The Org Redesign - What's wrong with the org?

Re: The Org Redesign - What's wrong with the org?

Postby Ikore » Wed Nov 10, 2010 8:57 am

Nya-chan Production wrote:
godix wrote:
Kaream wrote:Also users should be able to delete videos. It would save alot of space and get rid of useless videos.

Especially if you gave us the power to delete other people's videos.

I vote for godix having this power |:>
just set "Oh Fortuna" in the background and enjoy the slaugthering :up:
SING! Never mind the words!!!
User avatar
Ikore
 
Joined: 06 Sep 2007
Location: Costa Rica.
Status: Alive

Re: The Org Redesign - What's wrong with the org?

Postby Corran » Wed Nov 10, 2010 10:15 am

One Man's trash is another man's treasure.
User avatar
Corran
 
Joined: 14 Oct 2002

Re: The Org Redesign - What's wrong with the org?

Postby Kariudo » Wed Nov 10, 2010 12:56 pm

Arigatomina wrote:
Kariudo wrote:I usually give people the benefit of the doubt, but when someone asks to remaster all of their videos at once...yeah...generally not happening.

I just don't get it. These people are clearly just trying to get the local links disabled because they no longer want their creations distributed here. The vid listing remains, so the whole "archive every amv" goal was never affected by the deletion of vids. Space costs money, we donate the money to acquire that space, downloading available vids costs money, we donate the money to pay for that bandwidth, so why do we have to continue paying to host things we don't want you to host for us anymore? At least donators should be allowed to have their own local links removed, by request if you're worried about misuse of the system. I have yet to hear a single reason why the org insists on keeping and sharing other people's vids when they've asked them to remove the local links. If you just wanted to keep a copy for posterity's sake, then disable the local link but keep the file (which, from my understanding, is what you did with the Evanescence/Creed vids).

In every other hobby I've been active in, when a hosting site refuses to remove a fan's creations at their request, they lose those fans, and get a bad reputation throughout the entire hobby. I don't know why the org continues to get away with it, especially now that it's not the only resort available to amv editors. I know with the last vids I uploaded here, I debated with myself for weeks over whether or not I really wanted those locally hosted here until the death of the org. I'm sure it will be a rude surprise for any tube editors that get drawn here after the redesign. Hobby-related hosting sites just don't do this.

The option to hide vids in our profiles is nice, I appreciate that, but it doesn't change the fact that videos continue to be distributed against the express wishes of the people who made them. The warning on the upload page (which I don't remember seeing in '03) reminds me of the warnings to non-members who upload files to free file hosting sites. They do this to keep making money off the downloaders seeking those files. Why does the org do it? Are you afraid fewer viewers will come here if there aren't as many vids available to download (and preview) in the collection? Because it's the editors who stop uploading due to this policy and without new vids being uploaded, you're going to have fewer amvs, anyway.


Having a catalog is all well and good, but not being able to watch videos isn't going to bring people in either. I'm not suggesting that everyone (nor even a significant amount) will delete all of their videos if they had the option to, but still...a lot of our allure comes from being able to watch and download AMVs.
The org isn't a place for only good AMVs, it is a place for all AMVs.
<quote corran's post here>

I act to retain as much data in the database as I can. At the same time though, I'm not without reason. If someone insists that the local link be removed, I'll often remove it; however, lying to me doesn't make me want to help out.

As the org is now, I can't turn off local links for everyone but the creator. Heck, it's even hard to delete a local link without a deletion request. There was a fair bit of coding that had to be done just to hide the evanescence, seether and creed videos.

There needs to be further discussion on removing local links. I'd be for allowing donators to delete their local links as they see fit (we'd probably be accused of holding videos hostage sometime down the line. Can't make everyone happy though)
ImageImage
Image
User avatar
Kariudo
Twilight prince
 
Joined: 15 Jul 2005
Location: Los taquitos unidos
Status: 1924 bots banned and counting!

Re: The Org Redesign - What's wrong with the org?

Postby Panky » Wed Nov 10, 2010 1:29 pm

Nya-chan Production wrote:
Panky wrote:
Kariudo wrote:The space thing isn't an issue, and here...there is no such thing as a 'useless' video.
well...maybe except for Godix's junk...that stuff's about as useless as it gets right there.

