A sad day in Captionville. All the industrious caption scriveners had been toiling away well into the wee hours, striving to craft the perfect turn of phrase. Setting their clocks to rise and shine with their words sublime, to bring a smile far and wide.
Satisfied with the posting done, they all breathed a sigh of relief. No one else had matched their originality and creativity. It was a good feeling of a job well done.
Short lived, it was, as something disturbing began to emerge. What's this? A stolen, tired, hackneyed, well worn and worn out punchline, that's been all over the web and in newspapers and cartoons, for over ten years, was rising above all their hard fought and precious wrought work? How is this even possible?
A thick dark shroud of disappointment and despair settled over Captionville. As the creative geniuses, their bright lights dimmed, contemplated packing up and heading off to sunnier climes. The deepest wounds of all, were from the simple townsfolk who voted to encourage petty thievery over an honest day's labor.
Not everyone reads the forums. It's posted here because you'd be hard-pressed to find a more perfect example. People can scroll down and read all the witty ones which should have scored better (including yours, James). Also a quick web search of this specific joke shows the exact same usage for over 10 years. This way, people reading can see for themselves.
I'll never understand the rules of captioning... or should that be the rules of voting... Sometimes an old caption gets no votes and other times gets lots or can even be a monthly winner. The skill is to decide when a caption is appropriate for a photo. There would be few captions if every caption, phrase and idea had to be unique. The beauty of this site is people get to vote for what they like and abstain from voting for what they don't like. If a caption makes someone smile it has done its job.
Anon, now that Stephen has been revealed as the caption author, perhaps it would be appropriate to reveal yourself if you wish to have an open debate. In regards to recycling, I saw 'Get a Tomb' and thought, I've seen that many times before, so I didn't vote for it. Some captioneers use old captions on purpose as they think it suits the photo perfectly and it will get votes. Other captioneers will accidentally use old captions without realising. With the site operating for so many years and with so many similar photos, this is inevitable. I do take issue with the whole 'people should've voted for other captions instead' comment from anon though. Nobody on this site should have the audacity to 'tell' people how to vote. People can decide themselves what they like and if they decide they like 'Get a Tomb' instead of other captions, then suck it up and move on (or write a better caption to beat 'Get a tomb'). I had a situation a while ago where someone was giving me shit because I tried something different on a Mona Lisa photo, so if you go for the classics you get hammered and if you try something new you get hammered. Let's leave the voters to decide what they want. And on the subject of voting, there seems to be the misconception from some that us captioneers post captions and then a 'separate' group of voters turn up 3 times a day to tell us how great we are. 'Reality' However is that every voter on Caption.me also posts their own captions. It would be a fairer and more appreciative situation if some would vote a little more. Only my opinion.
Well, The Wolf has pretty much said everything I would have, but I'll throw some support to the Anons. It is frustrating when you're trying to be original and a recycled caption smashes you in the votes (especially when they get tagged "Clever", or worse, "Creative").
But Stephen is also right. If voters don't know, or don't care, that a caption isn't original, and it fits the photo and amuses them, then it deserves a vote from them. Not everyone will vote the way we personally want ... which is a shame as that would pretty much guarantee a 50 quid monthly income ;)
Ok, this will probably be the last thing I say about this.
Benny Hill, who wrote all his own shows, famously said, "There are no new jokes." However, as we've seen from the truly clever captions here, creative originality really has no bounds. There have been some high profile funny people since Hill who were totally original, there have also been joke thieves. Robin Williams was well known for this. The night before appearing on a talk show, he'd slip into the back of a comedy club and from the shadows watch the hungry up-and-comers. Steal a couple zingers, then repeat them on-air before millions. The kid who wrote them, could never say them again.
It's my belief that for most people, creativity and humour can be developed, much like exercising a muscle. Despite enthusiasm, dedication and effort, there will always be some who are quicker, sharper and funnier than the rest. Which brings me to identities. Just as some might not like to learn that fact about Robin Williams, I too was surprised to see that Stephen Bean was the poster. Why? Because when I'd read his long list of wonderfully funny winners, I was inspired and genuinely impressed, much like the public were with Robin.
The mark of a true creative soul, is risk taking, Robin tried a lot of crazy attempts or as the Americans say using baseball metaphors, "Swing for the fences!" & "A swing and a miss." Some hit big, others fell flat. He started to steal jokes because he got a bit lazy. Daily exercise, though essential, is a drag.
On this page, you'll see a couple more attempts at this photo by Stephen, which didn't score as high. We throw a lot at the wall and hope something sticks. This is especially apropos as a member's quota increases.
When I said, "a comment should have scored higher," it was never an attempt to tell people how to vote, it's me trying to express some level of tribute to original creativity. Of course we can't control the voters, but as posters, we have a kind of honor code. Robin broke it. In any line of work, in every culture, taking someone's invention and claiming the credit for it, is looked upon with disdain.
Surely we want to encourage originality here? Chris has tirelessly put in so much to build this site up, and it can continue to grow has a hotbed for creative development. If Chris isn't lazy, why should we be? It was never my intention to tell people how to vote or post, but merely to encourage the development of creativity and originality. Stephen obviously has this in spades. Any of you who are parents, would never encourage your child to be lazy. Why not? Because you care about them.
