Talk:File-hosting service/Archive 1

Archive 1

Internet hosting service series

This page could really use some clarification between an online backup service and a file hosting service. Either that, or Mozy is mistakenly listed as an FHS when it's more properly a backup service.

I've whipped this article into shape and made it part of the new Internet hosting service series. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-12 23:42Z

Thank you.

Free online file storage/sending lists about 50 places with online file storage. Is that link "too commercial"? --DavidCary 00:24, 25 January 2006 (UTC) moved to: Free online file storage/sending

Does YouTube.com count as commercial? It's free to upload videos. Kernow 23:58, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Policy says to avoid linking to "Sites that primarily exist to sell products or services." Kernow 00:07, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

A site like www.bitprophet.com offers it's service for free, but has the occasional ad.

Well then.

comparison of free file hosting services

Any chance of adding such a page, using the above link?
Not including things like rapidshare, as that isn't really a free service. 83.250.32.185 16:41, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Online Media Centre should be part of file hosting

As file hosting includes content like media the document should be integrated into file hosting as a "sub topic".

Andrew Fraser 20:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Linkspam?

Upload4Free is not link spam as:

1.) Upload4Free is free to use, and contains no popups. 2.) Wikipedia links are nofollow 3.) The site is used for representational / demonstration purposes only. 4.) The site contains no adult content. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Biars (talk • contribs) 01:53, 12 March 2007 (UTC).

Upload4Free was not removed as linkspam. That link was first hijacked by Upload66, which was being spammed across multiple articles. (A link added simply to promote a site, regardless of content, falls under the spam guidelines.) Since it is difficult to pick an example (and I don't think the article really needs an example) and one example opens the door to everyone else who wants to add an link (as has already happened), this is a perfect case for using an open directory such as dmoz and directing editors to add links there. I will replace all the links to example sites with a dmoz link and we won't have to continually fight the spammers. ✤ JonHarder ^talk 23:03, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Six Free Online Storage Services

That ExtremeTech link is a good review of some current offerings -- glad it survived this long. [1] -69.87.203.254 18:43, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Considering the removal of the link by Dicklyon (for reason: Not an authoritative page.)

this is the link im talking about:

• File Sharing Portal A more extensive comparison table of one-click hosters.

Let's tell the tale of the Comparison of the one-click hosters:

Once upon a time (2006) there was an article on wikipedia called Comparison of the one-click hosters. This is it's history. As you can see in the revisions, it was an extensive comparison table. At some point (around october 2006) it is put up for articles for deletion. The result is keep. Please have a look at this AfD.

One year later... ...two users Hu12 and Boffob decide that only One-click Hosters with wikipedia articles must be included in the table, because anything else is spam, spam and spam. They start an editing war against the rest of the community, which lasts all the way till June 6th 2008, when Hu12 conveniently settles the argument by deleting the page, it's history, it's talk page and by redirecting it into File Hosting Service and protecting that redirection as per CSD:G6. Point final. All them damn spammers trying to make wikipedia a useful place. Give the boy another medal! Thanks Hu12.

But what about me? I had been using this list all the time through, not noticing anything of the war that was going on. On 6th of June, I noticed that this list was no longer there. Neither it's history, nothing. I thought bugger. That they delete it is one thing, but that there is no way to get to this info anymore is quite problematic. So I started searching and ended up filing this deletion review. You see, if you quickly need to get a file accross to someone, you can end up in all sorts of adventures taking hours of your otherwise useless time.

So, Hu12 restored the history of the page, not the page itself, not it's talk page. How all that part of the wikocracy works was explained by Daniel on my talk page. I thought fine, at least I have this info back. I don't care where it is, as long as it's not gone. And I don't feel connected to wikipedia at all, so I don't feel like having discussion like this with other users consuming all my otherwise useless time. Thus I put in practice If all else fails, try another wiki.

So far so good, but...