We may be able to afford more control for creators, but at the same time I feel that we (mods/admins) also need to be able to say no sometimes
Giving users the power to delete their own local uploads would:
-take away most of my video deletion powers you bastid :evil:
-make the distinction between remaster and remake near trivial (not like that's all bad though...)
-make abuse of the system even harder to track
-let me say no to 99% of vid info deletion requests
-some other stuff, a llama and some pizza too

My sentiment is based on my background. After you've done any user interface stuff (web or offline), it's hard to not think of users as malicious monsters that want to make you cry.



I'm actually wondering (out of curiosity) when people ask for "remastering" a video, do you (or the other mods) actually check the content is the same or just hope for it to be so? :awesome:

You can't check until it's uploaded and you can't upload until the original's removed, so the answer is quite obvious ;x


Well I have actually seen that the "deleted" video entries were actually there even if they were hidden from outsiders, and thought it could be something along those lines with remastered videos. Though I know the amount of space isn't to be compared, and the effort needed from the mods would be way too big (and/or boring depending on the vid).

Nya-chan Production wrote:OK, your point is to protect uploaders.

My point is we have to protect uploaders too - against themselves. And also we have to protect the downloaders/the site - can you imagine what would happen if some famous editor got pissed by a little thing and deleted all of his videos (think Nostromo or koopiskeva here)?


But they would still have their "right" to do so. You wouldn't protect them from themselves, they could come back after a few weeks and reupload them with no problems.
Now, see the current process of deleting local links or remastering, if someone gives "X" excuse even if it's true or not, it gets deleted? Then what's the whole point behind requesting it to begin with? It's like people could always use the same excuses, true or not, and get across the reviewing process.
I don't believe the intention is bad, but it lacks execution.
User avatar
Panky
 
Joined: 04 Oct 2006
Location: some place called Kokomo...
Status: dozing...

Re: The Org Redesign - What's wrong with the org?

Postby Nya-chan Production » Wed Nov 10, 2010 1:47 pm

Panky wrote:
Nya-chan Production wrote:OK, your point is to protect uploaders.

My point is we have to protect uploaders too - against themselves. And also we have to protect the downloaders/the site - can you imagine what would happen if some famous editor got pissed by a little thing and deleted all of his videos (think Nostromo or koopiskeva here)?


But they would still have their "right" to do so. You wouldn't protect them from themselves, they could come back after a few weeks and reupload them with no problems.
Now, see the current process of deleting local links or remastering, if someone gives "X" excuse even if it's true or not, it gets deleted? Then what's the whole point behind requesting it to begin with? It's like people could always use the same excuses, true or not, and get across the reviewing process.
I don't believe the intention is bad, but it lacks execution.

I meant protecting from getting rid of their videos forever - they usually delete it everywhere and later on regret it - or at least so I hope.
And as for the excuses... you haven't seen them, but some of them are really bad lies >.>
ImageImageImageImageImageImageImage
User avatar
Nya-chan Production
The :< point of view
 
Joined: 15 Nov 2006
Location: Ward 7F
Status: White bracelet

Re: The Org Redesign - What's wrong with the org?

Postby Kariudo » Wed Nov 10, 2010 2:38 pm

oh man, the deletion requests I've seen over the years...
ImageImage
Image
User avatar
Kariudo
Twilight prince
 
Joined: 15 Jul 2005
Location: Los taquitos unidos
Status: 1924 bots banned and counting!

Re: The Org Redesign - What's wrong with the org?

Postby Arigatomina » Wed Nov 10, 2010 5:35 pm

Nya-chan Production wrote:OK, your point is to protect uploaders.

Nah, that's only part of it. The main point is that the org shouldn't be doing this (from a legal and ethical 'honor among thieves' standpoint) and will only hurt itself if the new tube generation of editors come here and encounter it. It's bad business. Reputable non-for-profit fanwork hosting sites don't do this. You'd never get away with this if you were hosting scanlations or fanfics or fanart. The org is the only fanwork hosting site I've ever seen that not only does it, but somehow manages to avoid anyone even complaining about it outside this forum. I'm sure part of the reason the org doesn't have a bad reputation because of this practice is simply that most people don't realize that the "you allow this site to hold and make publicly available the video file you provide" line means it will be publically available forever. They don't understand until they ask for something to be deleted and by then they're either too comfortable here or too desperate to look for an alternative amv site. I don't believe that's going to work with the tube editors. They're used to having control over the distribution of their own videos. They'll know that the tube won't stop them from deleting their own vids. So once the org pulls the 'you uploaded it, that makes it ours' bit on them, they'll be perfectly fine going back to the tube and venting their anger to anyone who will listen. It'll be even worse if they find out *why* the org does this. Because fans have a right to keep downloading the file no matter what the creator says? I don't see that going over very well with anyone in any hobby.

