Jump to content

Talk:Comparison of file hosting services/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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)

Every Web Service REQUIRES reference(s) to PROVE this data!

I deleted all entries that didn't have any references or wiki articles for the web host, still I should have deleted more that didn't have any references. Every web host in this article must have a link to a webpage that proves this data, or a least proves most of it. References are a basic requirement of Wikipedia, so "man up" and do it right, or someone else will swing an axe on your favorite web service. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 00:30, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Missing sites

Meaning of remote uploading column

What is meant by the so called "remote uploading" column? Basically all uploading is from a remote location so I think it needs some clarification.--Forage (talk) 13:19, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

OK, clear to me now, FYI: explained by Upload#Remote_upload. I've browsed through all websites of current listed services, and non even mention such a feature. I believe the meaning of this column has been misunderstood by many people, interpreting "remote" as something like "away from home" or "mobile". There are even websites created (e.g. http://ctrlq.org/save/) to allow remote uploading to services, like dropbox, because they do not support it themselves, even though it states "yes" in the table column. I'd therefore like to propose to either remove the column completely, or set all services to "no" until others can prove otherwise. --Forage (talk) 16:07, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I just uploaded a 7GB file to dropbox from a remote terminal I was connected to thourgh a vpm connection. Does this mean that dropbox has remote uploading? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.151.101.94 (talk) 15:57, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Request discussion to overhaul table

I consider this table useful, but also lacking, and I think we could improve it. I would like to discuss the overhaul of this table, which includes reordering / renaming / clarifying / adding columns. Moving columns and data is a pain, so I'd rather get the column names and order nailed down before an overhaul is started. After the columns get nailed down, then we could start a new table above the existing table, then migrate old data to it. Please provide feedback and suggestions. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 02:12, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

The following are my initial concepts. I would like to see more fields split out, especially for free details, and 2 encryption columns so a person can easily determine if files are stored as encrypted in the cloud. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 02:12, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

The following columns are ordered from Left-to-Right.
  • Rule: All fields MUST have a reference, otherwise unknown is placed in the field. The data should be easily verifiable!
  1. Web host ---> Text name. Wikilink, if exists, otherwise must have a reference (per main rule).
  2. O/S fields ---> yes/no/unknown/blank. Is there a native "binary" client available for each O/S.
  3. Free Storage Lowest ---> Starting GB size. Must exclude free trials for XX days. If no free storage, then use "no" template.
  4. Free Storage Highest ---> Start + Max Referral Bonus ---> Incrememt in GB size and Maximum Bonus (not base + bonus). If no free referral, then use "no" template. MAYBE don't have a dedicated column, then add to "free storage" column or list details below the table?
  5. Paid Storage Lowest ---> GB Size and Price for lowest tier. If no paid storage, then use "no" template.
  6. Paid Storage Highest ---> GB size or Unlimited, and Price. If no paid storage, then use "no" template.
  7. Free Max File Size ---> GB size or unknown.
  8. Paid Max File Size ---> GB size or unknown.
  9. Public file links ---> yes/no/unknown. Ability to share a URL link to one file.
  10. Public dir links ---> yes/no/unknown. Ability to share a URL link to an entire directory of files.
  11. Public file password ---> yes/no/unknown.
  12. Encrypt Transport ---> yes/no/unknown. If yes, then optionally specify encryption standard.
  13. Encrypt File Storage ---> yes/no/unknown. If yes, then optionally specify encryption standard.
  14. Encrypt File Keys ---> user/host/unknown.
  15. Traffic (or bandwidth) limit ---> yes/no/unknown. If yes then specify details.
  16. Files expire ---> yes/no/unknown, plus details. If yes then specify in number of days.
  17. Add more columns ---> (note: I need to think more about other existing fields, and consider new fields)
Web host Win Mac Linux Android iOS Other
O/S 		Free storage lowest Free storage highest Paid storage lowest Paid storage highest Free max file size Paid max file size Public file links Public dir links Public file password Encrypt transport Encrypt storage Encrypt keys Traffic limit Files expire Add more columns
BogusBox Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No 10 GB 25 GB 500 GB
($10/mo) 		100 TB
($200/mo) 		1 GB 4 GB Yes No No Yes No Un­known 5 TB 90 days TBD
BogusHybrid Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes RPi Unlimited
Client
Computer 		Unlimited
Client
Computer 		100 GB
($10/mo) 		10 TB
($100/mo) 		Unlimited 4 GB No No No Yes Yes Yes No No TBD
  • Note: I didn't include any references in my example (so they don't fill up talk section).
  • Note: Refs will be a new mandatory requirement, otherwise the field would be "unknown", basically prove it or don't state it (per Wikipedia rules).