The way I stumbled upon this site, was from another caption site where someone had commented something like, "Why do you people waste your time here, when there's Caption.me?"
Already this site's humour is fairly regional and ideological, but that's ok, people go with what they know. Let me tell you why I brought this issue up in the first place.
If we continue to be lazy and post lazy attempts with our genuine ones, of course the voters will vote, but the true creatives will become frustrated. Just like that comedy kid who had his best jokes stolen and can never use them again. His light is snuffed out. Creatives will see the rewarding of hack stolen material and think "Why bother?"
Sure, you might build a popular site, but it'll be like 90% of the web, an echo chamber of group think, without the inspiration of true creatives, who have moved on elsewhere.
PS: You might notice, I'm currently the only voter for "GET A ROOM" under the homeless guy photo. It's a clever application of a well known statement. It may have been used in this way before, but not as much as the other. It'll also be interesting to see what the fallout is, having revealed my identity...
There will always be a place for the recycled caption, not only because there is an endless supply of new captioneers who are perhaps unaware a caption has been previously used, but because repetition is funny. Why else do we spend our money on comedy boxsets if we only want to watch them once? I've watched every episode of Friends at least fifty times and it still cracks me up even though I know half the lines by heart. If a caption is funny and appropriate to the photo I think it would be a shame not to use it. I like to use song lyrics and quotations in my own captions and enjoy seeing others do the same. Just because they're not my own words I don't necessarily see it as a sign of laziness. I'll often spend up to an hour trying to put together something original only for it to be totally unappreciated, whilst a pun I made which took just minutes to think of gets half a dozen votes. It makes me think 'Why bother? I could've spent that hour watching Peep Show.'
I felt exactly the same Karyn about my caption on this photo about the closet. I was most proud of this caption and yet it scored zero. That's why I always try to give a vote to a caption I like that is on zero. I use a lot of the supervotes you give me on captions such as these. It's nice to know at least one person appreciates what you have created. It's perhaps ironic that Mauris made a comment on my 'closet' caption but didn't like it enough to give it a vote. Some of the captions I am most proud of have scored zero which is why I would never want zero vote captions to be deleted as they used to be. In answer to your question Karyn, if your caption makes YOU smile then it was worth bothering and your own opinion of it is the most important.
Thanks Steve. I know we've all made worthy captions which have gone unappreciated. I think timing has a lot to do with it. In the first minute or so when so many captions are posted almost simultaneously I think some can go unnoticed. The same is true if they're posted the following day.
Since the forum has come here, let's continue. For perhaps the first time, I have to disagree with you Karyn, but on a totally subjective level, and I still rate you as one of the best voters on this site :)
My argument actually mirrors yours. Let's say the jokes you find funny on Friends had already been made on Cheers 10 years earlier. Would they still be funny on Friends? For me a joke is only original once, and it will be funny in that specific situation. Yes, I can revisit that specific place over and over again and find it funny each time (I could watch Fawlty Towers continuously), but if it's taken from that place and reused elsewhere, the humour is stripped (for me).
And (again, for me) the same applies to captions. I want to read original captions, not see the same captions reapplied to other similar photos. Because (yet again, for me) I don't see this as a skill, but merely an easy way to garner votes.
To be clear, I'm not attacking Stephen here, his original captions are among the best this site has seen, I just don't like, and won't vote for, recycled captions, unless they are being used in a new and original way.
And, as you've both pointed out, the more captions that are written, the harder and harder it is to be original, but logically it follows that it is becoming easier and easier to be repetitive. In my opinion this is all the more reason we should reward originality.
However, we have (thankfully) a regular influx of new members, and they cannot be expected to spend days reading through every caption which has already been posted! And there is no way that somebody can search to see whether an idea they have has already been used. Even captioneers who have been around for years may very well not have perfect memories for every caption they have ever seen; something pops into the head, and who knows where it came from? If a caption is funny in the context of the photo, whether or not it has been used before, I think we should be tolerant of the repetition. (Although I could certainly do with no more of the "outstanding in his field" ones...)
I was just about to write something and then I read Molly's post and it comes close to summing up my own thoughts on the subject (and no, she didn't pay me to say that). Stephen, anon, Mauris, Karyn, James and The Wolf have all made several good points as well. In the end, we all have no control over who votes for what, or how many times. We can withhold our vote for the ones we don't like or don't agree with, but others (sometimes many)may vote for it anyway. The bottom line is that we do this all for someone else and if they don't respond the way we'd like them to, it can be frustrating and even disheartening. All we can do is enjoy the victories that we have, and know deep within that our failures don't mean that we're not funny. That said, it's still worth it to try and level the playing field, that's why we have the forums (and yes, the comments) as well as Mr. Chris Beach's close attention. When all is said and done, what really counts is when we're able to make someone laugh or smile. And that's something I think all of us can feel good about.
