site am not allowed to change my position, come clean and try to mend things. Maybe I should have added this in the post above.
I just dislike the vilifying attitude assumed against large contributors to the site, just because we sifted something all users enjoyed.
I suppose it would be a lot easier if James, Lucky and I got together and said "this is the way it is", but I'd rather not do it that way.
So, we'll try another vote in a week, and we'll include Plastique Monkey's idea. I'm happy to keep the discussion going, but let's bring the tone down. (including me)
sunshine today for me too, after the storm the sun comes.
Part of me thinks that yes we should go all draconian and disallow user sifted content. This seems logical and straightforward since this is the philosophy that the website is based on. Not to mention the other reasons raised by everyone else here...
But then again one of the biggest factors in me staying here has been the community that has arisen out of this, the stars and comments and all make this really an enjoyable website.
So then part of me thinks that would be limiting of potential of this website to really differentiate itself in terms of content, because like PM I believe top sifters could upload content that wouldn't be online otherwise for a new audience to enjoy. And not be at the whim of what other video content providers have.
I mean we embraced the Web 2.0 concept when it comes to letting users decide on what content is the best. But then limiting what those users can put into the website out of their own accord, wouldn't that go against the whole web 2.0 ethic?
Now am not advocating self linking and I apologize for having done so, but I believe there other ways this could be sorted. I remember someone mentioned the possibility of a communal sift upload space? Users can upload, other users can see if the content is good enough for the Sift and off it goes?
I mean these kinds of features could be worked into the whole system of community rewards via number of posted videos. Maybe when a sifter reaches Gold Star 100 they are allowed access to the Sift Vault, where users post videos they have uploaded and it's then to the discretion of other Gold Star 100s to decide if it should be let in the queue (i.e. not promotional, of good video quality, not available on other content providers, not a video that is bound to show up sooner or later, that is Daily Show, Colbert and so on).
Why do I think this is a good thing? Because the users in the TOP 15 are there for a reason and I would love to see what they would upload and could provide for VS in terms of actual content that really differentiates the Sift from all other Video Aggregators out there. Because it's not hard to see the VS concept being copied and reapplied elsewhere under a different guise and then we are basically fighting someone else based on the same pool of content instead of taking the concept further with the community and simply applying that community to again see if the videos are worthy of front page space.
This is the same exact reasoning I used when I recut the TED Talks for James and CosmicShame to post. Since they were not on YouTube at the time. And look at the amount of user response we attained from that. And that was content you would not find on other aggregators.
As I said earlier. Just thinking out loud.
I made a wing in ground effect vid compilation from other videos, and one of some of my 3dsmax work on a car model because i thought they might be educational/interesting to those that had never looked into the fields. I really didn't deem it that important to add to the conversation but maybe you can explain to me what was so bad about both of those submissions. I actually think someone posted them for me to avoid the rule problems, which illustrates my point about the rule in question being null and void because it's so easy to bypass.
This isn't about elitism either in my humble opinion, the gold star thing, seems like a decent way to reward those that have gone out of their way for a long time to submit at least 50 other videos.
We could limit it to Gold Stars, or perhaps all stars. (with a graduated submit limit depending on star level)
These self-links could graduate out of the self-link queue to the regular queue if they receive, say, 3 votes.
agree completely about waiting awhile before coming back to this.
want to remind everyone that the sense of self-linking that's being discussed here is *not* clearly spelled out in the videosift user guidelines, as phoenix noted. it was only codified in krupo's sift talk post (in august?), at which time several longtime VS members were surprised to find that such a thing was out of bounds here. the context for that post was the strenuous efforts being made by krupo, joedirt, and a few others to police the new member submission queue (now gone).
despite all the talk in this thread and others about the dangers of spam and astroturfing, i don't know of a single attempt here that's been successful. no doubt this is due to the vigilance and excellent detective work of many of the most-active VS members.
there is no reasonable sense in which this type of self-linking (call it krupo #1) is self-promotion, as most people understand it. it does however break the rules of sifting. we're free to change those rules, if we want.
in this case, there are a number of good reasons for considering this, not least of which is that the current policy is *completely unenforceable*. we posted this video last night from a 4-day old youtube user account. we've seen this video before on youtube, but it got taken down (copyright, probably). we have a copy of the .flv file for "tango" from that earlier posting. so is that youtube user account legitimate, or is it a dummy account we set up? it's only been active 4 days, with 18 videos watched, and 8 videos posted.
it so happens that it is legitimate, but i don't think i could prove it to anyone, let alone a user account on some other video hosting site that includes less information about the uploader. unless you're going to move all sorts of posts into that new self-link queue (siftbot command: *self), it will remain entirely up to users who know their way around here to voluntarily comply, like mlx did, like we did.
since the rules in this case have to be followed voluntarily (whatever they are), we're in a position of having to trust each other. personally, i don't think the kind of rule-breaking we're talking about here is that serious a betrayal of trust (because, again, it has nothing to do with self-promotion). i don't want to see anyone banned over it, and i think that threat needs to be taken off the table upfront to make it easier to come to an agreement about what the rules should be.
These self-links could graduate out of the self-link queue to the regular queue if they receive, say, 3 votes."
..to add to Farhad and Dag's idea:
You could make the communal self link queue anonymous also. So the post can be chosen for it's quality and not from popularity of the sifter.
The rule desperately needs clarification. I feel that tapping your own YouTube account for posts violates the sifting ethos of the site. It is like fishing with the catch already on your hook. Or in your pants.
And keeping the rule basically as it is would allow me to poach the great discoveries of others with a lil' communication with some Sifters.
I also like the communal self-link queue or communal YouTube "SiftCabinet" page idea, even though the filthy socialism of it all would rankle some members.
Finally, this site has gotten far too ban-happy. The ban should be reserved for the worst instances of gaming the system and should not even be mentioned when a Sifter is merely being mildly sneaky and trying to preserve lost or endangered content.
a spin-off from ms plastique's idea, i propose that only diamond stars (250+) be afforded this privilege. after reaching said status, the sifter would, undoubtedly, be MORE than well aware of the sifting rules and be an integral member of our community.
at such a time that a member reaches their diamond and chooses to post a vid that they uploaded to another video site ... their should be a separate channel for self-submissions and labeled as such, therefore allowing members that don't care to look at self-submissions the option to exclude them.
i also second, swampgirl's idea of making the submitter anonymous until the vide gets posted ... should we go this route.
*waves to joe*