Talk:Comparison of file hosting services/Archive 1

Archive 1

Nakido file share service

Nakido is a slightly different type of file share service that keeps files forever & never deletes them,(I have 3 GB & 4 GB files stored there with only 1 or 0 downloads that have been there for 4 years now and not deleted), has a 99 GB file size restriction - which for all practical purposes is unlimited size - and functions both for uploading and downloading. How it differs from the major players like Rapidshare and MegaUpload is you need to install a "service" called the Nakido Flag, which can be turned on and off in the Computer Management/Services tools, and allows users with it installed to access files in high-speed mode. If you don't install it, you get throttled but can still access files both ways on the site. To the best of my, and other people I've had look at it, knowledge, the Nakido Flag is mostly a tracking cookie type arrangement and doesn't appear to contain any malware/worm/virus/zombie software at all - though I find it highly unusual that it gets installed as a Service on the computer. Anyway, it's not listed here and should be in any such list as it is extremely HUGE and while not known well in the U.S. and Europe, is quite popular in Asia.IdioT.SavanT.i4 (talk) 06:27, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Dropbox doesn't delete your files after 90 days of inactivity

I am sure dropbox doesn't delete your files after 90 days of inactivity. Might be an old policy, not in new documentation — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.215.170.251 (talk) 11:05, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

• It's still there:

Dropbox allows you to store up to 2 GB free of charge. Dropbox reserves the right to terminate Free Accounts at any time, with or without notice. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, if a Free Account is inactive for ninety (90) days, then Dropbox may delete any or all of Your Files without providing additional notice.

Also, check this discussion: http://forums.dropbox.com/topic.php?id=48972 - they claim files are not being deleted, but they reserve the right to do so. So, this info should remain here. Perene (talk) 16:41, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Encryption methods

Encryption methods (including server side vs client side, algorithms, etc) should be included. Thoughts on exactly how to approach that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jgimbi (talk • contribs) 18:37, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, I'd like to see this information as well. Three distinctions can be made, as far as I know: zero-knowledge encryption (e.g. SpiderOak, Wuala) where all is client-side encrypted and no keys are available to the service so the service is unable to decrypt the data; server-side encryption (e.g. Dropbox) with service's own keys; and manual client-side encryption, not being part of the service itself. The latter can basically be used for any of the services so it's not worth including it. Are there any more methods used as part of the service that's I'm not aware of? I'd suggest adding an additional Encryption column containing the values "No", "Server-side" and "Zero-knowledge client-side" or "Zero-knowledge" for short with a note about the meaning.--Forage (talk) 12:50, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I would also like to see encryption methodology used. Because of the Snowden revelations this would be a key piece of information to point out. I agree about the columns suggested for No, Server-side, and Zero-knowledge. However, should we also include one for transport? I don't know if all of them support secure connections. This could be a simple yes/no, with possible notes about various methods like, yes for https but no for ftp. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonathan cauthorn (talk • contribs) 06:49, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

HIPAA compliant column

I believe a HIPAA compliant column would also be useful. Agreed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.104.130.57 (talk) 18:07, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree. It's an important consideration for a large industry. (Jonathan cauthorn (talk) 06:54, 20 June 2014 (UTC)).

Download payout column

What about inserting a column with payout for uploaded files' downloads?
I'd rather keep this list manageable, and those change and go out of business constantly. You may want to consider making a new page regarding file hosting services that pay. JCauthorn (talk) 21:33, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Number of mirrors column

A good comparison should have included some info. on number of mirrors. For e.g. I know that Rapidshare uses a CDN and has something close to 18 odd mirrors around the world. The info. is a bit dated but still if people would start putting up a column then news of such networks would start as well which would also make people who want to use such a service a bit more aware as well. Shirishag75 (talk) 14:47, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Synchronization column

I believe there is a very important column in this comparison missing: [whether the service allows automatic] synchronization. Do you agree?