This is a really insightful discussion with everyone making good points. I've added a link to it on a thread started by James on the same topic at https://www.caption.me/forum/discussion/2219/using-previous-captions#latest
I think to a certain extent captioneers have a weekly dilemna. They can either try and collect as many votes as possible or retain their integrity. By the latter, I mean only post captions they genuinely think are original and funny. I would say this limits me to no more than 20 a week. Have I ever been able to stick to this limit? No. Incidentally, The Wolf makes a very good point about the importance of voting. Not only is it unfair to post a large number of captions and give out only a few votes, it is also incredibly arrogant. i.e. I believe I've posted 40 captions which are worth voting for but the combined wit of the rest of the site is only worth half a dozen votes.
You've managed to sum up perfectly in a just few lines, what I was attempting to express with my clumsy verbosity. Of course there will always be new members, but the custodians of the captioning culture, those of you who have been awarded here for your genius wit, have the option to exercise restraint for edification of the site.
The clever use of an old caption in a new way, is funny because it's still original. Using it exactly the same way, isn't, exactly as James pointed out.
As for Stephen wondering why I didn't vote for his closet caption or the other one, as there were 3 he posted on this photo. Not sure if it's "ironic," but in my profile I describe how I vote. My votes on this photo as with all others, are along those lines, if it makes me laugh, or amazes me, I vote. Many of Stephen's captions on this site, as James also mentioned, are the best. Just not on this skeleton pic. Remember, I don't know who I'm voting for, we just go with what we like.
Not sure if you've been to many other sites with similar types of voting, likes, thumbs up, etc. No one has mentioned what I said about group-think being kryptonite for creatives, but when people put in their time & energy into building a site, recommending it to their lists, they're invested.
Karyn mentioned the first minute out of the gate, when a flurry of captions are posted. The other day, on that roofing tile pic, I was seconds behind someone mentioning Homes Under the Hammer, my caption also mentioned the UK show, & even though I'd planned this one in advance, had perfected it, & believe me, it was much funnier than the one that got posted, I had to use restraint, I pulled it. We were only 2 seconds apart. Yes, many go up which are similar, but if there's no honor code, then no one will know when they've crossed it.
When I posted this photo I didn't imagine it would provoke such heated debate. I spend a lot of my free time trying to find photos which are either funny or unusual or, preferably, both. It isn't easy. Some are not dissimilar to previously featured photos and are going to attract similar captions, but they do also inspire more original and creative ones. I can see both sides of this argument, and while I do believe that originality should be rewarded isn't this site more about just being able to have a laugh? It takes me a long while to tire of a good caption and if I see the same one repeated on a different photo and it still makes me laugh I'll vote for it even if it's not used in an original way. I wish there was a way of saving our favourite captions on here because they're difficult to locate, especially if you can't remember who made them. I don't see recycled captions going into Room 101 anytime soon and there would be fewer laughs if they did. Having said that though if someone won fifty quid using one of mine I'd be more than a little miffed. I don't know what the answer is. Would be interested to hear Chris's opinion.
Oh yes, just noticed at the bottom of the photo, your name. Never looked there before. Good call, it's certainly a funny photo.
In the States there's an expression you've probably heard as it's popular in music culture; "That's played out." Meaning, it's fully exhausted its value.
The reason "Get a tomb" was originally so funny is because it rides on the back of the previously funny & now fully exhausted "Get a room." When I say it's a worn out slogan, I mean in it's original sense of catcalling an amorous couple. Which wouldn't get the amused public response it would have years ago. However, as mentioned, someone resurrected "Get a room!" to great effect with the homeless guy photo. It's so obvious, that it's probably been done before, but not anywhere with the regularity that "Get a tomb" has with dead or dying people. As I suggested, a simple search will show this appearing in memes & cartoons in magazines & newspapers for over ten years.
One of the reasons I stopped watching American late night shows, is they run the exact same joke for several years! Every night in the monologue, year after year it was the same dull tired routine, & since they add fake recorded laughter, the whole process is an insidious form of stupefying viewers. For years it was Bill Clinton (horny), George Bush (stupid), Obama (smart & sexy), Trump (the devil).
If creativity & originality can be developed as a form of brain exercise, then surely beating a dead horse forever by repeating a slogan can have the opposite effect?
I would never ascribe ownership to any of my captions. There are a lot of similar creative minds on this site. I remember deciding not to post 'Luke, I am your farmer.' (how daft is that!) only to see James some time later posting it and receiving about 26 votes. I also decided not to post 'Bucket and spade' on a photo of a dog with a bucket only to see The Wolf get about 16 votes for it. Not long ago I was about to post the Dali Llama only to see stoneface beat me to it. About a year ago I decided to do a longer version of RIP tide on a photo thinking that this caption had been done very recently and everyone would be bored with it, only to see Welsh Rarebit do the short version and get about 18 votes. I think often good ideas have or are being considered by many captioneers. I've lost count of the number of times someone beat me to an idea while I was trying to improve on a caption. When it comes to longer captions however I think it is ok for different versions to co-exist as long as subsequent authors haven't seen the original and are willing to edit if the first author isn't happy. I don't think Mauris needed to delete her long version of 'Homes Under the Hammer' even if it had been identical as 2 seconds is too small a gap for it to have been copied anyway and I think the site has moved to being more forgiving and favouring allowing creativity. I remember asking Crunchy Chords to put her Mary Poppins caption back on after Crunchy realised someone else had posted a Mary Poppins caption. I too had been working on a Mary Poppins caption (not as good as Crunchies which ending up winning). I always think it is sad when a good caption never gets to see the light of day. This is one of reasons I favour the blind submission idea.
