fileserve, oron, wupload are BANNED here!

I check several forums that allow many hosts. There are a lot of reposts but it doesn't bother me.

Oron is an inferior host. Wupload used to be very good but lately it slows down during peak hours.

As I said before, every single (free) Fileserve download I've ever done (at least hundreds) has been perfect. No interruptions and the transfer runs at the full speed of my DSL line.

I'm very surprised at the hostility towards the cash hosts and the people who make money uploading to them. I've never seen this before and I've been downloading for a very long time (Since the late 90's I used to use nntp, aka newgroups).

Remember one thing: Everyone in this forum is downloading content for free.

So why should someone making money off a cash host be considered "sickening" to anyone here? Three words to consider: "Pot kettle black".

Not only do I not mind cash host reposts, I'm glad to see them. Here's why:

Scenario A: One copy of a file on a single non cash file host and no reposts appear. A single DMCA takedown notice will permanently delete the file.

Scenario B: Crazy uploaders working for peanuts continually upload hundreds of copies of files on many cash hosts and many reposts appear. It would take hundreds of DMCA takedown notices to delete all the files.

To me, it's a no brainer. I prefer Scenario B, even with the reposts. Why would anyone prefer Scenario A, with the certainty that the one posted file will eventually be deleted? The cash file host uploaders are providing free insurance to us downloaders that a file will be available somewhere on a file host into the future.

After the huge deletions of files from Rapidshare and Hotfile, I've come across uncountable numbers of lost uploads. So I much prefer Scenario B, even with the nuisance of reposts.

I now understand that for some people, seeing a repost makes their blood boil. But for me, finding references to files in forums that point to file host links where the files are gone forever, that trumps the mild irritation of reposts.

But that's just me. The mods are obviously free to make whatever policies they like for Phun.org. I'm OK with either decision.

 

I've tried both Wupload and Fileserve in the past - both work okay, not super great, but fairly solid in my neck of the woods. IMHBO, Oron is crap and that's all that's needed to be stated (IMHBO = In My Hugely Biased Opinion).

The hostility stems from the over-abusive uploaders who have ruined several forums with overly aggressive repost spamming. With the additional tools of auto-posting software, it's not uncommon for spammers to make close to 400 uploads in half-a-day often uploading the exact same video 4 of 5 times. You say it doesn't bother you at all - you must have a patience of a Buddhist monk.

You're assuming incorrectly. You could say everyone in this forum CAN download content for free. But realistically, I would guess about 40% of users nowadays at Phun are downloading content freely; the majority have paid memberships to filehosts since it's more convenient to have a premium membership nowadays.

I don't think most Phunsters, including robo99, think earning rewards off uploads is sickening - it's the borderline aberrant reposting that could be considered "sickening" to some like robo99. Myself, I find it unnecessary, petty and in many cases, ignorantly sad. :no:

And you know, that's understandable... I can see that your priority is to always have working download links, no matter how many reposts there are. Quantity over quality... gotcha.

And thus they have - rather than being a porndump like 90% of the most adult forums out there, where repost spamming runs rampant with barely any type of forum community, Phun has stricter posting rules where users don't have to scroll through 20 pages of the same content being uploaded and where it's often encouraged to reply not just with thanks, but with pervy insights and opinions. It's what makes Phun a fairly unique adult forum; it's one of the last adult forums where the idea of "sharing" isn't completely lost to most of the members. Might not last much longer, but i'll enjoy it while it lasts.

 

Certainly, oron is a cash cow for uploaders and spammers but I think WUPLOAD is great because it has 500kb/s download speed for free user. That's better than filesonic.

 

You're the third person (including myself) that said Fileserve provides a good service.

I'd like to find out why some people have trouble with Fileserve. I've read that Oron was banned from the UK, but why would data from a particular file host work in some parts of the world but not in others, but the reverse would be true for other file hosts?

You've hit the nail on the head about cash file hosts. There are two issues here:

1. Autobot reposters.

2. File hosts that pay for downloads.

Uploaders who use Autobot file hosts are a nuisance, no doubt about it.
But does that mean a file host that does make cash payments should be banned?

It's very easy to ban uploaders that flood forums. In fact, that's happened in every case that I've seen where a forum is attacked by an autopost uploader. From what I've seen on a couple of forums, once every few months an autobot uploader will flood a forum but in a short time, they're banned. It's not something that happens every day.