512upload (talk) 22:44, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Are you referring to apps like Google Drive or Dropbox that can upload/download files automatically in the background? If so, we would also need to list the clients that it runs on, i.e. Windoze, Mac, Linux, IOS, Android, etc. Maybe a secondary table might be better to describe just the services that support that and their ability and restrictions. (Jonathan cauthorn (talk) 06:58, 20 June 2014 (UTC)).

Storage size and Max. file size

Don't you think that these two columns should be separated each one in two: 'free' and 'paid' and the values be written in scientific notation? This would make it possible for readers to sort the services by these two criteria (Storage size and Max. file size) correctly (now, this is not possible). 512upload (talk) 22:48, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Agree with the column suggestion. Sorting by size would be nice however it is accomplished. Fotoguzzi (talk) 03:37, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

---

I can't believe it isn't setup this way already. It should have several columns as numerics only for easy sorting - default free space, maximum free space, maximum file size for free, maximum file size paid. There may be other size related columns as well. These columns should be numbers only, and maybe based on GB, from 0.1 GB for a 100 MB file to 1,000 GB for a Terabyte file. Thoughts? (Jonathan cauthorn (talk) 07:05, 20 June 2014 (UTC)).

Hidden facts

The major part of the users are free users that don't read the FAQ of the file hosting sites, they only click the wanted links to download. In many of those sites, like Badongo and Rapidshare, it's is practically impossible download anything as free user (in my experience, it's impossible). A good comparison must include those omitted facts. I don't think is helpful a comparison that only transcribes what the services decide that they do. I believe that is necessary to rewrite this article in a neutral POV.Caiaffa (talk) 18:55, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Need Country of Business Address & Hosting column

For the sake of file security it would be nice to know were some of these file hosting sites are located and what local laws govern what stored on them. TA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.174.171.20 (talk) 04:06, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

---

If we have an encryption column that covers zero-knowledge client side encryption, we wouldn't need to know where it is hosted. This would be a more important factor if you are concerned about keeping your files secure. (Jonathan cauthorn (talk) 07:08, 20 June 2014 (UTC)).

Not mentioning paid services

I think this comparison chart should only mention free of charge websites. If the website is charging a fee for its services, it should not figure here, otherwise it will be certainly misused for commercial purposes. Unless the site in question also offers a free service, then it would be mentioned as well, but if it's only paid, it should be removed. What do you think? Perene (talk) 15:57, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

---

I disagree. I have seen many pages on Wikipedia about software, and without exception they all feature as least some proprietary only software. While I prefer open source/free one shouldn't discriminate against proprietary/non-free options. Svnpenn (talk) 03:50, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

---

I also disagree. I would rather have a complete table that shows all the options so you can make the best choice on all the factors. If we create a "free space" column that can be sorted, the ones that provide no free space will be obvious in the list, and you can make your decision based on that. (Jonathan cauthorn (talk) 07:12, 20 June 2014 (UTC)).

Make table headers appear also when scrolling

The table headers do not show when you scroll down, making it difficult to know what is the header matching for the cell contents , without scrolling up again back and forth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.142.116.124 (talk) 15:16, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Is it possible to do it in wikipedia?

---

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Table/Manual_tables Jonathan cauthorn (talk) 07:27, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Do Google drive, Hackerbox, and eDoc really have direct access? I don't think so

For Google drive, the "Direct access" column is currently "Yes", but from my experience it doesn't have real direct access.

For example, if you upload an image file, you cannot get a direct link to it, a link that you can use on your website in an HTML image tag, to link to google drive. The share link it gives you, when you choose the "Share..." menu option of a .jpg file, is something like this: "https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B5-BileB3h_2Vi1IRnZhRk5OY3c"

Which doesn't end with ".jpg" and can't be used to direct link from HTML on my website. It is not a direct link to the image, but a link to a google docs website page that contains the actual image, where you can view the image with other things like the google docs menu options.

If anyone thinks that Google docs has direct access, please explain why and how to use it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.142.116.124 (talk) 09:56, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

The same goes for HackerBox and eDoc. In the wiki it is written "Yes" for "Direct access", but their FAQ states that "hotlinking is not allowed". Please verify and fix the incorrect values. I do not want to modify without verification.