To take a less pushy approach, this policy is outdated and unnecessary. Even if Koop deleted all the local links for his vids, people will still be sharing them on the tube. Fans would still be able to watch them. People will still share links to them in lj groups via megaupload/mediafire/etc, so fans will still be able to download them. If someone has to go against the creator's wishes in order to give fans what they "deserve", then let it be random jerks uploading things they didn't make. There's no need for the org to dirty its hands.

EDIT/

Kariudo wrote:As the org is now, I can't turn off local links for everyone but the creator. Heck, it's even hard to delete a local link without a deletion request. There was a fair bit of coding that had to be done just to hide the evanescence, seether and creed videos.

I missed this. Sorry. ^^; I like this reason. This is enough to justify keeping the files up unless the creator has a darn good reason to want them removed. I wish this was the only reason you'd given me.
User avatar
Arigatomina
 
Joined: 03 Apr 2003

Re: The Org Redesign - What's wrong with the org?

Postby MycathatesyouAMV » Thu Nov 11, 2010 12:05 am

I would like the option in opinions of being able to make your video opinion invisible. This idea is for the Opinion Exchanging because it always seems like who ever OPs someone's amv first, their score can effect the score of the opinion the other person will give them. Alot of people seem to be self conscious about not being the one to op first because of what I stated. Maybe just make it so it stays invisible for a short amount of time, as I think this would greatly help op exchange.
Talk to me on skypes and stuffs: Mycathatesyou0000
User avatar
MycathatesyouAMV
Based Dicknugget
 
Joined: 06 Feb 2007
Location: Pittsburgh
Status: Looking for candy

Re: The Org Redesign - What's wrong with the org?

Postby Nya-chan Production » Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:24 am

Arigatomina wrote:
Nya-chan Production wrote:OK, your point is to protect uploaders.

Nah, that's only part of it. The main point is that the org shouldn't be doing this (from a legal and ethical 'honor among thieves' standpoint) and will only hurt itself if the new tube generation of editors come here and encounter it. It's bad business. Reputable non-for-profit fanwork hosting sites don't do this. You'd never get away with this if you were hosting scanlations or fanfics or fanart. The org is the only fanwork hosting site I've ever seen that not only does it, but somehow manages to avoid anyone even complaining about it outside this forum. I'm sure part of the reason the org doesn't have a bad reputation because of this practice is simply that most people don't realize that the "you allow this site to hold and make publicly available the video file you provide" line means it will be publically available forever. They don't understand until they ask for something to be deleted and by then they're either too comfortable here or too desperate to look for an alternative amv site. I don't believe that's going to work with the tube editors. They're used to having control over the distribution of their own videos. They'll know that the tube won't stop them from deleting their own vids. So once the org pulls the 'you uploaded it, that makes it ours' bit on them, they'll be perfectly fine going back to the tube and venting their anger to anyone who will listen. It'll be even worse if they find out *why* the org does this. Because fans have a right to keep downloading the file no matter what the creator says? I don't see that going over very well with anyone in any hobby.

To take a less pushy approach, this policy is outdated and unnecessary. Even if Koop deleted all the local links for his vids, people will still be sharing them on the tube. Fans would still be able to watch them. People will still share links to them in lj groups via megaupload/mediafire/etc, so fans will still be able to download them. If someone has to go against the creator's wishes in order to give fans what they "deserve", then let it be random jerks uploading things they didn't make. There's no need for the org to dirty its hands.


You have some valid points, but I still think you misunderstand me - people come here for downloads these days and when they don't get them they get pissed as well. What about that?
ImageImageImageImageImageImageImage
User avatar
Nya-chan Production
The :< point of view
 
Joined: 15 Nov 2006
Location: Ward 7F
Status: White bracelet

Re: The Org Redesign - What's wrong with the org?

Postby CastielTheFallen » Fri Nov 12, 2010 9:09 am

Discount Menu wrote:Sto being awesome.


