Talk:File synchronization

Program List Discussion

It seems like there is a lot of back and forth with software link listing going on. One edit there are lots of programs listed, another and the list is shorter. Typically the shorter lists remove all of the commercial programs but leave the open source programs. I think this introduces some bias to the article. Either commercial programs should be included on the lists, or the open source software should be removed as well. Personally I favor having example programs listed and think what is missing is more information about them as seen in the Office suite and Comparison of office suites articles. 216.31.247.114 20:16, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I think an article about file synchronization without links to software (commercial/open source/free) is not very useful.

See Wikipedia:External_links#What_to_link. Point 4 is relevant "Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article". So any relevant notable program web site should be linked.

Having mostly Open Source or other programs isn't 'bias', if the most notable programs are Open Source. Most spam will come from commercial sites, which might be why people are more keen to remove these links. Plastic rat

@Plastic rat: How would you define "notable" file synchronization programs? Do you have any usage/download stats that show that the open source programs listed are more popular or in higher regard than commercial software titles? Personally I work for Siber Systems makers of GoodSync and think that its exclusion from this list is an oversight. The same can be said of other prominent commercial titles. RF Simon —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 16:12, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

@Plastic rat: To start with, Plastic rat's definition of "notable" file sync programs is not relevant to the mass: what's notable to you is not necessarily notable to other people, you don't have any objective proof supporting your claim that these open-source programs are more "notable", and your definition of "notable" isn't even clear. System administrators and computer geeks are only a fraction of the people that use file synchronization software. The mass don't use command line or ugly looking programs, thus the need for nice looking GUI's that simply do the work, like Microsoft's SyncToy. Discrimination of software because of their source availability is a problem You have: people here are looking for a file sync program that works, whether if it's Open-Source or Closed-Source. Wrap around your head that this article is about File Synchronization software, and Not "Plastic rat's vision of notable file synchronization software". Stop trimming information because of your vision of "notable" programs, closed-source applications belong to this list as much as Open-Source software do. Cheers. Wadih7 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wadih7 (talk • contribs) 18:52, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Not Ideal For Backup?

Please elaborate on the following line It can also be used for backup purposes, although it is not ideal for this. Why is it not ideal? What is a better solution?

For example, I am looking for a sync app to keep synchronized copies of digital photos on a USB Flash drive, an SD card, and the hard-disk (and maybe a DVD+RW) so that I have them on dissimilar media. I believe a sync tool would be better for this than a full backup tool. Synetech (talk) 17:43, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Backup procedures (full plus incremental or differential runs) allow for restoring of multiple versions of a file that have been created over days to years. Synchronizing gives you only one version and also means that if the source file is deleted, at the next sync the copy gets deleted also. ^rossnixon 09:59, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Best Software

Anybody know which software is the best (typically)?

see my review at http://www.tomkelsey.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/projects/synchronizer_review.html Plastic rat 10:48, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

btw feel free to copy anything from the above page, it has a list of typical features of syncing programs Plastic rat 10:53, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

a little late but that is a great review even two years after, thank you 128.122.24.15 (talk) 21:00, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Commercial Software Reviews

I have reviewed a commercial piece of software on my website. I tried to link directly myself on article page, but Feezo believes it's a conflict of interest unless others support that content. That seems reasonable to me, so I'd like to inquire if this article seems worth citing as an external reference:

| File Sync Review article

I have not made and do not intend to make any money on this article. I do not advertise or otherwise profit from my website. It is a purely informational destination. Thanks for any comments on this. Stevemidgley (talk) 23:58, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Unuseful review. Features are the one expected from a synchronization tool. No comparison to other softwares. Looks like your first synchronization tool ever. Still sounding like a commercial ad. Lacrymocéphale 09:11, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Windows Offline Folders

Shouldn't this be included in the software list? 69.95.237.77 15:09, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

How about Windows' concept of the "briefcase"? Naptastic 02:54, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

User Comments

Downloaded and used FreeFileSync 1.13 updated Jan 6, 2009. First impressions are very good. Easy to install and intuitive to use and quick. 75.146.181.125 (talk) 19:02, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

--Hm2k (talk) 16:52, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Merge proposal

