I'd slap some * Quality on your happy-cat-ass for saying this, but unfortunately, I'm out of power points. I hope someone slaps you for this. What a fanfuckingtastic idea this is. It would be a whole lot easier to remove a single channel with one invocation, than to have to use 6 different invocations to do the same. Even better would be to allow for the editing of channels the same way we currently edit tags.

Yes, it would be easier.

I would like to submit the idea, that we should be able to clearly see what the invocation for a channel is as well. For instance on http://www.videosift.com/channels it could be like this:

"The Serenity of Nature video collection (*nature)"
"The Clouds and Beyond (*spacy)"

and so on.

The reverse *nomusic sounds like a good idea.

Moving post to Nature, Spacy Talk - requested by gwiz665.

^LOL *unnature *unspacy

(or for the time being *nochannel)

Honestly, I've never been bothered by the few extra words to type, but this is a really good suggestion. This has come up lots of times before, but it would never fly because all the other suggestions were something like "*remove <channel_name>". Without a major retooling, the invocation system can't take parameters, but this sidesteps that whole issue. It's simple and elegant. Editing channels like tags would be nice too, but probably requires a lot more work to code up.

I'd give you *quality, but I got no powa.

It'd be nice but isn't a problem often enough to get Lucky to do more coding work. Remember, he's doing all this work for virtually nothing so he only codes things that're especially crucial.

This really shouldn't require much if any coding. It's basically just a matter of adding the appropriate invocations to the list and linking them to the remove_from_channel function that must already exist.

Aside - that channel close tag in my comment above is weird. I didn't write it. Does the comment system now automatically insert a closing tag if one isn't found to match a previous tag? That's pretty cool.

If it is too much coding, then never mind. I just thought it would be easier than this. Also, the current system is so strange, it boggles my mind to think of why they established that in the first place.

>> ^randomize:
If it is too much coding, then never mind.

yeah, I was basically making an educated guess on how much coding it would take. If it is more than an hour's worth of work, it's probably not worth it.

I just thought it would be easier than this. Also, the current system is so strange, it boggles my mind to think of why they established that in the first place.

It probably has to do with the fact that most channels started out as collectives in the old system. Vids could only be in one collective, and I think once a vid was added to a collective, it couldn't be removed except by the collective owner, not by invocation.

What about a *unchannel command, where you could just do *unchannel (spacy, nature), rather than create a separate * command for each channel.

I got me some now. *SLAP*

Awarding randomize with one star point for this contribution to Sift Talk - declared quality by arsenault185.