No, I made the correct assumption.

How many people here are paying ********, BangBros, Exploited College Girls etc for downloading their content from this forum?

Answer: Zero.

Robo99 considers uploaders who make money from using cash file hosts sickening. Well, as you just admitted, how about the fact that Hotfile and Filesonic make money from people who download content that is created by others but earn nothing from the download? Doesn't he find that sickening as well?

That's why I find the almost gleeful criticism of cash file hosts to be hypocritical by the users in this forum. As I said, I've never seen that before, almost certainly because every downloader knows that he's obtaining content without paying for it.

The thinking is this:

1. Uploaders who use cash file hosts are bad.

2. File hosts like Filesonic and Hotfile who make money off of content providers are good.

Can anyone explain that double standard?

I download from links found on Phun and always as a free user. But I know that it's not a [insert your own negative adjective here] thing, so I never, ever, complain about the dodgy things that other people might do.

Robo99 said he found it sickening, which is why I quoted him.

I was surprised at the vehemence against cash file hosts. Of all the things to complain about the Internet, that wasn't on my list. not even close.

Do I prefer always having content available as opposed to having that content permanently deleted? Absolutely Yes. It's a no brainer decision for me.

I used to think of autobot posts as a minor annoyance. But I changed my mind after the twin disasters of the change in Rapidshare and the mass deletion of files at Hotfile. Now I realize that I get value from those cash file host uploaders. I've come across many instances where an autobot has reposted a clip that had been deleted from the original upload. I was able to download content that otherwise would have been gone forever. To me, that more than offsets the appearance of reposts.

Nothing in life is perfect, each of us decides whether or not the trade off between value received and cost incurred is worth it.

Your idea of quality is no autobot reposts and you accept the inevitable loss of files.

My idea of quality is as many posts available on as many different file hosts as possible and I accept the inevitable appearance of reposted content.

What's great is that there are forums that provide each kind of content. More about that next.

I've seen that on one forum, RRT, but not in others. The issue of repost spamming seems to have been easily controlled.

I check several forums that have a very liberal policy towards file hosts but very strict about thread content. That model works quite well in real life. So I'm not convinced at all that allowing cash file hosts means ruin for a forum. I can think of at least a half dozen counter examples. In my experience, it's just not true.

The thing that caught my attention about the preferred file hosts was this:

Phun has settled on Filesonic and Hotfile.

http://www.prweb.com/releases/2011/6/prweb8556596.htm
Filesonic has deployed content fingerprinting to detect infringing material.

http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/2093050/mpaa-holds-hotfile
Hotfile is under severe legal attack.

The two file hosts most vulnerable to deleting files are the two preferred file hosts on Phun. Not only that, but given the high number of bumps of this thread before it was made into a sticky, Phun users were happy about preventing more lenient file hosts from being used.

That confused me, which is why I asked about the thinking behind the restriction. I guessed that there must have been a really strong reason, that I didn't know about, for deliberately choosing the file hosts most likely to delete files.

So it turns out that reason is that people have an aversion to cash payout file hosts, that they'd prefer to lose content in order to prevent autobot posts.

It's true that the Phun policy has been effective, Phun has a small number of quality posts. But that is true of other forums as well, that don't have very tight restrictions on file hosts. As a result, Phun also has the highest number of deleted file host links and the content doesn't seem to last very long.

But that's actually fine. IMO, more variation and more choice is a good thing. Phun has created a niche for itself and users can choose if they like it. Phun is very fast and easy to check for new content but you must download it quickly before it disappears. Because it will disappear.

That works for me and I have no complaints.

I just wanted to understand the motivation for the policy.

 

I think you should also include hotfile & depositfile, lol. But I applaud the forums decision to take this measure as is. Its one thing to get a free monthly "premium account" for your downloads. But completely another to be paid cash. Because to me, this whole idea of file "sharing" was just that. Sharing. Those who make money for sharing, are no longer sharing to me, because they are profiting. And thats now the sole reason for them making posts. Not to share the content, but to profit from it.

