Video info more restricted over time

Scintilla · Post by **Scintilla** » Tue Aug 30, 2005 2:38 pm

Phade wrote:99% of members should be able to fix video description mistakes within the two week period. We're trying to come up with a method to help the 1% who still has messed up info after that.

In my case, it's not that I've messed up, but... well, let me explain the three big sections I usually edit and can see myself continuing to edit after the two weeks are up:

- Quotes from other people, as new and better ones come in. I usually put these near the top of the info block.

- Convention record. This is probably the least problem, as it can easily go at the end.

- Technical info, status of download links, etc.

It'll be even less convenient if I have another situation like the one with my "Waka Laka" video, which went through a few different versions in the two months or so after I created its entry.

Kusoyaro · Post by **Kusoyaro** » Tue Aug 30, 2005 3:45 pm

Why not add this as an option to the Request Video Info Change? The user submits their change, and when the admin pulls up the request, they see both the new and the old side by side and decides whether or not to approve it. And have a "Reason" field if they decide to reject it, just like when we submit deletion requests. Acceptible vs. non-acceptible changes should be a cinch to assess, so I don't think it would be too much additional work for admins.

SuperFusion · Post by **SuperFusion** » Tue Aug 30, 2005 4:12 pm

This idea just seriously needs to be scrapped. I don't see why you think it's so important to keep tabs on my information page. Get rid of the information page if I actually have to ask someone whether or not I can change information on a video that I created. That just leaves the discretion of the matter in the opinion of the admin. The admin may think the edit is worthless while the creator think it makes a big difference.

Tono_Fyr · Post by **Tono_Fyr** » Tue Aug 30, 2005 4:30 pm

Scintilla wrote:
Phade wrote:99% of members should be able to fix video description mistakes within the two week period. We're trying to come up with a method to help the 1% who still has messed up info after that.
In my case, it's not that I've messed up, but... well, let me explain the three big sections I usually edit and can see myself continuing to edit after the two weeks are up:

- Quotes from other people, as new and better ones come in. I usually put these near the top of the info block.

- Convention record. This is probably the least problem, as it can easily go at the end.

- Technical info, status of download links, etc.

It'll be even less convenient if I have another situation like the one with my "Waka Laka" video, which went through a few different versions in the two months or so after I created its entry.

I agree totally with Scintilla on this one. It's completely asanine to block someone from being able to update their video information. Who cares if they want to erase their past? It's their choice, and it's not like it's going to make a big difference in the end. I'm unclear as to why this new rule even EXISTS. Ok, so, someone requested his video be deleted so he could upload a remaster. This is what I've HEARD. Going Just on that, I can honestly say... shut the hell up. The org's server is an archive, you can't delete anything off of it permanently. How do I know? I once started downloading a video XenoDrake made, but was 'deleted' for nudity. The video isn't really gone, only the link is.

Plus, the database information doesn't really matter as long as the entry is still there. That's my opinion, anyway.

Corran · Post by **Corran** » Tue Aug 30, 2005 4:40 pm

Zarxrax wrote:Rather than limiting what people can do, how about implementing a solution sort of like wikipedia, where they keep snapshots of each change, so you can roll back to a previous one if someone decides to vandalize an entry?

Phade wrote:Hey Zarxrax,

(sorry to double post, but you posted when I was posting)

The problem with that method is that there is no way to stop the member from re-messing up their entry once it is fixed. We would also have to monitor all video description changes made every day (all new entries + all modifications = all changes). It becomes a large admin task. Reducing admin overhead is a top priority for the new system, whatever it becomes.

Keep the ideas coming!

Phade.

Perhaps after a rollback you could make it so the comments become append only. Also, examining a video's comment history would probably only need to be done while reviewing delete requests and thus the admin overhead wouldn't be too bad.

SarahtheBoring · Post by **SarahtheBoring** » Tue Aug 30, 2005 7:18 pm

Seriously, why is the video info important? I thought the point of the site was to catalog videos that have been made, not every momentary brainfart that passes through the keyboard of every long-winded creator. If you want MAXIMUM WORDAGE IN ALL CASES, oh, I could pound out 10,000 words on every piece of junk I've ever turned out - but I was never told that that was the heart and soul of the site. I thought the heart and soul of the site was videos, not editor bloviation. Video info != videos.

Yes, it sucks that Tom "wrecked" the info, and whatever other mystery creators are being alluded to here. But the records of the videos' existence are still here. Many other videos have no more than that, too. You have the record of the AMV's existence - source, song, creator, date it was made. In terms of completeness of the record of AMVs that were made, how is this any different from someone who makes a video, enters it, doesn't upload it and doesn't write a description? And when did the goal change from "catalog videos that were made" to "catalog random chitchat about the editor's girlfriend, his Artistic Vision, the lyrics he yanked off some spyware-ridden lyrics site, the 200 people he wants to thank and what he had for breakfast today"?

...

For another data point on how video info is used, I have a bad habit of rambling about The Making Of when a video's first put out, then over time (say, 6 months) winnow out the junk absolutely nobody cares about and stick with a fairly terse description. This isn't "wrecking" the info, it's called editing. I thought that field was more or less our place to say what we want.

Or would you rather have us hand over our videos to you and have you do the writing about all of them, since the video info is suddenly so sacrosanct and editors can't be trusted to use it themselves? You'd have to watch all the videos then. Anyone got time for that?

Arigatomina · Post by **Arigatomina** » Tue Aug 30, 2005 8:45 pm

I have one request/suggestion. Please add a warning to Step 1 of the 'create new video' page reading: You have 2 weeks to write a vid description. After that time, you will not be able to change what you have written. If you have any doubt as to whether the description is exactly what you want representing your video for as long as the site exists, don't write anything.

That way you have the same warning you get when you upload a video - make sure it's the final version because you can't change it later on.

Amvs are one thing, but I find it offensive that this site wants to 'own' my words. I understand that people abuse the server if they have the right to change their locally hosted videos without asking permission first. Changing a vid description doesn't hurt the server, doesn't cost the donators a penny, and doesn't affect the catelogue at all. All this will do is make it more difficult to have indirect and direct links, which do change with time, often changing quite a few times. I don't even want to think how nasty a vid description would look with that many 'appends' to the original (now long, long dead) link. Even if you make a new box for 'link information' that won't clean up all of the thousands of vid descriptions that have already been written and are now uneditable.

Zarxrax · Post by **Zarxrax** » Tue Aug 30, 2005 9:43 pm

I think these are all valid points that are being brought up. In the end, I believe the creator should be able to have control over what is written about his or her own video, or even be able to say if they don't wan't it hosted locally anymore. If a musical artist or anime company complained about a video, you would remove it as per their wishes, so why not according to the wishes of the person who actually made the AMV? Are their wishes less viable, simply because they won't take legal action?

Also Phade, you should realize the possible repercussions of taking so much control over people's works like this. Perhaps people will find ways to protest, such as requesting to make changes on all of their videos. Repeatedly. Or perhaps people will take it a step further and simply stop listing their videos here. And at that point, the original goal of cataloguing videos has failed.

SuperFusion · Post by **SuperFusion** » Tue Aug 30, 2005 9:50 pm

A question: Do you plan on hearing us out and getting rid of this implement that NO ONE wants? Well, except the people that are used to being ruled.

Scintilla · Post by **Scintilla** » Tue Aug 30, 2005 9:54 pm

SuperFusion wrote:A question: Do you plan on hearing us out and getting rid of this implement that NO ONE wants? Well, except the people that are used to being ruled.

You know, Phade did say in the first post that the current state of things is meant to be only temporary until some better way to control the problem can be found.