Jump to content

There should be a rule on re-posting / re-uploading content


OiledSquid

Recommended Posts

Lately i've been seeing a few packs being uploaded multiple times, and i think there should be some sort of ruling and/or report function for content that has been uploaded but already exists on the site.

Granted the reupload may be accidental as not everyone goes to the effort of checking if it has already been uplaoded by someone else, but it could also be an intentional way of getting easy reputation.

It is worth noting however that i am not against content being reposted if the original post is dead, and especially if the original uploader is inactive.

Case in point as an example the following pack is an exact reupload of another old pack in the public links section, it doesn't appear to be taking credit for someone else's work but at the same time it doesn't seem right to be importing a publicly found pack to your own account and then upload it as your own.

@SirKenros does make a valid point though that making a post using your own account is preferred over sharing some random link that could be taken down anytime, but the reuploads do seem to be a reoccuring thing and if unchecked could potentially make the reputation system kind of moot since anyone can just upload something that's already on here and get thanked for it.

@Da Chief of Staff @Baxzors @Mr Porn

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
  • Contributors

I would recommend that people (especially admins) read the posts in the first topic cited by @OiledSquid to become familiar with what was already discussed.

I'm for @OiledSquid's suggestion. It's important to have some official rules about content duplication to mitigate wasted effort and instead promote the contribution of new content as it adds greater value to the community. A re-post of content should only be permitted when the previously shared links have become broken.

Edited by SirKenros
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
  • Administrators

I think my only concern would be the wording of said rule, and where the line is drawn. In this case, it's alleged that the user has uploaded the same content to a different link that is not a publicly gathered link. Should reposting publicly posted links under new accounts be deemed reposting?

To the other extent, what about different versions of the same content? For example, up to this point I have posted some duplicate content myself where a user has already uploaded a 720p version and then I upload a 1080p version of the same video -- to which I think is fine. But what if a user uploads a compressed 1080p video and I upload the uncompressed 1080p file, would we count this as duplicate content?

If it's blatantly ripping someone else's link and posting it as your own, obviously that's a no go and there should be a rule about that kind of duplicate posting. But where exactly the line should be drawn as far as duplicate content (new links, different versions of the same video etc.) is where it gets a little blurry. Then there also comes the issue that if it is allowed to post private links of content that was found publicly (when the public links are still active and working), won't this start the precedent for users to rip these public links to their own private accounts and repost their links here? That might start a trend of rep whoring (so to speak) that might not be so appreciated by other members here.

Just tossing these ideas into the mix to see what others think before any rules are actually made and enforced.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
  • Contributors

I knew someone would bring up how duplicate content should be defined for our purposes when posting my last reply, and for good reason too. Thank you @Mr Porn.

 

2 hours ago, Mr Porn said:

Should reposting publicly posted links under new accounts be deemed reposting?

No, as long as there isn't already a topic providing a working first party MEGA link for it.

2 hours ago, Mr Porn said:

To the other extent, what about different versions of the same content? For example, up to this point I have posted some duplicate content myself where a user has already uploaded a 720p version and then I upload a 1080p version of the same video -- to which I think is fine

I concur. A different video resolution should not be classified as a duplicate.

2 hours ago, Mr Porn said:

But what if a user uploads a compressed 1080p video and I upload the uncompressed 1080p file, would we count this as duplicate content?

It should not be classified as a duplicate as long as there is a material qualitative difference, especially in the use of codecs, insofar as the video quality does not suffer. Your stated example is a bit misleading because all scene video files are always compressed as far as I know, albeit, I think I know what you mean to say. For instance, a scene at the same video resolution (1080p), one encoded using the AVC (H.264) video codec and the other encoded using HEVC (H.265) should not be classified as duplicates because there is a material difference in the file sizes without material difference in video quality. Similarly, it follows that posting the same scene at the same video resolution at a lower video quality would not be permitted at all.

2 hours ago, Mr Porn said:

Then there also comes the issue that if it is allowed to post private links of content that was found publicly (when the public links are still active and working), won't this start the precedent for users to rip these public links to their own private accounts and repost their links here? That might start a trend of rep whoring (so to speak) that might not be so appreciated by other members here.

Regardless of the publicly gathered links still working, I would be in favour of their conversion to first party contributions (not an import but a download and a fresh re-upload to their own accounts). All too often, publicly gathered links become broken far too quickly. It is my belief that first party contributions would outlast them. For this, I would gladly contribute a reputation point to them as they are adding value to the community.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...