Unclear Description: Video Source

Yeah, Video Uploading has proved to be a massive change with a lot of problems. Since the admins don't seem to ever actually curate them, we're forced to do it ourselves, so we need to lay some ground rules we can point to.

Current Project: Incorruptible Pure Pureness

32 pages, not 797. For comparison, the Complete Monster thread grew 2400 pages in the same meantime (to say nothing of all TRS and projects threads, most of which are dedicated to eample cleanup). And there are only 7 pages on No Video Examples, Please!. So no, we are not quite at the point yet where that needs a specific policy page.

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman

Oop, that was a typo; I meant posts, not pages.

Jawbreakers on sale for 99¢

Complete Monster is a very, very special case. It's kind of an unfair comparison because that thread dwarfs literally everything else in the projects forum and a lot of the posters don't even go to other project threads, meaning that the other ones only have a handful of active contributors.

But using it as a comparison to explain why we "don't need" a policy page on the video issue when it's something that has been a consistent issue since it's been introduced and the only reason it's less active is because less people know about it, wouldn't that also mean other threads wouldn't need policy pages too for also not being as fast as CM? That'd be a ridiculous thing to say.

Simply put, the projects forum is suffering from a lack of hands and attention. The only threads that more than a few posters a day are CM and MB, and the others can easily be forgotten about because, idk, maybe the activity hasn't been fast enough on it for people to want to post on it. The problem isn't the projects themselves but the fact that only a few people actually care enough to help out with them.

Don't hold that against the video policy idea. We desperately need it.

Current Project: Incorruptible Pure Pureness

Yannow, I didn't say that I don't want a policy page.

I did say that I don't want a dedicated page listing tropes for which videos aren't allowed.

And I stand by that.

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman

Okay, misread your above post, but still, comparing any cleanup thread to CM just doesn't make sense- that one is a juggernaut and only a few people use the other threads. We're doing the best we can to keep up.

Why not? Is there a reason why we shouldn't have a list like that? Makes it easier for people to identify if they can upload videos to that specific trope and makes our lives a lot easier too.

It's not a lot yet but new tropes seem to pop up all the time, and we need some way to enforce these standards.

Edited by WarJay77 on Sep 6th 2020 at 3:55:57 PM

Current Project: Incorruptible Pure Pureness

Because we don't need the page-with-a-dedicated list yet and nobody has offered evidence to the contrary. And because more policy pages are irritating to the folks that we demand familiarize themselves with them and are harder to remember.

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman

It'd just be an index so people uploading videos can quickly check to see if a trope allows videos or not. It wouldn't be so much of a policy page than an easy way to inform people of whether or not they can or can't add a video to a specific page. It'll make the process easier, not more complicated, and people wouldn't be asked to read it at all- just to check the indexes before adding video examples.

A folder might work, but then the name of the index would just be "Video Source", which is misleading and inaccurate.

Edited by WarJay77 on Sep 6th 2020 at 4:19:15 AM

Current Project: Incorruptible Pure Pureness

Why does it need to be a dedicated page, instead of a folder on Video Source?

Link to TRS threads in project mode here.

If anything, we could have everything on one page now, and if the list ends up getting too long to keep on the main policy page, then we can revisit the idea of putting it on a separate page. (Edit: Turns out I already said that here last month; not feeling the best right now so I wasn't sure.)

Edit: Also, I think Septimus was suggesting putting the list on the proposed Video Example Guidelines page (or whatever we end up calling it; his sandbox is Sandbox.Video Guidelines and Piterpicher made Sandbox.Uploading New Videos), rather than Video Source, based on a combination of this post and the opening post questioning the fact that Video Source has a list of rules despite being the video equivalent of Trivia pages like Image Source.

Edited by GastonRabbit on Sep 6th 2020 at 6:40:36 AM

You can't always get what you want.

Aye, my thinking is that we ought to have a page Administrivia.Video Example Guidelines to document the policies for these examples, and that the current list on Video Source ought to be removed.

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman

Bumping as I've expanded Video Guidelines to cover uploading procedure as well. Would it work as a policy page?

Edited by SeptimusHeap on Sep 16th 2020 at 7:10:28 PM

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman

I think so. Might want to add a small section about the common glitches that can occur, because people ask about them a lot.

