Talk:File-hosting service

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Internet culture Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of internet culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Internet cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Internet cultureTemplate:WikiProject Internet cultureInternet culture articles

???

This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Internet culture To-do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : View all requested internet culture articles
Expand : Pick an article from here or here
Photo : Category:Internet culture articles needing images
Stubs : All stubs are located here
Other : Category:Internet self-classification codes (!?); Try to get YouTube to FA; Tag all articles you find with {{WikiProject Internet culture}}
- See also Category:Internet culture articles needing attention

Internet hosting service series

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[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Page Updates

-Removed and replaced dead link. (March 8, 2007) - Biars

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).[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Non-relevant content in article?

The last part of this article appears to discuss colocation - definition, benefits, etc. While that's a great topic, it appears to not be part of *this* article, which is about file hosting services. I think that discussion of colocation should be moved to a different page where it would be more topical. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.136.68.194 (talk) 20:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant discussion on Collocation

I feel that collocation has to be discussed separately. If it is to be introduced here, it should be in connection with file hosting —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.125.199.174 (talk) 05:51, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

The 3 sites below are missing from the list

4shared.com
filefactory.com
depositfiles.com

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...

considering all of the above
considering that it is scandalous as it is
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.
considering that a lot of people used this table and are looking for it
considering that the page in question now redirects here
considering that if you search google you end up on this page
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
considering that there are no "authoritative" resources on this topic
considering that this content is usefull, and much more so than the open directory link
considering that it is factual
considering that it is not commercial
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:

Restore Comparison of one-click hosters, and take Hu12's admin rights for scandalous abuse of them.
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]