Great debate guys, and good points made for both sides. The forum post you mentioned Steve was a circumstance where I tried a twist on a caption already posted on the same photo, so it was a different topic, although the title of the post makes it sound the same. There were definitely some relevant points made in that discussion though, as the caption I'd played on was itself recycled. That had been by Cath / Welsh Rarebit, a master at reusing appropriate captions (and the Queen of Puns).
And in saying that I must retract an earlier statement I made. There is a skill in remembering old captions and applying them to new photos. It's just not a skill (unless there is some new angle involved) that I personally think should be rewarded. But others obviously do, and that's fair enough. Everyone should vote for what they find funny, clever, or creative, especially those (as The Wolf and Dave Bryan have already suggested) who are happy to post their own captions, but reluctant to vote for others.
Ok, my last addition and then I'm done. Not sure about you lot but I'm ready to put this to bed. I'm a firm believer in change what you can, and don't bother trying to change what you can't. I get all parts of the debate to be honest. Roughly 2 years ago I posted a caption (mount averest). It was a picture of lots of people chilling out next to a hill (not mountain). It scored 1 vote and I moved on. A couple of months later a captioneer posted (mount averest) on a picture of a man in a sleeping bag on a mountain. Great caption and much more relevant. I was furious and posted an 'anonymous' comment about stealing captions. I remember Stoneface (who I admire hugely as a captioneer) coming to the defence of the captioneer in question, but I was having none of it, as I was drunk and adamant. The next day I woke up and felt like an absolute bellend for being so petty and I vowed not to ever do it again. Instead I attempted to become a better captioneer and contribute to the site as a captioneer and voter. The captioneer in question was Welsh Rarebit who DID recycle captions sometimes but is also the greatest legend on Caption.me for original captions. (haven't heard from her for a while, hope she's ok). Reading through the captions on this current photo has shone light on the matter. Mauris posted a caption about the skeleton in reference to Victoria Beckham. I've posted captions about skeletons being Victoria Beckham a few times in the past (and probably people did before me). So where do we draw the line at copyright? Words? Phrases? General ideas? We can't. Therefore we can't change it, so don't bother getting annoyed about it. (Fair play to Mauris for removing anon and joining open debate.) Also as Molly pointed out, if a new captioneer joined the site tomorrow, saw a similar photo and posted Get a Tomb thinking they were a creative genius, who are we to deny them that. We all want everyone to love our captions and get disappointed when they don't. I posted a caption about a month ago on a picture of an elephant in a hotel swimming pool. The caption was hotel review of 'The no elephant in the swimming pool hotel'. It's the only caption of mine where I actually laughed out loud when writing it and it's my favourite caption I've posted. James gave it a LOL but otherwise it was lost. Win some, lose some, but ultimately, the voters decide. I see Caption.me having 2 main purposes, create captions and vote for captions. We have the added bonus of banter between like minded people. This is provided to us free of charge by Chris and I know we all appreciate it. It shouldn't be a place were we give each other shit, argue about politics and which President we like the most. Regardless of where we are in the world, there's enough drama in the real world. Let's leave Caption.me as a place of silliness, creativity and humour. I've got to go now as it's Valentine's day and my wife's waiting for me...Who am I kidding, she's snoring her head off next to an empty Ann Summers box and I'm on the sofa again for spending too much time on Caption.me.
Interesting phenomenon observed here, human nature or conformation bias, not sure. Whatever well reasoned position a person posts, people respond by ignoring the points & reshaping it to fit their narrative.
You might notice, I never once mentioned people repeating or reusing captions that had been posted on this site. Instead, my entire position was that the masters of this craft, the people here who continually win, should be encouraged to keep that skill sharp rather than stooping to pinch slogans from the dead pool of the world's stale media. It was never meant for beginners, but for the expert level writers who continually wow us with their wondrous wit. If the pros keep their bar high, the rest will follow. The tide raises all ships, big & small.
Yes, everyone knows Victoria Beckham is unhealthily thin, & she's the brunt of many jokes. Merely tagging her name isn't the same as a dead slogan (no pun intended) repeated verbatim in all media for 10 years. On this photo I also posted "A strolling Kate Moss gathers naught stone," as well as "Boney Hem."
One of you maestros are welcome to have the last word, but please don't misquote me or twist my position into something I didn't say, or this will go on ad-infinitum. (Which would only mean, no time for captions)
email us
Recycling captions. Green power!
8:32pm
A sad day in Captionville. All the industrious caption scriveners had been toiling away well into the wee hours, striving to craft the perfect turn of phrase. Setting their clocks to rise and shine with their words sublime, to bring a smile far and wide.
