Site etiquette is an unwritten set of rules which is pretty difficult to follow because it's also up to interpretation. After someone has pointed out that there is a similar caption made earlier in the day and attention has been drawn to that fact, I feel that it's still fair enough to vote for the later if it is preferred. Also, I only have one vote. I would assume that other people are capable of reading the comments and making up their own minds as part of a democratic vote. If nobody else agrees, then there won't be any more votes garnered.
Is it not also etiquette that before you enter a caption, you look at what has already been entered to avoid duplicate entries? If it so happens that your idea has been used in a slightly different way, then you at least give a nod to the earlier caption, even if this was not what inspired you in the first place.
True, but it is possible to miss that fact and once the initial caption has been referenced by another user that makes that point null and void. I reserve the right to vote for the captions I like best. Maybe others feel that way or maybe not, but unless anyone other than #anon is willing to comment I don't know. :)
I have to agree with anon, the later caption is very similar to the earlier one. I haven't voted for either as I am not sure where the sixty second reference comes from. I think a nod to the first one is in order as is the custom in the last three years or so that I have been enjoying the sight. It only takes a minute to read the other captions and avoid duplicates, or should I say, 'sixty seconds'.
I agree that is a good idea, and I have done it myself when the occasion arises, but I also think that once someone else has pointed out a similarity and there have not been any votes cast yet that the later quote should not automatically be blacklisted if people prefer it. Being told how to vote or implying that other users have deliberately stolen ideas under the guise of anonymous also isn't good etiquette, yes? I'd prefer to give the benefit of the doubt just now and I'm sure other users will exercise their own judgement how they see fit. :)
Nobody is telling you how to vote or implying that you deliberately stole an idea, Chris. It's normally the person that writes the original caption that comments on the duplicate/similar caption and that's why he/she stays anonymous. I can guarantee that if we don't draw attention to these captions then the 'smart' guys will sit back and have a field day copying and tweaking the best ones.
To Pete: Just to clarify, neither of these are my captions, I just cast the first vote for either and made a comment that I preferred the later one as justification. I fully agree that it should be custom to give nods to previous captions and that others should be encouraged to point out similarities if authors do not do so. The reasoning for this is sensible and if we didn't have it then we would have the situation you describe. My only objection is that the next comment was that it didn't matter which I preferred because it was someone else's idea which is saying that I shouldn't vote for duplicates full stop and/or that the author (whoever that might be) stole the idea. I know that it is usually the author of the original caption that responds with #anon, which is why I wanted to discuss it with someone who can be proved to be impartial. I was just wondering if anyone else would give an opinion on what circumstances it is considered OK to vote for duplicates. :)
Being I was the captioneer who submitted the caption I feel like I should make a few points. 1 The words 'face off' were used in a completely different context,i.e face of (sorry if i have to explain this to some people).Face off was used in another caption with no votes,no mention of this,hmmm. 2 When I submitted the caption it was not flagged up in the similar caption box,which I think makes it fair game. 3 Using the next photo as example,the words 'flame' and 'hot' are used in many captions.Just because someone else uses these words first does this mean know one else can ? 4 Finally the sixty second reference is a Nicolas Cage film ( sorry if I have to explain this to some people) The words 'SOUR' and 'GRAPES' spring to mind.
I am the author of the other caption and 'Gone in Sixty Seconds' was used in the same context, you can't deny that. If people started adding captions using someone else's idea used in the same context, we would end up with pages of similar captions to scroll through, plus loads of arguments. Site etiquette of avoiding duplicates has been working well on the site for years.
Thanks Steve for pointing out that I had used the 'Face Off' reference in my caption (the one with no votes) I have removed it now in deference to the original captioneer ;)
email us
See 12.10.15
6:19pm
This one is better. :)
6:30pm
Better or not, it was someone else's idea. Ever heard of site etiquette?
6:48pm
Site etiquette is an unwritten set of rules which is pretty difficult to follow because it's also up to interpretation. After someone has pointed out that there is a similar caption made earlier in the day and attention has been drawn to that fact, I feel that it's still fair enough to vote for the later if it is preferred. Also, I only have one vote. I would assume that other people are capable of reading the comments and making up their own minds as part of a democratic vote.
If nobody else agrees, then there won't be any more votes garnered.
7:16pm
Is it not also etiquette that before you enter a caption, you look at what has already been entered to avoid duplicate entries? If it so happens that your idea has been used in a slightly different way, then you at least give a nod to the earlier caption, even if this was not what inspired you in the first place.
7:30pm
True, but it is possible to miss that fact and once the initial caption has been referenced by another user that makes that point null and void. I reserve the right to vote for the captions I like best. Maybe others feel that way or maybe not, but unless anyone other than #anon is willing to comment I don't know. :)
8:08pm
I have to agree with anon, the later caption is very similar to the earlier one. I haven't voted for either as I am not sure where the sixty second reference comes from. I think a nod to the first one is in order as is the custom in the last three years or so that I have been enjoying the sight. It only takes a minute to read the other captions and avoid duplicates, or should I say, 'sixty seconds'.
10:46pm
I agree that is a good idea, and I have done it myself when the occasion arises, but I also think that once someone else has pointed out a similarity and there have not been any votes cast yet that the later quote should not automatically be blacklisted if people prefer it. Being told how to vote or implying that other users have deliberately stolen ideas under the guise of anonymous also isn't good etiquette, yes? I'd prefer to give the benefit of the doubt just now and I'm sure other users will exercise their own judgement how they see fit. :)
1:02am
Nobody is telling you how to vote or implying that you deliberately stole an idea, Chris. It's normally the person that writes the original caption that comments on the duplicate/similar caption and that's why he/she stays anonymous. I can guarantee that if we don't draw attention to these captions then the 'smart' guys will sit back and have a field day copying and tweaking the best ones.
9:03am
To Pete: Just to clarify, neither of these are my captions, I just cast the first vote for either and made a comment that I preferred the later one as justification. I fully agree that it should be custom to give nods to previous captions and that others should be encouraged to point out similarities if authors do not do so. The reasoning for this is sensible and if we didn't have it then we would have the situation you describe. My only objection is that the next comment was that it didn't matter which I preferred because it was someone else's idea which is saying that I shouldn't vote for duplicates full stop and/or that the author (whoever that might be) stole the idea. I know that it is usually the author of the original caption that responds with #anon, which is why I wanted to discuss it with someone who can be proved to be impartial. I was just wondering if anyone else would give an opinion on what circumstances it is considered OK to vote for duplicates. :)
10:52am
Being I was the captioneer who submitted the caption I feel like I should make a few points.
1 The words 'face off' were used in a completely different context,i.e face of (sorry if i have to explain this to some people).Face off was used in another caption with no votes,no mention of this,hmmm.
2 When I submitted the caption it was not flagged up in the similar caption box,which I think makes it fair game.
3 Using the next photo as example,the words 'flame' and 'hot' are used in many captions.Just because someone else uses these words first does this mean know one else can ?
4 Finally the sixty second reference is a Nicolas Cage film ( sorry if I have to explain this to some people)
The words 'SOUR' and 'GRAPES' spring to mind.
11:01am
I am the author of the other caption and 'Gone in Sixty Seconds' was used in the same context, you can't deny that. If people started adding captions using someone else's idea used in the same context, we would end up with pages of similar captions to scroll through, plus loads of arguments.
Site etiquette of avoiding duplicates has been working well on the site for years.
1:02pm
Thanks Steve for pointing out that I had used the 'Face Off' reference in my caption (the one with no votes) I have removed it now in deference to the original captioneer ;)
1:44pm