donator incentive...

Pwolf · Post by **Pwolf** » Sat Sep 30, 2006 3:55 pm

Was thinking last night, would it be possible to allow users to upload multiple version of the same video to local? was thinking this cause as more and more editors start using h264 and other containers other then avi, would be nice to upload n h264 version for those who like high quality (and who can play h264) and a lower quality version for those who can't. think it would be best for only donators of course. just a thought.

Pwolf

Orwell · Post by **Orwell** » Sat Sep 30, 2006 4:28 pm

The only way I'd see this happening would be in a tiered donator system. But on the note of uploading additional stuff, the ability to upload subtitle files so they don't need burned into the actual video itself or alternate hosting for them would be nice. Nor would it take up much room compared to a second, larger encode of a video, a couple KB's usually.

trythil · Post by **trythil** » Sat Sep 30, 2006 4:48 pm

Orwell wrote:The only way I'd see this happening would be in a tiered donator system. But on the note of uploading additional stuff, the ability to upload subtitle files so they don't need burned into the actual video itself or alternate hosting for them would be nice. Nor would it take up much room compared to a second, larger encode of a video, a couple KB's usually.

That's another reason to stop using archaic container formats

MP4, Matroska, Quicktime, and others support text streams quite nicely.

Zarxrax · Post by **Zarxrax** » Sat Sep 30, 2006 5:11 pm

trythil wrote:That's another reason to stop using archaic container formats MP4, Matroska, Quicktime, and others support text streams quite nicely.

Hell, even AVI does :p

trythil · Post by **trythil** » Sat Sep 30, 2006 6:26 pm

Zarxrax wrote:
trythil wrote:That's another reason to stop using archaic container formats :P MP4, Matroska, Quicktime, and others support text streams quite nicely.

Hell, even AVI does :p

Hmm, I guess it does.

Well, okay -- there are containers that support softsubs without resorting to abominable hacks :P

BasharOfTheAges · Post by **BasharOfTheAges** » Sat Sep 30, 2006 7:17 pm

Re: the topic at hand though... any way to get it working for say an XviD and a x.264 file since we're in a bit of an in-between time for comfortibility with new codecs by the general public. Maybe have a tiered perk system like Orwell suggested in the first sentence of his post. (i need to re-donate anyways)

godix · Post by **godix** » Sat Sep 30, 2006 7:50 pm

A side benefit to this idea, it'd stop the 'claim you want to upload a HQ version in the deletion request and never do it' method of removing files. With the multi-version idea the admins could refuse a deletion request until they see the user has actually uploaded the HQ version already.

Pwolf · Post by **Pwolf** » Sat Sep 30, 2006 8:04 pm

godix wrote:A side benefit to this idea, it'd stop the 'claim you want to upload a HQ version in the deletion request and never do it' method of removing files. With the multi-version idea the admins could refuse a deletion request until they see the user has actually uploaded the HQ version already.

didn't think of that acuatlly.

Pwolf

Arigatomina · Post by **Arigatomina** » Sat Sep 30, 2006 11:29 pm

godix wrote:A side benefit to this idea, it'd stop the 'claim you want to upload a HQ version in the deletion request and never do it' method of removing files.

Only for donators. So those who want to do that will stop donating and wait a year for the status to reset. Good way to lose money, since having old videos undownloadable saves bandwidth and costs nothing.

I'd rather have a retire/remove/hide local link option for donators. The site can still keep the video file if they really want it for whatever reason, but the creator can choose to stop having it distributed by the site. Having control over the distribution of your vids is a good incentive to donate extra.

It'd be nice to avoid those h264 vids that kill my comp, but I figure most people who donate a lot (talking a tiered system) have the money for their own hosting if they want two copies of a vid available here. This incentive would work more for the people who haven't donated at all. If you limit it to those who already donate, I don't see the org getting enough extra money to make up for the trouble it would take to do this.

godix · Post by **godix** » Sun Oct 01, 2006 2:40 am

Arigatomina wrote:
godix wrote:Only for donators. So those who want to do that will stop donating and wait a year for the status to reset. Good way to lose money, since having old videos undownloadable saves bandwidth and costs nothing.
This could be a temp non-donator option as well. A non-donator requests a deletion and they get the ability to upload multiple copies of that vid only for a few days. After a few days if they've uploaded a HQ version then the previous one gets deleted and if they haven't uploaded a HQ version the option the old one stays and the option to host multiple copies goes away. Either way non-donators could only have a single copy of the video avalable except for a few days while going through a deletion request. Of course it'd make a little extra work for the admins since they'd have to enable to option then a few days later go back and check to see if a HQ version was uploaded so who knows if this is realistically possible for the org.
I'd rather have a retire/remove/hide local link option for donators. The site can still keep the video file if they really want it for whatever reason, but the creator can choose to stop having it distributed by the site. Having control over the distribution of your vids is a good incentive to donate extra.

That'd be good, I'd toss a few bucks the orgs way to hide some of my old shitty as videos. And a few of the new shitty ass videos too while I'm thinking about it. OTOH it seems strange to pay someone to NOT distribute my stuff. Regardless, I believe I've seen this suggestion before and for whatever reason the response was 'no'.