Satisfied with the posting done, they all breathed a sigh of relief. No one else had matched their originality and creativity. It was a good feeling of a job well done.
Short lived, it was, as something disturbing began to emerge. What's this? A stolen, tired, hackneyed, well worn and worn out punchline, that's been all over the web and in newspapers and cartoons, for over ten years, was rising above all their hard fought and precious wrought work? How is this even possible?
A thick dark shroud of disappointment and despair settled over Captionville. As the creative geniuses, their bright lights dimmed, contemplated packing up and heading off to sunnier climes. The deepest wounds of all, were from the simple townsfolk who voted to encourage petty thievery over an honest day's labor.
3:00pm
While I agree with Anon and Anon's sentiment, this would probably be a topic better discussed in the forum rather than picking on any one case.
5:03pm
Not everyone reads the forums. It's posted here because you'd be hard-pressed to find a more perfect example. People can scroll down and read all the witty ones which should have scored better (including yours, James). Also a quick web search of this specific joke shows the exact same usage for over 10 years. This way, people reading can see for themselves.
12:29pm
I'll never understand the rules of captioning... or should that be the rules of voting... Sometimes an old caption gets no votes and other times gets lots or can even be a monthly winner. The skill is to decide when a caption is appropriate for a photo. There would be few captions if every caption, phrase and idea had to be unique. The beauty of this site is people get to vote for what they like and abstain from voting for what they don't like. If a caption makes someone smile it has done its job.
2:18pm
Anon, now that Stephen has been revealed as the caption author, perhaps it would be appropriate to reveal yourself if you wish to have an open debate. In regards to recycling, I saw 'Get a Tomb' and thought, I've seen that many times before, so I didn't vote for it. Some captioneers use old captions on purpose as they think it suits the photo perfectly and it will get votes. Other captioneers will accidentally use old captions without realising. With the site operating for so many years and with so many similar photos, this is inevitable. I do take issue with the whole 'people should've voted for other captions instead' comment from anon though. Nobody on this site should have the audacity to 'tell' people how to vote. People can decide themselves what they like and if they decide they like 'Get a Tomb' instead of other captions, then suck it up and move on (or write a better caption to beat 'Get a tomb'). I had a situation a while ago where someone was giving me shit because I tried something different on a Mona Lisa photo, so if you go for the classics you get hammered and if you try something new you get hammered. Let's leave the voters to decide what they want. And on the subject of voting, there seems to be the misconception from some that us captioneers post captions and then a 'separate' group of voters turn up 3 times a day to tell us how great we are. 'Reality' However is that every voter on Caption.me also posts their own captions. It would be a fairer and more appreciative situation if some would vote a little more. Only my opinion.
8:45pm
Well, The Wolf has pretty much said everything I would have, but I'll throw some support to the Anons. It is frustrating when you're trying to be original and a recycled caption smashes you in the votes (especially when they get tagged "Clever", or worse, "Creative").
But Stephen is also right. If voters don't know, or don't care, that a caption isn't original, and it fits the photo and amuses them, then it deserves a vote from them. Not everyone will vote the way we personally want ... which is a shame as that would pretty much guarantee a 50 quid monthly income ;)
10:28pm
Ok, this will probably be the last thing I say about this.
Benny Hill, who wrote all his own shows, famously said, "There are no new jokes." However, as we've seen from the truly clever captions here, creative originality really has no bounds. There have been some high profile funny people since Hill who were totally original, there have also been joke thieves. Robin Williams was well known for this. The night before appearing on a talk show, he'd slip into the back of a comedy club and from the shadows watch the hungry up-and-comers. Steal a couple zingers, then repeat them on-air before millions. The kid who wrote them, could never say them again.
It's my belief that for most people, creativity and humour can be developed, much like exercising a muscle. Despite enthusiasm, dedication and effort, there will always be some who are quicker, sharper and funnier than the rest. Which brings me to identities. Just as some might not like to learn that fact about Robin Williams, I too was surprised to see that Stephen Bean was the poster. Why? Because when I'd read his long list of wonderfully funny winners, I was inspired and genuinely impressed, much like the public were with Robin.
The mark of a true creative soul, is risk taking, Robin tried a lot of crazy attempts or as the Americans say using baseball metaphors, "Swing for the fences!" & "A swing and a miss." Some hit big, others fell flat. He started to steal jokes because he got a bit lazy. Daily exercise, though essential, is a drag.
On this page, you'll see a couple more attempts at this photo by Stephen, which didn't score as high. We throw a lot at the wall and hope something sticks. This is especially apropos as a member's quota increases.
When I said, "a comment should have scored higher," it was never an attempt to tell people how to vote, it's me trying to express some level of tribute to original creativity. Of course we can't control the voters, but as posters, we have a kind of honor code. Robin broke it. In any line of work, in every culture, taking someone's invention and claiming the credit for it, is looked upon with disdain.
Surely we want to encourage originality here? Chris has tirelessly put in so much to build this site up, and it can continue to grow has a hotbed for creative development. If Chris isn't lazy, why should we be? It was never my intention to tell people how to vote or post, but merely to encourage the development of creativity and originality. Stephen obviously has this in spades. Any of you who are parents, would never encourage your child to be lazy. Why not? Because you care about them.