Im still using Rapid Share, even though you can no longer get a free monthly premium account, simply for that reason. I like to share my content for FREE. Megaupload is my most favored file share, and though you can profit from it monetarily. Its nearly impossible to do, lol. 55% of my uploads on Megaupload are larger files then you can receive points for.

 

Admin/Mods,

Wouldn't it be the case of changing the script to prevent this and make you job easier than now?

I mean I'm not an Einstein as far as programing skills but have a look what happens here on Phun when you try to share a Depositfile link.





Couldn't it be extended to other common banned hosts such as Fileserve, Wupload and Oron? I'm sure whoever's trying to post these links will stop when they see the result. Other good option would be limiting the number of posts an IP address can make every 24 hours.

In regards to file hosts as I said before I've never had a problem as free user either with Fileserve or Wupload (quite new though).

 

I can tell your filserve really blows, I found an old vid I was searching for at 398MB and fileserve was the only host not deleted. I dld it, waited 2 hours for it, and it died as "interrupted" with 2 minutes left.

Wupload, a 300 MB file has been dlg for 6 hours now.

That ain't right!

 

fileserve is awesome, links last a long time, speeds are around 500-600kbps, big file limits so usually it's only 1 link, and there isn't much waiting time/dl limits

 

What country are you in? You're about the only person who has complained about Fileserve and Wupload.

A friend and I have been experiencing corrupt data from a small number of file hosts. The corruption is always the same, bit 1 is occasionally flipped. I don't want to list the file hosts because I don't think they're the problem. About half the time a file from that small list of file hosts is corrupt. But for other file hosts like Rapidshare, Hotfile and Fileserve, we've never had a corrupt downloaded file, not even once.

I suspect a router or some other transfer device between where I live (Canada) and the file host has bad ram and packets are being corrupted.

Winrar detects the bad checksum. The problem goes away after downloading the file again. A few times I had to download the file three times before getting a clean copy.

You might be having the same problem, a device somewhere in the tcp/ip chain is corrupting data from Fileserve and Wupload but not others. It's not the fault of Fileserve or Wupload.

The problem is that the packet definition for tcp/ip makes it impossible to find the bad device. Each transfer machine recalculates the checksum of a received packet, so the bad ram causes a bad checksum to be created.

 

all cash host blows for free users, i have had troubles with all of them and your fileserve is as bad as any other. Well not as bad as an unnamed host that i wont mention, that is just in a different category

this is the speed i get half the times and no i didnt edit the picture or cap the speed. The other day somehow i was able to download at 250 which almost gave me an orgasm

 

That's quite interesting. I think every single download I've had from Fileserve ran at the full speed of my DSL line, 320KB/s, that's over about a year or so.

I wonder what is causing this variation in speeds from some file hosts and not others?

FWIW, Rapidshare, Hotfile, Fileserve have pretty much always run at full speed for me. Wupload used to, but not lately. Oron and Depositfiles tend to run from 40-100KB/s.

 

for me, the first 4 run from 10 Kb/s (ALL) up to 250/300(RS/HF) (well the "new" one up to 500 because is trying to attract people) and is totally random, prime time or not.

 

ktm2001, what country are you in?

Fileserve as free user in South America (IDM).








Wupload as free user too (Google Chrome).

 

It doesnt matter from where i am, i have neighbours that download from some of those hosts without troubles while have HUGE issues with filesonic which surprisingly when i try it as free user usually give me 290/320 Kb/s (others at 10 too..)

they all suck but i dont know which sucks more well i do but like i said they are in a different category

 

Agreed. FileServe is kick ass for me. When I was a free user I could get around 500-800 kbit/s. As a premium user at FileServe, I reach around @ 4 mbit/s. Their servers are extremely fast and the most reliable to me.

 

file serve is very good specially bcoze of big file size and 1 link.... and files doesn't deleted easily

 

With so much variation in performance, even within the same neighbourhood, let alone which country, it has to be the case that the file host isn't necessarily (or ever) the problem.

For me, at times Filesonic runs at 320 KB/s, at other times around 100 KB/s. I used to think that was because Filesonic was congested, which may be the case, but it's also possible the congestion was somewhere else in the network and only packets from Filesonic were being affected.

I didn't think that was possible, but if you're getting high speed from Filesonic but your neighbours aren't, the problem can't be at Filesonic.

 

yeah sure that always is the isps fault.

 

Fileserve is good.