Current Project: Incorruptible Pure Pureness

I'd still rather have my Sandbox.Uploading New Videos page. It's not even 3000 characters, it actually lost 91 characters this month, it's more fun to read, detailed and understandable. People should have a good enough attention span to read 3000 characters, a lot of it is in bullet points, and it doesn't even need significant scrolling on widescreen. And that full list under a note with 16 no-video items on Sandbox.Video Guidelines kinda makes it hypocritical - if someone can't read 9 bullets, I think 16 links right next to each other with commas is not going to do better (of course, my sandbox assumes the list would be a separate bulleted index anyway).

I even linked it here for questions about uploading, and they thanked me, no complaints or anything. Please, don't tread the general editor populace as if we have attention problems or something.

Edited by Piterpicher on Sep 17th 2020 at 1:41:57 PM

Currently mostly inactive. An incremental game I tested: https://galaxy.click/play/176 (Gods of Incremental)

I am still contrary. The point is to have the page be as short as possible, not to keep it below some arbitrary cutoff. And definitively one, not two, pages. As experience has shown, many people do have attention span issues and also retention issues - even I sometimes have to re-read a piece of policy ever so often. I don't agree that Uploading New Videos is more fun or more understandable.

^^I admit that I am not sure what other glitch other than the hanging/stuck one could be fixed on the troper end.

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman

A handful:

• It gets stuck at 10% and requires the troper to leave the screen
• The "Media Source Isn't Supported", meaning the video needs to be deleted and re-uploaded
• Special characters or wicks in a video description can break the description and might not be fixable
• Videos sometimes straight up can't edited or deleted; the button doesn't work.

Current Project: Incorruptible Pure Pureness

Sandbox.Uploading New Videos is a fundamental misuse of the Sandbox/ namespace. Is all I'm saying.

Is it even kosher to add videos to character pages? I found at least one on Characters.Dragon Ball Son Goku.

Rock'n'roll never dies!

Hm, you can only add video examples to trope pages and list a source. I imagine most often it's the work page.

I've also see video examples of Creator/ pages. I'm not sure how I feel about those.

Characters/ namespace feels like stretching it.

@ccorb: I don't think we have a policy codified yet on the matter...

@XFllo: Why? Drafting up the text of a future policy in sandbox space is precisely what sandbox page is for.

@WarJay77: Added a bit about these problems.

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman

Video Ideas has been deleted but not the pages that were separate from it Western Animation and Video Games

Edited by Agent2583 on Sep 18th 2020 at 3:24:55 PM

Okay thanks for doing that.

Sandbox.Uploading New Videos looks better than current. I do have a few comments though:

• It should mention that video examples are covered by No Real Life Examples, Please!, as mentioned here.
• Provide guidance for identifying Epileptic Flashing Lights in videos, which may not be obvious.
• Missing criterion: "The video has no significant quality issues (e.g. artifacts, distorted or missing audio, poor clipping/editing)." Many entries on Sandbox.Videos Needing Review concern videos with such problems, most typically where dialogue is cut off.

Make Video Source a standalone index, like Image Source.

I think No Video Examples, Please! has enough entries (currently 16) to keep it separate, though its criteria could use some elaboration. The currently known criteria are:

• Too NSFW to illustrate with a family-friendly video (Anal Probing, Black Comedy Rape, Date Rape, Gorn, Gratuitous Rape, Naughty Tentacles, Nocturnal Emission, Potty Failure, Prison Rape, Sex Montage, and Snuff Film)
• Health/safety issues (Epileptic Flashing Lights, Jump Scare, Screamer Prank, Screamer Trailer, and Sensory Abuse)
• Tropes that don't allow on-page text examples (not listed)

I hypothesize that there are also tropes that are impossible to properly illustrate using a video, but none are currently known.

I'm back!

Could we consider amending video examples to be at least 3 minutes long? I’d like to hear why we decided on a 2 minute and 30 second limit.

"If brevity is the soul of wit, then I simply have no soul." He/Him

Because nobody really wants to watch a 3 minute video and we don't have a ton of server space to devote to longer ones? There's actually talks about lowering the video time limit.

Also, not really the thread for this.

Current Project: Incorruptible Pure Pureness