The way I stumbled upon this site, was from another caption site where someone had commented something like, "Why do you people waste your time here, when there's Caption.me?"
Already this site's humour is fairly regional and ideological, but that's ok, people go with what they know. Let me tell you why I brought this issue up in the first place.
If we continue to be lazy and post lazy attempts with our genuine ones, of course the voters will vote, but the true creatives will become frustrated. Just like that comedy kid who had his best jokes stolen and can never use them again. His light is snuffed out. Creatives will see the rewarding of hack stolen material and think "Why bother?"
Sure, you might build a popular site, but it'll be like 90% of the web, an echo chamber of group think, without the inspiration of true creatives, who have moved on elsewhere.
PS: You might notice, I'm currently the only voter for "GET A ROOM" under the homeless guy photo. It's a clever application of a well known statement. It may have been used in this way before, but not as much as the other. It'll also be interesting to see what the fallout is, having revealed my identity...
12:16am
There will always be a place for the recycled caption, not only because there is an endless supply of new captioneers who are perhaps unaware a caption has been previously used, but because repetition is funny. Why else do we spend our money on comedy boxsets if we only want to watch them once? I've watched every episode of Friends at least fifty times and it still cracks me up even though I know half the lines by heart. If a caption is funny and appropriate to the photo I think it would be a shame not to use it. I like to use song lyrics and quotations in my own captions and enjoy seeing others do the same. Just because they're not my own words I don't necessarily see it as a sign of laziness. I'll often spend up to an hour trying to put together something original only for it to be totally unappreciated, whilst a pun I made which took just minutes to think of gets half a dozen votes. It makes me think 'Why bother? I could've spent that hour watching Peep Show.'
11:15pm
I felt exactly the same Karyn about my caption on this photo about the closet. I was most proud of this caption and yet it scored zero. That's why I always try to give a vote to a caption I like that is on zero. I use a lot of the supervotes you give me on captions such as these. It's nice to know at least one person appreciates what you have created. It's perhaps ironic that Mauris made a comment on my 'closet' caption but didn't like it enough to give it a vote. Some of the captions I am most proud of have scored zero which is why I would never want zero vote captions to be deleted as they used to be. In answer to your question Karyn, if your caption makes YOU smile then it was worth bothering and your own opinion of it is the most important.
11:38pm
Thanks Steve.
I know we've all made worthy captions which have gone unappreciated. I think timing has a lot to do with it. In the first minute or so when so many captions are posted almost simultaneously I think some can go unnoticed. The same is true if they're posted the following day.
2:05am
Since the forum has come here, let's continue. For perhaps the first time, I have to disagree with you Karyn, but on a totally subjective level, and I still rate you as one of the best voters on this site :)
My argument actually mirrors yours. Let's say the jokes you find funny on Friends had already been made on Cheers 10 years earlier. Would they still be funny on Friends? For me a joke is only original once, and it will be funny in that specific situation. Yes, I can revisit that specific place over and over again and find it funny each time (I could watch Fawlty Towers continuously), but if it's taken from that place and reused elsewhere, the humour is stripped (for me).
And (again, for me) the same applies to captions. I want to read original captions, not see the same captions reapplied to other similar photos. Because (yet again, for me) I don't see this as a skill, but merely an easy way to garner votes.
To be clear, I'm not attacking Stephen here, his original captions are among the best this site has seen, I just don't like, and won't vote for, recycled captions, unless they are being used in a new and original way.
And, as you've both pointed out, the more captions that are written, the harder and harder it is to be original, but logically it follows that it is becoming easier and easier to be repetitive. In my opinion this is all the more reason we should reward originality.
5:45am
However, we have (thankfully) a regular influx of new members, and they cannot be expected to spend days reading through every caption which has already been posted! And there is no way that somebody can search to see whether an idea they have has already been used. Even captioneers who have been around for years may very well not have perfect memories for every caption they have ever seen; something pops into the head, and who knows where it came from? If a caption is funny in the context of the photo, whether or not it has been used before, I think we should be tolerant of the repetition. (Although I could certainly do with no more of the "outstanding in his field" ones...)
7:28am
I was just about to write something and then I read Molly's post and it comes close to summing up my own thoughts on the subject (and no, she didn't pay me to say that). Stephen, anon, Mauris, Karyn, James and The Wolf have all made several good points as well. In the end, we all have no control over who votes for what, or how many times. We can withhold our vote for the ones we don't like or don't agree with, but others (sometimes many)may vote for it anyway.
The bottom line is that we do this all for someone else and if they don't respond the way we'd like them to, it can be frustrating and even disheartening. All we can do is enjoy the victories that we have, and know deep within that our failures don't mean that we're not funny. That said, it's still worth it to try and level the playing field, that's why we have the forums (and yes, the comments) as well as Mr. Chris Beach's close attention.
When all is said and done, what really counts is when we're able to make someone laugh or smile. And that's something I think all of us can feel good about.