1. considering all of the above
2. considering that it is scandalous as it is
3. considering that there are trigger happy people deleting other's work only because they feel confident enough that they can dig up some Wikipedia Policy to support it if necessary.
4. considering that a lot of people used this table and are looking for it
5. considering that the page in question now redirects here
6. considering that if you search google you end up on this page
7. considering that authoritative is a very subjective therm (regardless what Wikipedia Policies say about this, I don't read them, so I don't know), but that I don't want to start a discussion about that here
8. considering that there are no "authoritative" resources on this topic
9. considering that this content is usefull, and much more so than the open directory link
10. considering that it is factual
11. considering that it is not commercial
12. considering that everything in this table has been double checked and made up to date

I would like to ask you (Dicklyon) to pick a (re)solution from the following sensible options:

1. Restore Comparison of one-click hosters, and take Hu12's admin rights for scandalous abuse of them.
2. Restore the link.

After all that has been going on all these years, I think that asking just a link to the content for all the people that come looking for it is no more than reasonable. If you can find any other suitable options, Please go for it, but silencing this information is this manner is definitely not authoritative, but authoritarian. As im not a wikipedian, im not going to revert your edit, and leave the decision making process up to you. Thus ends my plea for sensibility.

greets

Hostingcomparison (talk) 18:30, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I know nothing of this larger dispute; I just remove a link that I felt was not consistent with WP:EL. I'll stay out of it and let others decide if something needs to be done now. Dicklyon (talk) 20:05, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

"You require an account"

If I want to quickly upload a file for others to download, not only is it important to me these other people have one-click access, it's important I as the uploader have it too.

I would like to argue that you can't get a full line of "green bars" if this isn't true.

Therefore I propose we add this as a criteria/column.

As it is, the SteekR offering looks as easy as MediaFire etc, but I found I couldn't upload files without creating an account, which automatically disqualified the site for me. I believe the comparison should benefit from being able to discern this right away.

Opinions on this? CapnZapp (talk) 15:34, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

ACK. It also appears that YouSendIt no longer offers the free 'Lite' option but now requires users to sign up to one of their plans.--Webmgr (talk) 08:58, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Updating the file mirror secton

its been one and a half year since file mirroring started and yet there is no article or comparison of the service providers. i am writing in the discussion bcoz its going to be my first major edit to wikipedia and i hope i have support from the wiki pandits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.94.250.139 (talk) 07:38, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

The 3 sites below are missing from the list

• 4shared.com
• filefactory.com
• depositfiles.com

depositfiles redirects here but the article does not talk about it213.140.22.68 (talk) 09:36, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Ziddu

Ziddu (ziddu.com) is added in the table. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.206.108.234 (talk) 00:57, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Please establish an article for the site before adding it to the list here. Thanks. Kuru ^talk 01:04, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

History of one click hosting?

Id like to see some history of one click hosting. Maybe when and if how rapidshare.com came to be the most popular? What happen to rapidshare.de etc —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.239.135.37 (talk) 01:48, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

SSH?

I was missing mention of scp/rsync. I think this is what many advanced users need and which allows automated (command line) syncronization between many applications via a remote server. I finally found what I needed in slashdot answers to the question Best Online Remote Backup Service w/Linux Client?. Ben ^T/_C 19:23, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Comparison of notable file hosting services - bad idea I fear

I believe this section as it is today is a bad idea for Wikipedia.

In general, lists like this are Bad Things. Wikipedia is not a shopping guide, but an encyclopedia. Lists need to be things like: members on a team, largest cities. Lists of suppliers of service are advertising and don't belong here.

The article needs to focus on File hosting service, rather than providers of it.