As far as I understand the table "Direct access" is just about "how long do I have to wait to get the file". A lot common file hosters require you to wait for e.g. 60 seconds before you can download the file for free. This has nothing to do with image hotlinking. DerPaul (talk) 17:38, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

OK, then this should not be called "Direct Access". Maybe it should be called immediate access or something. Direct access means one can directly access the file itself. Direct access as a concept has nothing to do with waiting times.

---

I believe "Direct Access" should be if you get a link that takes you directly to the file. Anything less is a "no". If it makes you wait or click a captcha, it is not Direct Access. If you want another column for wait times or other items, that's fine. (Jonathan cauthorn (talk) 07:23, 20 June 2014 (UTC)).

Sites that require logins/restrict access

Mediafire requires login to upload(not mentioned - can someone add "Login required to upload files" to it?).

Some sites only let you download files uploaded with the same account.

Others require a login to download.

Note: Not saying rather the account is free, but that you're forced to log into it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.196.246.113 (talk) 17:05, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Filefactory.com - Reward system for uploaded files needs to be mentioned...

I found out yesterday that filefactory.com has a "reward" system where users are given cash for X number of downloads of files they upped. I feel like this would be very relevant to this article. Apparantly it is one of the few doing this because if I'm not mistaken the rewards system is what got megaupload in trouble a while back. UselessToRemain (talk) 16:46, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Why removed many sites?

Why removed many sites from comparision? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.235.170.75 (talk) 02:05, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Many sites were removed because they lacked any kind of third party reference or claim to any importance. We need to keep this list to a manageable size, by restricting it to list entries that already have a standalone Wikipedia article. - MrOllie (talk) 16:25, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I think I wasn't the only one using this extensive list to actually choose the 'right' service for a specific purpose. So much work has been put into finding out all those details about every single file hosting service in the list, and as all columns were sortable and the colors helped to make things easy to recognize I didn't find it unmanageable at all. Helped me and others several times so far, but now most of it is gone. Of course the old list from November 1st is still usable (from the history), but as it's not updated anymore it will soon stop being of much use. My recommendation therefore: Convert back to the old list with its 90 entries (the current one just has about 20 entries)! MarsmanRom (talk) 15:46, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I completely agree. A site might not be important to all but at least to some. By restricting the list to only those site that have a Wikipedia article is nonsense. A site that does not have a Wikipedia page does not make it less important. If size is really an issue than its presentation should be changed, not its contents.--Forage (talk) 11:33, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

See What Wikipedia is not. Wikipedia is not meant to serve as a directory of hosting sites, that is outside the scope of the encyclopedia. - MrOllie (talk) 16:20, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Every single guideline you supplied thus far does not apply. WP:EL, WP:SAL, WP:NOT, WP:ELNO, WP:SAL, WP:SPAM, it does not matter in this case. If these where valid reasons than the whole page should not be included, not just a selection of the sites. This page contains more then just site links to websites; it's a companion page to file hosting services and not a stand-alone list; it's far from spam; it follows the guidelines of list pages. The situation would be different when only the site link was included but non of the columns would contain actual details. This is not the case, the information has value to the users, maybe not to you, but it does for others.--Forage (talk) 16:41, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

You seem confused. A stand-alone list is any list, such as this one, which is on its own page. Please also see WP:WTAF, which I linked as well. Without reliable, independent sources (which are normally on the supporting articles on the services), we should not be listing services on this page - it had lead to a list which was bloated with promotional lists. If a service hasn't even managed a pair of press mentions (the minimum standard for a Wikipedia article) it is hard to see how listing such an unknown site here is valuable to anyone. - MrOllie (talk) 16:53, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Forage and others. I'm going to revert your changes everytime you mass-remove entries (I have plenty of time to bore you, I'm unemployed) Stop destroying valuable changes that many wikipedians have collected over the years, thank you. - Anonymous — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.65.231.247 (talk • contribs)

A pledge to edit war against policy will not help you get your preferred version. - MrOllie (talk) 11:18, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Vandalism != policy - Ano — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.65.231.247 (talk) 13:42, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Who determines whether a site has "claim to any importance"? Who decides what is "manageable"? This sounds like censorship, with some person arbitrarily deciding what information should and should not be presented to the world.