Data synchronization gives a more mathematical description of issues quite similar to the ones discussed here. Classical geographer (talk) 07:49, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I would say merge to Data synchronization, simply because of the more general name: it can encompass file synchronisation, but not so suitable the other way round. Wikiphile1603 (talk) 22:26, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree ... file synchronization is a specific case of data synchronization (for ordered data). If there is a merge, the file synchronization topic should be merged into the ordered synchronization of the data synchronization topic. User:Trachten 23:28, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I think there will need to be some restructuring: data sync is currently theoretically-oriented, and file sync is practical, primarily software-based. Right now I would suggest beginning with preliminary work restructuring file sync: maybe bringing 'related tools' under 'programs' and doing a section merge from 'features' to data sync. That will make file sync mainly about software. Then with some preparation in data sync, the intros could be merged across, then bringing over the software content under a suitable heading (like 'programs for file sync'), also discussing or referencing it in 'ordered data' within 'theoretical models'. That should be more organised, and not breaking the theoretical/practical coherence. Wikiphile1603 (talk) 23:27, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Having began the pre-merger cleanup, I think I have changed my opinion on the full merger. Now I think that it would be more appropriate to use data sync as a central point, practical and theoretical, for introducing and referencing more specific types of syncronisation, combined with generalised discussion. See the Relation with other data synchronization tools section. I think that the section merge is more appropriate, with perhaps some other selective merging from other parts if suitable. Wikiphile1603 (talk) 13:14, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I have done the section merger, and related cleanup. The only other section that I think may be appropriate is that some of 'Common features' could be copied accross for reference in both articles (if considered worthwhile). Wikiphile1603 (talk) 11:29, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

This merge appears to never have been completed, do we still want to issue this merge? Please respond with Agree or Oppose, your feedback is welcomed. --Hm2k (talk) 16:52, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Online storage services

Should these really come under synchronization, even if they are capable of it? It seems that they are more appropriate for List of online backup services. Note that SpiderOak is already listed there. Wikiphile1603 (talk) 19:29, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I guess if it does file sync, then yes, it should be listed in this article. --Hm2k (talk) 16:52, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Spam links reversion bot

Dont suppose anyone can write bots? We could use one for keeping external links out of the lists. We could allow for automatic false positive corrections too of course. Opinion on drafting a bot request...? Wikiphile1603 (talk) 21:37, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

References are fine so it's hard to check whether something is citation or a bad url without human intervention. --Hm2k (talk) 16:52, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

SuperFlexible and Allway Sync

I've been testing and using many file synchronization apps, including most mentioned on this list and these stand out. They're two of the few smart ones that can also synchronize deletions. SuperFlexible even understands if a folder is moved. I'm under the impression that others also find these two of the best file synchronizers, at least on dutch forums (tweakers). Yet when i added them to the list, they were promptly removed. Is it because they don't even have their own page in wikipedia? Is that because creating the page could be seen as advertising? But what's the purpose of such a list if two of the best progs aren't on it? Please discuss here before removing them again. PizzaMan (talk) 14:29, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure if there's a guideline for that, but IMO any item in a software list should have an associated article, unless the app is obviously notable (like XML Notepad in List of XML editors). Otherwise, the list quickly becomes a place where anybody can insert their own spam; while if an article is created, it allows us to check whether the app is notable or not. Laurent (talk) 14:43, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Spitfire ch. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you.

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

--Hm2k (talk) 16:43, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

So, i found a very useful review article about many file synchronization programs. Hope this will be considered sufficient source, together with the homepages of the publishers. I'm reluctant to create an article, because the last time i created such an article it was seen as advertising and rapidly removed. PizzaMan (talk) 07:07, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

You should try again. Armed with reliable sources for notability you may stand more of a chance of creating an article that won't get removed. Try and avoid listing it's features, and instead describe the software. From experience this seems to avoid being marked as spam. Good luck. --Hm2k (talk) 08:41, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I've also made that experience. Interestingly, there seems to be a great likelihood that an article about a small piece of software - such as a synchronization tool - is considered spam. Although, and this is my personal opinion, an article about file synchronization should offer a list of most available tools. If the articles to these tools clearly show what features they support, it's very easy to compare the different tools and decide, which is the best for ones needs. But well, opinions seem to differ a lot, and obviously it's preferred to show a random selection of tools and remove most of the new entries right away. I also invested like 2 - 3 hours writing an article about my synchronization tool of choice (no connection with the developer, so it was not advertising) only to see it marked as spam a couple of minutes later and killed another couple of minutes later (my arguments against deletion being ignored, no further discussion). Under this circumstances, it's not really motivating to contribute new articles. I do understand that Wikipedia should not become a collection of spam and advertising, but as it is now, almost everything is considered spam, which prevents Wikipedia to be a source of information as complete as possible. Spitfire ch (talk) 09:08, 1 July 2009 (UTC)