I fully support all the arguments in his post. I've even bought some of these points up myself. Not only would the OT forum allow users to blow off steam, have fun with each other and goof off, but it'd also be a place for introductions and lamvs/other videos that aren't amvs.
Image
DZ|BSP
User avatar
CastielTheFallen
Prodigal Pen-Throttle
 
Joined: 17 Apr 2006
Location: Nowheresville, NJ
Status: Sick & Uninspired

Re: The Org Redesign - What's wrong with the org?

Postby gotegenks » Fri Nov 12, 2010 9:53 am

Arashinome wrote:guys, let's make a subforum for lamvs
Image
User avatar
gotegenks
 
Joined: 03 Oct 2009
Location: charlesgood, california

Re: The Org Redesign - What's wrong with the org?

Postby Arigatomina » Fri Nov 12, 2010 6:33 pm

Nya-chan Production wrote:You have some valid points, but I still think you misunderstand me - people come here for downloads these days and when they don't get them they get pissed as well. What about that?

That's the "What's a site without content?" argument. You see it all over the place with scanlations. People download anything and everything, throw it on their site, and when the scanlators complain they say "If I deleted it, no one would come here. What's a site without content?" And so the scanlators boycot that jerk and encourage all of their fans to do the same. Some fans continue to visit the blacklisted sites because they *do* have a ton of content. But they do it in secret and if they admit to it, they get a lot of flack from fans who respect the people creating scanlations for them. To make the comparison easier to understand, imagine you have a forum where people share scanlations. The creators upload them on their own. But when they get a C&D letter and decide to stop distributing their projects on the net, they suddenly realize they can't delete the links in their posts on that forum. Because the forum has locked those posts specifically so the scanlators can't change their mind and delete the links at a later time. They do this because people visit that forum to get those links, and what's a site without content? It's a public relations disaster for the "content-filled" site and a call to arms for supporters of that particular scanlation group.

Now, I admit that I'm not current with the amv community on the tube. The last time I looked deeply over there, they were all uplaoding org vids and claiming credit for them, or uploading org vids with a different song attached so they can claim credit. When I search for vids there now, I assume half the people I find didn't actually edit the vids they're sharing. But I hear there are plenty of legitimate and good editors over there, with a community of fans attached and eager for their next projects. There must be, or the org wouldn't even consider trying to draw them in. It will only take one of those popular editors to complain - and for the org to defend itself with the "What's a site without content?" argument - and you have your own PR disaster. All that will accomplish is to give the amv community on the tube ammunition to use against the org. Not only is the forum a hostile elitist environment, but the guys in charge consider getting their hands on content more important than the individuals who create that content.

Besides, all the popular vids on the org already get uploaded to the tube as soon as they come out. If all people want is a huge mass of content, they'll go to the tube. Content can't be what draws people to the org because we can't compete with the shere numbers at the tube. Content, shere quantity, is not the org's selling point. What sells the org is the fact that we don't delete the audio, we don't blank out the anime, we offer high quality downloads and previews, we don't have intrusive ads right there on the amv screen (as far as I know), we have guides and lists and a forum full of experienced editors, our focus is exclusively on amvs so there's no wading through full anime episodes and live action vids to find the amvs, etc etc.

The org has way too many good and unique features for it to *need* to rely on content-alone in order to get visitors. Especially if that content is maintained at the expense of the editors who create it.
User avatar
Arigatomina
 
Joined: 03 Apr 2003

Re: The Org Redesign - What's wrong with the org?

Postby Kaream » Thu Nov 18, 2010 6:40 am

They have already started coding for the new org, progress is going on.
Image
User avatar
Kaream
 
Joined: 18 Mar 2009
Location: California

Re: The Org Redesign - What's wrong with the org?

Postby Knowname » Thu Nov 18, 2010 11:32 am

Mina, how can you have a 'PR' disaster when you have no 'PR' in the first place!! lol Honor among thieves means nothing.... at least IMO.
If you do not think so... you will DIE
User avatar
Knowname
 
Joined: 16 Nov 2002
Location: Sanity, USA (on the edge... very edge)
Status: Indubitably

Re: The Org Redesign - What's wrong with the org?

Postby Zarxrax » Thu Nov 18, 2010 11:50 am

The org should have no right to publish a creators work without the creators permission.
The creator owns the copyright on his editing.
User avatar
Zarxrax
 
Joined: 01 Apr 2001
Location: Concord, NC

PreviousNext

Return to Org Redesign

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest