"Will I be banned for sifting up my own content?" - Yes
I received an e-mail from some folks who are apparently upset for having their account banned for self-posting.
They posed the following question
"Are you saying if somebody shot a funny clip of themselves singing or dancing, and put it on VideoSift themselves, it would be deleted & their account terminated as well?"
Just so we're absolutely clear, the answer is yes. This is being posted on Sift Talk so there's a record of this for all to see.
To be fair, I will also respond to the following point they raised.
"This seem contrary to the intent of sites like VideoSift."
It goes on to complain about the posting of clips from major commercial productions, etc.
To be clear, please understand that Videosift loves homemade content. The current #1 all-time video is still homemade. The top three are all user-made. The vast majority of the top videos are made by ordinary folks.
Then why was the clubhousegang account banned? Because they didn't follow the very simple rules on the Sift: the First Commandment of Sifting is you can't sift up your own content.
If you're really proud of it, talk to some of the other Sifters and
Ironically, this policy is in place to prevent the site from being overrun with clips fired in by corporations practicing viral marketing.
The rule is tough but fair - the reminders to read our posting guidelines are spelled out in bold red letters - "Please do not submit self-promotion of any kind.
Please read the posting guidelines before posting for the first time. Violation of these guidelines may result in a permanent ban."
I don't think we can get any clearer than that.
They posed the following question
"Are you saying if somebody shot a funny clip of themselves singing or dancing, and put it on VideoSift themselves, it would be deleted & their account terminated as well?"
Just so we're absolutely clear, the answer is yes. This is being posted on Sift Talk so there's a record of this for all to see.
To be fair, I will also respond to the following point they raised.
"This seem contrary to the intent of sites like VideoSift."
It goes on to complain about the posting of clips from major commercial productions, etc.
To be clear, please understand that Videosift loves homemade content. The current #1 all-time video is still homemade. The top three are all user-made. The vast majority of the top videos are made by ordinary folks.
Then why was the clubhousegang account banned? Because they didn't follow the very simple rules on the Sift: the First Commandment of Sifting is you can't sift up your own content.
If you're really proud of it, talk to some of the other Sifters and
Ironically, this policy is in place to prevent the site from being overrun with clips fired in by corporations practicing viral marketing.
The rule is tough but fair - the reminders to read our posting guidelines are spelled out in bold red letters - "Please do not submit self-promotion of any kind.
Please read the posting guidelines before posting for the first time. Violation of these guidelines may result in a permanent ban."
I don't think we can get any clearer than that.
39 Comments
Zifnab*quality Great explanation Krupo
siftbotGold Star member Zifnab has awarded Krupo one published post for this quality Sift Talk contribution.
FedquipI think users should be allowed to submit their own content.
As a community we can vote down the crap that submitted by corporations, never let it see the light.
But if some kid creates something great and gets voted to the top! kudos for videosift for allowing such a forum.
dagComment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)
Sorry, is it time for that debate again? I forgot to mark it in my calendar this month.
At the risk of sounding overly precious - I think the elemental "essence" of sifting is giving to others. whether it be votes, kudos or a thanks for effort. It's not about "look at my awesome video!"
If people want to get their stuff posted, they should become part of the community, befriend fellow Sifters and get their stuff out that way. These kind of "drive-by" dump and scram postings are exactly what we don't want.
VideoBomb, which launched a few weeks before us - with a lot more initial PR and fanfare - accepts self-links. (ahem).
That's not to say that we won't have things like the Sift-Off from time to time to highlight unique original work from Sifters.
choggieYeah, yer unilateral cults of personality may be fun in a circle jerk, but this is a social affair, that praises the efforts of many, while lauding the meager musings of the few, in a nondescript manner.....FEDQUIP!
(speaking of which, did anyone notice my four bans in a row record the other day before.....JAMESROE erased it, to keep folks from tripping too hard????? hehehehehe
join my new blog, nooneisworthy.com
fireflyAre you trying to add live chat to your web site so you can have sales and support chats with your visitors?
www.53kf.com/en/...--
(kidding! KIDDING!, put that banhammer away! no, NO!! N-...!
pho3n1xi still say the wording is off... but either way, if they can't read the big red bolded letters on the submittal screen, they're never going to find this sift talk post, let alone the FAQ.
rembarPhoenix is right. Heck, has our FAQ been updated so people know exactly what self-links are? This little incident makes me think not, and that's not fair to new sifters, who are basically the only ones who break the rules these days. I believe that the FAQ is the place for such things to go, because no new sifter is going to even look at Sift Talk, much less find this thread.
michiewell said Krupo.