The section, if it needs to be here, would need to be prose, and would need to cover services that had a GREAT impact on the subject. I strongly believe this needs to go, right away. I will look up the appropriate flag (probably something about advertising), and flag the section. If no one objects, I am going to kill it pretty quick.sinneed (talk) 01:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, I am too ignorant to find a good template to put in the article. Does anyone know why anyone thought this was a good idea? wp:NOT... not an advertising service, not the yellow pages, not a collection of links, etc.sinneed (talk) 01:16, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Well if you ask me you should at least try to make it comprehesive, so without comments and stuff. A comparision is only usefull when you can just look at it and know what has/does what, because I fear it'll be not very usefull when you need to scroll page after page. But hey, that's just me.93.125.198.182 (talk) 02:35, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

4shared

4shared is missing. This is a good 1 for file hosting.----Cool BD (talk) 10:39, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Requesting permission to add a site to the list section of this page

Hello, I guess I don't know how this site works. I thought that I could edit something and then if the editors find it relevant it is allowed to stay. I am with TrueShare.com, an online file hosting service. I have added my company information a couple times and it keeps getting removed. We have been in this field for 7 years and feel we deserve to be listed. Can you please let me know what I am to do? mitch@trueshare.com

Thanks, Mitch Matt TrueShare.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.248.244.15 (talk) 19:35, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Please note that age itself does not indicate notability, which is something Wikipedia coverage requires. The table only contains services which demonstrate notability through have their own Wikipedia articles. Haakon (talk) 19:45, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello Haakon, we do have a wikipedia article at Trueshare.com. Can you please provide me with some guidance as to how we can be accepted as notable by Wikipedia editors? Thanks for your assistance! Tsmitchman (talk) 20:54, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I overlooked the article, sorry! I should not have been so fast in reverting your edits. I still think you should note WP:COI and WP:COMPANY, but I have reinstated your entry. Haakon (talk) 21:01, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a second look Haakon. In keeping with COI best practice, and for the information of all, I would like to state that I am a representative of SYSTEN, L.L.C. dba/TrueShare.com and have added their entry to this page. The information listed is accurate to the subjects discussed and not biased towards the company I represent. Thanks. Tsmitchman (talk) 12:42, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

File mirroring services

Should include information on meta-upload engines or file-spreaders like uploadjockey, rapidspread, load2all, and the zoom file uploader —Preceding unsigned comment added by Camrn86 (talk • contribs) 22:24, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Google Docs

Now that Google Docs allows uploading of any file type with 1GB free, I think we should add a section of the table for Google Docs. I am not good with wiki tables, otherwise I would do this, but if anyone feels up to it... Just throwing it out there. 74.177.153.190 (talk) 04:18, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I've just been looking at this. Google Docs is not a file hosting service because it converts the files. You can't download the same data that you uploaded.

(I've also just added a column for "Developer API" because these days, it's important to be able to access files from more than just web browsers and proprietary applications.) --- Rixs (talk) 17:37, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Comparison table columns

There have been several suggestions for the columns of the comparison table. I think it's a useful thing to have. Needs maintenance, and the world is changing so this needs to change with it. My suggestions are:

Current column	Suggestion	Reason
Web Host	Branding	Not necessarily the DNS host name
Language	Delete	No benefit in this information; save space.
Storage size	keep	Important
Max. file size	delete?	Seems like a side effect of storage size, etc.
Direct access	Rename to "Obstacles" or similar.	Mention adverts too.
Traffic/bandwidth limit	Keep	Important.
File expiration	Keep	Important for some services.
Misc. notes	Delete, move info to other columns	This information can be categorised, or should be on another page.
Remote Uploading?	Delete	What use is this?
Developer API?	Keep (or rename)	Important, but not a good name (which I wrote)
Table-entries (Added or Revised) Date (YYYY-MM-DD)	Delete	Not very useful. Look in the history.
Access control	Add	Public downloads? User lists? Groups?
Fees	Add	Important; many are not free now.

--- Rixs (talk) 10:58, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). --82.152.138.225 (talk) 14:38, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

One-click hoster

The term "One-Click Hoster" for this is rather poplar, I thought. I've also read "cyberlocker" once but not one of the other terms mentioned in the summary. What do you think? 84.131.234.178 (talk) 22:17, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

The English word is just "host". "File host", etc. "Hoster" appears to come from German. And none of them are really "one-click" anyway. Barsoomian (talk) 02:39, 21 March 2012 (UTC)