9:10am
This is a really insightful discussion with everyone making good points. I've added a link to it on a thread started by James on the same topic at https://www.caption.me/forum/discussion/2219/using-previous-captions#latest
10:32am
I think to a certain extent captioneers have a weekly dilemna. They can either try and collect as many votes as possible or retain their integrity. By the latter, I mean only post captions they genuinely think are original and funny. I would say this limits me to no more than 20 a week. Have I ever been able to stick to this limit? No.
Incidentally, The Wolf makes a very good point about the importance of voting. Not only is it unfair to post a large number of captions and give out only a few votes, it is also incredibly arrogant. i.e. I believe I've posted 40 captions which are worth voting for but the combined wit of the rest of the site is only worth half a dozen votes.
12:47pm
RE: James Lennox : today 5:45am
You've managed to sum up perfectly in a just few lines, what I was attempting to express with my clumsy verbosity. Of course there will always be new members, but the custodians of the captioning culture, those of you who have been awarded here for your genius wit, have the option to exercise restraint for edification of the site.
The clever use of an old caption in a new way, is funny because it's still original. Using it exactly the same way, isn't, exactly as James pointed out.
As for Stephen wondering why I didn't vote for his closet caption or the other one, as there were 3 he posted on this photo. Not sure if it's "ironic," but in my profile I describe how I vote. My votes on this photo as with all others, are along those lines, if it makes me laugh, or amazes me, I vote. Many of Stephen's captions on this site, as James also mentioned, are the best. Just not on this skeleton pic. Remember, I don't know who I'm voting for, we just go with what we like.
Not sure if you've been to many other sites with similar types of voting, likes, thumbs up, etc. No one has mentioned what I said about group-think being kryptonite for creatives, but when people put in their time & energy into building a site, recommending it to their lists, they're invested.
Karyn mentioned the first minute out of the gate, when a flurry of captions are posted. The other day, on that roofing tile pic, I was seconds behind someone mentioning Homes Under the Hammer, my caption also mentioned the UK show, & even though I'd planned this one in advance, had perfected it, & believe me, it was much funnier than the one that got posted, I had to use restraint, I pulled it. We were only 2 seconds apart. Yes, many go up which are similar, but if there's no honor code, then no one will know when they've crossed it.
12:47pm
When I posted this photo I didn't imagine it would provoke such heated debate. I spend a lot of my free time trying to find photos which are either funny or unusual or, preferably, both. It isn't easy. Some are not dissimilar to previously featured photos and are going to attract similar captions, but they do also inspire more original and creative ones. I can see both sides of this argument, and while I do believe that originality should be rewarded isn't this site more about just being able to have a laugh? It takes me a long while to tire of a good caption and if I see the same one repeated on a different photo and it still makes me laugh I'll vote for it even if it's not used in an original way. I wish there was a way of saving our favourite captions on here because they're difficult to locate, especially if you can't remember who made them. I don't see recycled captions going into Room 101 anytime soon and there would be fewer laughs if they did. Having said that though if someone won fifty quid using one of mine I'd be more than a little miffed. I don't know what the answer is. Would be interested to hear Chris's opinion.
3:27pm
Oh yes, just noticed at the bottom of the photo, your name. Never looked there before. Good call, it's certainly a funny photo.
In the States there's an expression you've probably heard as it's popular in music culture; "That's played out." Meaning, it's fully exhausted its value.
The reason "Get a tomb" was originally so funny is because it rides on the back of the previously funny & now fully exhausted "Get a room." When I say it's a worn out slogan, I mean in it's original sense of catcalling an amorous couple. Which wouldn't get the amused public response it would have years ago. However, as mentioned, someone resurrected "Get a room!" to great effect with the homeless guy photo. It's so obvious, that it's probably been done before, but not anywhere with the regularity that "Get a tomb" has with dead or dying people. As I suggested, a simple search will show this appearing in memes & cartoons in magazines & newspapers for over ten years.
One of the reasons I stopped watching American late night shows, is they run the exact same joke for several years! Every night in the monologue, year after year it was the same dull tired routine, & since they add fake recorded laughter, the whole process is an insidious form of stupefying viewers. For years it was Bill Clinton (horny), George Bush (stupid), Obama (smart & sexy), Trump (the devil).
If creativity & originality can be developed as a form of brain exercise, then surely beating a dead horse forever by repeating a slogan can have the opposite effect?
Orwell & Huxley thought so ...
4:03pm
I would never ascribe ownership to any of my captions. There are a lot of similar creative minds on this site. I remember deciding not to post 'Luke, I am your farmer.' (how daft is that!) only to see James some time later posting it and receiving about 26 votes. I also decided not to post 'Bucket and spade' on a photo of a dog with a bucket only to see The Wolf get about 16 votes for it. Not long ago I was about to post the Dali Llama only to see stoneface beat me to it. About a year ago I decided to do a longer version of RIP tide on a photo thinking that this caption had been done very recently and everyone would be bored with it, only to see Welsh Rarebit do the short version and get about 18 votes. I think often good ideas have or are being considered by many captioneers. I've lost count of the number of times someone beat me to an idea while I was trying to improve on a caption. When it comes to longer captions however I think it is ok for different versions to co-exist as long as subsequent authors haven't seen the original and are willing to edit if the first author isn't happy. I don't think Mauris needed to delete her long version of 'Homes Under the Hammer' even if it had been identical as 2 seconds is too small a gap for it to have been copied anyway and I think the site has moved to being more forgiving and favouring allowing creativity. I remember asking Crunchy Chords to put her Mary Poppins caption back on after Crunchy realised someone else had posted a Mary Poppins caption. I too had been working on a Mary Poppins caption (not as good as Crunchies which ending up winning). I always think it is sad when a good caption never gets to see the light of day. This is one of reasons I favour the blind submission idea.