Comment

First topic

Requesting input on the above new table concept. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 14:56, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

What is the goals of proposed new table, is it for a specific user with N devices to be able to pick a hosting service that fits their needs? Breaking down the various mobiles and desktops certainly make it easy to sort tables. From what we have heard from our users (Mega's users), they want speed, access from anywhere, lots of space and privacy. Each of those categories has subcategories. AklMeditor1 (talk) 02:19, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
1st) slide some columns into better locations (next to related columns), 2nd) split out some existing columns to clarify details, 3rd) better user sorting. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 02:36, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Could you do me a favor and try to fill out this table with Mega as an example? You can either post a new entry OR do it on your computer then let me know if you ran into any problems. A) fill in every field, B) find a link to a reference to prove each field (meaning does the information exist online to prove it). Thanks in advance! • Sbmeirow • Talk • 02:58, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Second topic

Should this be merged with Comparison of online backup services? • Sbmeirow • Talk • 15:11, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

It's an interesting distinction between file hosting and online backup. What is the distinction in your mind? AklMeditor1 (talk) 02:17, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
My first guess is they can't be merged, but I posed the question for input, just to see what other people thought. I have a feeling that some services on "Comparison of online backup services" shouldn't be on that list. I'm not sure what the industry consider, nor other people, but I would guess that backup services are more about backing up changed files and optional some incremental change history but they aren't mandatory to be seen as a "drive letter" on the client, where as the "Comparison of file hosting services" seems to be more of an extension of the client file system for "syncing", some sites optionally sharing files, some sites providing change history. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 02:36, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
I think of online backup as being a continuous push to the cloud. And when you want to restore something you can jump to any point in time. As opposed to file hosting or sync services that keep things in sync between multiple devices. I think most domestic users think of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_Machine_(OS_X) as the simplest example of backup. .AklMeditor1 (talk) 02:47, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Spideroak client side encryption value is incorrect

Referencing Spideroak's website (9th Feb, 2015). https://spideroak.com/mobile/, the paragraph is "Here's the deal: when accessing your data via the SpiderOak website or on a mobile device, you must enter your password. The password will then exist in the SpiderOak server memory for the duration of your browsing session. For this amount of time, your password is stored in encrypted memory and never written to an unencrypted disk. The moment your browsing session ends, your password is destroyed and no further trace is left. The instance above represents the only situation where your data could potentially be readable to someone with access to the SpiderOak servers. That said, no one except a select number of SpiderOak employees will ever have access to the SpiderOak servers. To fully retain our 'zero-knowledge' privacy, we recommend you always access your data via the SpiderOak desktop application, which downloads your data before decrypting it locally.`

This is not client side encryption (as the password is sometimes transmitted and held on Spideroak's servers). Given the semantics of the column the value of the table should be strictly "no". Or potentially find a reference to an audited confirmation of some clients performing client side encryption and some other clients uploading the password to Spideroak's servers and change the cell value to "partial".

COI disclosure, I work for Mega and I'm making sure that all reference material on Wikipedia is accurate. Obviously it would be a COI for me to make an edit to a competitors service, so we can discuss here.AklMeditor1 (talk) 22:15, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

The problem with the article is there is only ONE column for encryption. This downside is one of the main reasons that I proposed an overhaul in the above section. Please look at my proposal above and give feedback on what encryption columns that we need and what should they be called. The columns names must have a very short name, because room is very sparse. Thanks in advance! • Sbmeirow • Talk • 23:29, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Ok, perhaps let's separate the two discussions? I agree, the table is a great start but for end users we could improve it indeed. For this section, it's clear given the description of uploading passwords to the server that Spideroak violates the description of client-side encryption so perhaps we can discuss and correct that table. I'll comment in your other proposal above in parallel. Thanks. AklMeditor1 (talk) 23:57, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
If you want to fix the "Spideroak" entry on this article, then go for it, just make sure you add a reference to prove it. I don't plan to do any work on the current table until an overhaul. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 01:40, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
I don't think I should edit the entry due to COI. AklMeditor1 (talk) 02:13, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Cyberbot II has detected links on Comparison of file hosting services which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

  • http://www.r10.net/1068912708-post9.html
    Triggered by \br10\.net\b on the global blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:13, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Removed the ref containing the blacklisted site and the issues tag. Stesmo (talk) 19:12, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Free unlimited public file sharing

Hello,

This table could be very useful to find a service that offers file sharing services. However, it is hopelessly organized from the viewpoint of a user looking for the following:

I want to store a number of small PDF files (single-digit megabytes; definitely not gigabytes) and share public links to these files. I want these links to be maintenance-free and not be deleted after, say, 30 days. Neither me nor the other party should have to register, and preferably put through as few other hoops (waiting timers; popup advertisements; impossibly difficult capthcas etc) as possible.

Is there a service where I upload a small file (~ 1 MB) and recieve a download link for others to use even months from now, and where clicking on said download link comes as close to immediate download of the target PDF as possible?

Trying to use the present table for this purpose is, in my opinion, nigh impossible. CapnZapp (talk) 08:16, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Some stuff is missing/out-of-date.

First, several of these sites have shutdown. Second, there is no indication if an account is needed for upload or not. This is a key thing people are looking for when coming here, to save time. 73.181.82.26 (talk) 16:59, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, this is what I was talking about above. The tables need more relevant data, to users coming here trying to compare them. I started a column but we need to go through all those links to verify references (otherwise "O.R."). Formatting can be done at same time. 73.181.82.26 (talk) 08:00, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Add sites Userscloud and Usersfiles to the list

Userscloud and Usersfiles are the two sites providing infinite storage for 100% free.

Userscloud stores below 1 GB files forever, but files which are more than 1 GB will get expire within 30 days (day counting from last download) Usersfiles stores files only for 365 days since last download. Usersfiles has 5 GB file size limit. userscloud has no file size limit. Ram nareshji (talk) 13:07, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Removal of closed service

Wuala has shut down and should be removed. Connectionfailure (talk) 23:02, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Adobe Document Cloud

Could you please add info regarding the specs of Adobe Document Cloud? pelister 21:49, 5 December 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pelister (talk • contribs)

Google Drive Unlimited Bandwidth Incorrect

Google drive imposes limits onto how many times anyone who did not create the file can download a file in a given day, based on an algorithm including the file's size.

This is an unpublished limit- and it affects people looking to use google drive as a storage mechanism for web site downloads.

Queries

Direct Access

How is "direct access" defined for the purposes of this comparison? As an example, OneDrive says "no", but you can share links to individual files? ratarsed (talk) 11:42, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

4shared guerilla marketing in table header

It seems somebody edited the table to make 4shared always appear on top. 61.230.122.211 (talk) 05:55, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Mobile Offline Folders

I think it would be valuable to add a "Mobile Offline Folders" column. This column would show whether the mobile client for the named product can be configured to sync a specified set of folders onto the mobile device, i.e., download the folders and their entire recursive contents to the device. Values would be no, manual, and automatic. Gasharratt (talk) 23:01, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Add download limit

It would be helpful for viewers to know what is limit of a download from a link shared with a non-paying customer. Perhaps this should be added to the chart under a column called "Download Limit." W84jon (talk) 12:36, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Peer-to-peer