*ban,ban,ban
dag - has anyone ever contacted administration to have his / her account reactivated ?
siftbotKrupo cannot be banned because starred accounts are immune from banination. If you feel this account requires banination, please contact the administrators (ignoring banination request by gold star member michie)
dagComment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)
Michie - they rarely ask to be reactivated, but we get lots of emails protesting the banning - usually containing a mini-lecture on what a site like VideoSift should be about (hint: allowing self-posting)
Here's the most recent one.
michiecheers dag. i wait hopefully that someone who really wants to join admits their fault and gets on with it.
till then i'll keep firin my *banderilla
siftbotKrupo cannot be banned because starred accounts are immune from banination. If you feel this account requires banination, please contact the administrators (ignoring banination request by gold star member michie)
joedirtI will again state this for the record. If VideoSift would like to grow their hits and Alexa ranking, I highly suggest an area for this market and self-posted content.
You could use the same infrastructure to allow all the YouTubers to post their crap, rank their own crap, but keep it off of good quality videosift. Heck, some of the top videos on the sister area could make it into the real sift.
I originally proposed my.videosift.com, but that went a different direction, so maybe myvideosift.com could work for a parallel site for the teeming masses of silf-linkers. Also, instead of ban, we could automagically route their videos over there.
James RoeWe're growing at about 7% a month as it is. To some extent small growth has been a blessing because it has allowed us to evolve over time to better manage higher levels of traffic. The ban system is a classic example of this.
KrupoI'm a strong supporter of the automagical routing proposal.
pho3n1xhow about self.videosift.com
djsunkidI like the idea of a selflink.videosift.com. Then I could just filtre it out.
djsunkid(which is to say- keep it the same! mrah!)
FedquipThat's a good point James. Patience is key
choggie*ban!!!!
siftbotKrupo cannot be banned because starred accounts are immune from banination. If you feel this account requires banination, please contact the administrators (ignoring banination request by gold star member choggie)
choggiescapetooth
eric3579"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."
If you dont want people to submit a video which they uploaded to their own Youtube account, then you need to say that. The self link rule implies something different.
I dont understand why it is a problem to submit a Ted Talks, Family Guy,or like content just because I was the one who uploaded it to Youtube. What does it have to do with - "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."
loorisit's because of the quality. if you can upload and sift the same video, you are the only one who can "certify" its quality.
if you are prevented to sifting it, it means that if it gets posted, it will have at least another "supporter", that it the user who posted it.
i wouldn't like to have here stupid collections of clips as much as stupid self-videos.
i dunno if i made myself clear.
pho3n1xeric, i've made that point at least thrice, and have yet to be taken seriously. good luck.
KrupoYes, we need to amend the text to say: "In simple English, if you uploaded the video to Youtube, Breaker etc., do not submit it to Videosift!"
lucky760The FAQ has been updated to define what type of submission might be a self link.
See the Posting Guidelines.
eric3579Hip Hip Horray
eric3579Thanks for the change.
I would still like to know:
I dont understand why it is a problem to submit a Ted Talks, Family Guy,or like content just because I was the one who uploaded it to Youtube.
Ive heard it said that large institutions such as CBS, ABC, etc. may join and swamp the sift with there content. If so, couldnt that be dealt with easily?
KrupoGreat edit Lucky.
@Eric: The act of making an edit and upload itself is considered a contribution in itself, even if you didn't do anything else with the content.
Editors get awards at the Oscars, after all - an uploader is an artist. And of course, if you're uploading the entire TV show, then you're violating the letter of the "don't upload complete shows" rule.
eric3579I understand the rule and how it applies. My question is why make a rule like that? Im just curious to what the thinking was behind makeing it a rule? What I dont get is why would someone have an issue with me posting A Family Guy or Ted Talks clip which I was the uploader of.
dagComment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)
This has been debated heavily, but I'll give you my take in a couple of sentences.
Of course there's nothing wrong with you uploading a TED video - we love that stuff. But unfortunately our rules need to be broad and apply to everyone.
In another case someone might upload a video that we don't recognise, but is kind of cool, and and has a post-roll ad for "jacksvideoshack.com" hmmm, probably innocent.
Next comes a video of some guy setting his dog on fire, VERY funny - there happens to be a pepsi in every shot, and the guy is wearing a pepsi t-shirt. It's probably nothing ...
And so rolls on the slippery slope of gray area. However, we are working on a way to allow dedicated members to submit uploaded videos. Another one of those "in the pipe" projects. Stay-tuned.
Farhad2000I ban for kicks mostly.
eric3579Thanks Dag , thats what I was looking for. "We are working on a way to allow dedicated members to submit uploaded videos." That would be perfect.
KrupoSee dag's explanation above - but I thought mine was pretty succinct too - the act of editing makes you involved in the video. You could argue that you're just re-uploading a video someone else put together, but that's when dag's explanation covers the ground I didn't discuss.
loorisnow i want to see a video of a guy puttin his dog on fire
KrupoThat might run into some border-line trouble with the snuff policy...
looriswasn't it only about humans?
Discuss...
Enable JavaScript to submit a comment.