---

For what it's worth, I think the only sites that should be relegated to a secondary table are those that are no longer doing business. If they are active, they should be included. If they are not, they can be put in a secondary table for historical purposes. That's as clear cut a policy as you can get - no arbitrary criteria like "lack[ing] any kind of third party reference or claim to any importance". Jonathan cauthorn (talk) 07:37, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Remove language column

The comparison table has quite a few columns. Would it be an idea to remove the language column to limit the information to a more functional comparison of the offered service? This doesn't create much room for additional columns, but it's at least some. I would really like to add one or two columns like encryption, but I feel that some sacrifices have to be made by sticking to the most information in order to keep the table as usable as possible.--Forage (talk) 13:34, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree with this, I've never really seen the point of the language column. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.65.231.247 (talk) 18:27, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

done--Forage (talk) 14:52, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Usability of this page

The main usage of this page is for readers to find file hosting services with the parameters they desire. Not accepting this is delusional. Thus, please make it as useful for this purpose as possible. Thank you. (IF you disagree, feel free to explain why you feel this page is even worth having)

Example: I want a file hosting service with the following properties:

• Free
• No sign-up required; no personal details required (beyond basic IP number etc)
• Others can download what I have uploaded with a single non-nuisance link (no spam, no popup, no waiting times, nothing more cumbersome than a simple Captcha)
• Documents stay available for a period of time considerably longer than 30 days. I can accept I have to "touch" my own documents perhaps once a year (downloading them myself to reset any deletion timer), but not once a month.
• Storage size is less of a concern. I'm guessing all my file hosting needs amount to less than 1 GB in total. (Besides, since I don't need the fuss with sign-ups, there would be no way for the provider to know I am the uploader of various materials if I only make sure to access the site from different IP)

Currently, it is very hard to quickly scan the information for my example purpose.

"Direct Access": What does that even mean? For me it's not enough that I can access my documents "directly". I need anyone with a simple link to reach a download page directly and with no intermediation.

How do you sort the table on more than one column? (For example: I want to sort on "Direct Access" and "File Expiration" so that the entries that are green in both columns show up first).

Thank you, 90.229.34.175 (talk) 09:00, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

---

I'd rather see the table expanded with more information, but include scrolling. More info on sorting here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Sorting but simply click on the least significant sort to the most significant sort. Jonathan cauthorn (talk) 07:46, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

PLEASE ADD THE FOLLOWING SITES

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backblaze Unlimited $3.96 a month for 2 years ($95 total) $4.17 a month for 1 year ($50 total) http://www.backblaze.com/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baidu_Cloud 2TB free http://pan.baidu.com/

Jottabackup 5Gb free, unlimited for $6/month for desktop, $3/month for mobile. http://www.jottacloud.com/

Tencent Cloud QQ 10TB free http://www.weiyun.com/act/10t-en.html

Kanbox 10Tb free — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.211.113.22 (talk) 07:47, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copy.com by barracuda systems. 15 GB free for new accounts and 5 GB extra for each referral. 9.99 a month for a 250 GB plan. http://www.copy.com/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lilreader (talk • contribs) 17:23, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Yunpan360 36Tb free (10Tb for PC app +26Tb for mobile) http://yunpan.360.cn/

wiki links added by Jonathan cauthorn (talk) 08:03, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Q: When is a reference not a reference? Suggestion

A: When it's a note or comment on the content.

A number of the items in the (first of two) References section are not in fact references. For example, at the time of writing the first two 'references' read as:

• 1. For paying users there is usually a direct access possible.
• 2. For paying users there is usually no file expiration.

Which have no 'reference' function. This sort of stuff should be in a (foot)Notes section.

I also note there is a second, currently empty, References section. I don't know why.

Wayne 03:09, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I'll fix it! StudiesWorld (talk) 12:28, 4 July 2014 (UTC)