4:50pm
Great debate guys, and good points made for both sides. The forum post you mentioned Steve was a circumstance where I tried a twist on a caption already posted on the same photo, so it was a different topic, although the title of the post makes it sound the same. There were definitely some relevant points made in that discussion though, as the caption I'd played on was itself recycled. That had been by Cath / Welsh Rarebit, a master at reusing appropriate captions (and the Queen of Puns).
And in saying that I must retract an earlier statement I made. There is a skill in remembering old captions and applying them to new photos. It's just not a skill (unless there is some new angle involved) that I personally think should be rewarded. But others obviously do, and that's fair enough. Everyone should vote for what they find funny, clever, or creative, especially those (as The Wolf and Dave Bryan have already suggested) who are happy to post their own captions, but reluctant to vote for others.
9:46pm
Ok, my last addition and then I'm done. Not sure about you lot but I'm ready to put this to bed. I'm a firm believer in change what you can, and don't bother trying to change what you can't. I get all parts of the debate to be honest. Roughly 2 years ago I posted a caption (mount averest). It was a picture of lots of people chilling out next to a hill (not mountain). It scored 1 vote and I moved on. A couple of months later a captioneer posted (mount averest) on a picture of a man in a sleeping bag on a mountain. Great caption and much more relevant. I was furious and posted an 'anonymous' comment about stealing captions. I remember Stoneface (who I admire hugely as a captioneer) coming to the defence of the captioneer in question, but I was having none of it, as I was drunk and adamant. The next day I woke up and felt like an absolute bellend for being so petty and I vowed not to ever do it again. Instead I attempted to become a better captioneer and contribute to the site as a captioneer and voter. The captioneer in question was Welsh Rarebit who DID recycle captions sometimes but is also the greatest legend on Caption.me for original captions. (haven't heard from her for a while, hope she's ok). Reading through the captions on this current photo has shone light on the matter. Mauris posted a caption about the skeleton in reference to Victoria Beckham. I've posted captions about skeletons being Victoria Beckham a few times in the past (and probably people did before me). So where do we draw the line at copyright? Words? Phrases? General ideas? We can't. Therefore we can't change it, so don't bother getting annoyed about it. (Fair play to Mauris for removing anon and joining open debate.) Also as Molly pointed out, if a new captioneer joined the site tomorrow, saw a similar photo and posted Get a Tomb thinking they were a creative genius, who are we to deny them that. We all want everyone to love our captions and get disappointed when they don't. I posted a caption about a month ago on a picture of an elephant in a hotel swimming pool. The caption was hotel review of 'The no elephant in the swimming pool hotel'. It's the only caption of mine where I actually laughed out loud when writing it and it's my favourite caption I've posted. James gave it a LOL but otherwise it was lost. Win some, lose some, but ultimately, the voters decide. I see Caption.me having 2 main purposes, create captions and vote for captions. We have the added bonus of banter between like minded people. This is provided to us free of charge by Chris and I know we all appreciate it. It shouldn't be a place were we give each other shit, argue about politics and which President we like the most. Regardless of where we are in the world, there's enough drama in the real world. Let's leave Caption.me as a place of silliness, creativity and humour. I've got to go now as it's Valentine's day and my wife's waiting for me...Who am I kidding, she's snoring her head off next to an empty Ann Summers box and I'm on the sofa again for spending too much time on Caption.me.
11:01pm
Interesting phenomenon observed here, human nature or conformation bias, not sure. Whatever well reasoned position a person posts, people respond by ignoring the points & reshaping it to fit their narrative.
You might notice, I never once mentioned people repeating or reusing captions that had been posted on this site. Instead, my entire position was that the masters of this craft, the people here who continually win, should be encouraged to keep that skill sharp rather than stooping to pinch slogans from the dead pool of the world's stale media. It was never meant for beginners, but for the expert level writers who continually wow us with their wondrous wit. If the pros keep their bar high, the rest will follow. The tide raises all ships, big & small.
Yes, everyone knows Victoria Beckham is unhealthily thin, & she's the brunt of many jokes. Merely tagging her name isn't the same as a dead slogan (no pun intended) repeated verbatim in all media for 10 years. On this photo I also posted "A strolling Kate Moss gathers naught stone," as well as "Boney Hem."
One of you maestros are welcome to have the last word, but please don't misquote me or twist my position into something I didn't say, or this will go on ad-infinitum. (Which would only mean, no time for captions)
11:25pm
Get a GLOOM!
(particularly amusing for all our Asian friends)
7:09pm