Unlisted Videos, a website for finding/sharing unlisted YouTube videos - The Bear and Badger

nick_md

We only have one rule - don't be a dick. Other than that post where and what you like.

Yossarian

Even that rule is more of a suggestion.

g.man

Nah, there's a dick-list. Three strokes and you're out...

b0r1s

g.man wrote:

Nah, there's a dick, three strokes and you're done...

Tee-hee

I must get a life.

IanHamlett

Yossarian wrote:

Even that rule is more of a suggestion.

Well I like the new guy. Let's hang him.

Skerret

I think he's scarpered. Well done lads, seen off another interloper...

Skerret

If it's white it's not racist.

adkm1979

bajeerho wrote:

The site has a set of guidelines on what can and can't be put there.

I read them. They're bullshit. It's a vain attempt to look ethical when it boils down to, "If you think you know better than the creator of the video."

TheDJR

Was that Mr. Biffo?

bajeerho

adkm1979 wrote:

bajeerho wrote:

The site has a set of guidelines on what can and can't be put there.

I read them. They're bullshit. It's a vain attempt to look ethical when it boils down to, "If you think you know better than the creator of the video."

The meaning of unlisted on YouTube: The video won't show in YouTube's search results. Posting an unlisted video URL to Unlisted Videos doesn't change that fact.

For the unlisted videos that do fall within the rules, how would/could an unlisted video creator be victimised by this?

You still haven't answered my questions:
Do your videos fall outside of the limitations stated in the forbidden section? If so, then how?
Do your videos fall within the types of videos described in the permitted section? If so, then how?

adkm1979

It doesn't change them being discoverable on YouTube, no, but it does make them discoverable in a manner beyond the originators knowledge or power.

It's not for me to say how an unlisted video creator could be victimised. I'm sure most of the time they wouldn't, but again that's not the point. The point is they have opted for their videos to not be discoverable, and this site runs roughshod over that for its own gain.

Finally, you won't get an answer to your final questions because a) my own personal videos are irrelevant, its the principle of the matter, and b) it's none of your fucking business, which is pretty much akin to my overall objection to the site.

Kow

Yay, Bajeero didn't get hung! Hello!

Kow

Hanged maybe, why is that?

GooberTheHat

Odd one isn't it. My pictures are hung, not hanged.

nick_md

Yeah they're interchangeable: he was hung, he was hanged. Strangely though I'd never say I was hanged, although I am hung.

monkey

They're not interchangeable. Hanged is the only the past tense of 'dead by hanging'. Hung is the past tense of every other use of hang.

monkey

Nick, an impressively hung man, may end up hanged for his grammatical blunder, with his body hung on the gates of the forum as a warning to others.

nick_md

I stand corrected!

Skerret

Hanged on a minute...

Kow

You should be bloody well hanged. Not funny any more, only true.

[Deleted User]

I'm well hanged.

Skerret

Kow wrote:

You should be bloody well hanged. Not funny any more, only true.

should have thought of that 227 years ago eh dimwit

Kow

I did, I was saving it.

Skerret

Now would be the time. I have a good candidate, get the ball rolling.

bajeerho

adkm1979 wrote:

It doesn't change them being discoverable on YouTube, no, but it does make them discoverable in a manner beyond the originators knowledge or power.

The video uploader would have to be pretty naïve not to know that whoever has the link to their video can see and share that video.

adkm1979 wrote:

It's not for me to say how an unlisted video creator could be victimised. I'm sure most of the time they wouldn't, but again that's not the point.

Actually, it is entirely the point. If the rules prevent victimhood, then why would you have a problem with it?

adkm1979 wrote:

The point is they have opted for their videos to not be discoverable, and this site runs roughshod over that for its own gain.

No; They have opted for their videos to not be discoverable via YouTube's search results or through the video listings on their channel. They haven't opted their videos to be private, and in the case of most celebrities, bands, companies etc with unlisted videos, they make their videos discoverable through other means e.g. Twitter, Facebook, their websites, hidden Easter eggs (e.g. QR codes, links etc) in their listed videos etc.

adkm1979 wrote:

Finally, you won't get an answer to your final questions because a) my own personal videos are irrelevant, its the principle of the matter, and b) it's none of your fucking business, which is pretty much akin to my overall objection to the site.

If your own personal videos are irrelevant, then why did you even mention them in an earlier post? By mentioning that you had unlisted videos but not providing any details, it meant that your earlier post was emotive rather than argumentative (and therefore not the least bit convincing). Without providing any examples, you failed to show that a video could fall within the submission rules but would be to the detriment of the video owner.

beano

bajeerho wrote:

adkm1979 wrote:

It doesn't change them being discoverable on YouTube, no, but it does make them discoverable in a manner beyond the originators knowledge or power.

The video uploader would have to be pretty naïve not to know that whoever has the link to their video can see and share that video.

Pretty sure youtubs reminds users, "Anyone with this link can access this video." or words to that effect.

adored

bajeerho wrote:

adkm1979 wrote:

It doesn't change them being discoverable on YouTube, no, but it does make them discoverable in a manner beyond the originators knowledge or power.

The video uploader would have to be pretty naïve not to know that whoever has the link to their video can see and share that video.

adkm1979 wrote:

It's not for me to say how an unlisted video creator could be victimised. I'm sure most of the time they wouldn't, but again that's not the point.

Actually, it is entirely the point. If the rules prevent victimhood, then why would you have a problem with it?

adkm1979 wrote:

The point is they have opted for their videos to not be discoverable, and this site runs roughshod over that for its own gain.

No; They have opted for their videos to not be discoverable via YouTube's search results or through the video listings on their channel. They haven't opted their videos to be private, and in the case of most celebrities, bands, companies etc with unlisted videos, they make their videos discoverable through other means e.g. Twitter, Facebook, their websites, hidden Easter eggs (e.g. QR codes, links etc) in their listed videos etc.

adkm1979 wrote:

Finally, you won't get an answer to your final questions because a) my own personal videos are irrelevant, its the principle of the matter, and b) it's none of your fucking business, which is pretty much akin to my overall objection to the site.

If your own personal videos are irrelevant, then why did you even mention them in an earlier post? By mentioning that you had unlisted videos but not providing any details, it meant that your earlier post was emotive rather than argumentative (and therefore not the least bit convincing). Without providing any examples, you failed to show that a video could fall within the submission rules but would be to the detriment of the video owner.

You'll be just fine here.

GooberTheHat

davyK

Anyhow. What about them video games eh?

Skerret

I'm only interested in unlisted video games.

Howdy, Stranger!

Categories