As this article is about "Comparison of file hosting services", I have removed two services described (in the table) as peer-to-peer from the table. These were MagicVortex and Infinit. If their descriptions as P2P-based services were wrong, they can be reinstated. However, if they are genuinely P2P-based services, then they do not belong here: they can instead to added elsewhere, perhaps to something under Peer-to-peer_file_sharing.
—DIV (120.17.235.238 (talk) 13:15, 5 February 2017 (UTC))

Color order is not intuitive

Green > Orange > Yellow > Red is out of order and do not follow order of increasing restrictions. Instead of

  No restriction
  Limit on some types of accounts
  Limit across all accounts
  Total restriction across all accounts

it should be

  No restriction
  Limit on some types of accounts
  Limit across all accounts
  Total restriction across all accounts


I agree completely. Furthermore, I find the subtle shading for the limits to be rather too subtle. Something like
  No restriction
  Limit on some types of accounts
  Limit across all accounts
  Total restriction across all accounts
  Uncategorised
would be more obvious. —DIV (120.17.235.238 (talk) 13:08, 5 February 2017 (UTC))


I agree. I have updated the table templates to have more intuitive colors and names. Here's the new scheme:

  No restriction. Use template {{yes}}
  Limit on some types of accounts. Use template {{some}}
  Limit across all accounts. Use template {{rarely}}
  Total restriction across all accounts. Use template {{no}}

Balazer (talk) 22:08, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Missing Services

I've noticed that this list is missing some very popular services. The two I can think of right off are: Filefactory.com and zippyshare.com. I'd add them in to the grid, but I'm facing a wall of work. Also, I figured this heading could function as a place for folks to list missing services and then delete from as they are researched and inserted into the grid. Cheers!

Add "max number of devices free syncing"

Dropbox is now only two computers for basic (free), it used to be unlimited — Preceding unsigned comment added by DJGB (talk • contribs) 07:52, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Add sites

Could someone please add Uptobox, 1Fichier and Baidu Cloud to the table? --190.52.192.2 (talk) 15:57, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Please add u.teknik.io to the list. Thanks in advance. Zero3K (talk) 16:48, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Droplr

On 22 Sept 2017, Ukota (new editor) added Droplr, and Mean as Custard removed it saying, "remove red links". I disagree that the lack of a WP article disqualifies it. WP:SAL says, "one of the functions of many lists on Wikipedia is providing an avenue for the retention of encyclopedic information that does not warrant separate articles, so common sense is required in establishing criteria for a list." The Droplr article was deleted, but that does not show if its entry is useful in an encyclopedic list of file hosting services, just that the brackets should be removed, so it is black, not red. The lead paragraph says the list is designed to cover "file hosting services which are currently active". I prefer completeness over incompleteness, especially when the list is so short already. Furthermore I'd prefer that editors feel welcome to add services to make this list more complete without having to add whole articles. Other comments on this talk page urge adding entries. Does anyone else have thoughts? Numbersinstitute (talk) 21:08, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

An entry without an article needs references to show that it is notable (not merely that it exists). . . Mean as custard (talk) 16:36, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
Could you cite a WP policy for that? WP:SAL says "While notability is often a criterion for inclusion in overview lists of a broad subject, it may be too stringent for narrower lists; one of the functions of many lists on Wikipedia is providing an avenue for the retention of encyclopedic information that does not warrant separate articles, so common sense is required in establishing criteria for a list." Numbersinstitute (talk) 16:57, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
I'm afraid I must agree with User:Numbersinstitute, who has the guidelines to back up the argument. Additionally, there is also WP:NNC, which specifically says, "Notability guidelines do not apply to content within an article". Huggums537 (talk) 21:47, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
The quote is cherry-picked from WP:SAL. The section it comes from is "Common selection criteria" and offers three types of [common] criteria:
  • "Every entry meets the notability criteria for its own non-redirect article in the English Wikipedia."
  • "Every entry in the list fails the notability criteria."
  • "Short, complete lists of every item that is verifiably a member of the group."
This last one is not for a software category, genre of music, films from a particular country, or type of website. It's for discographies, lists of heads of state, lists of films released by a certain studio, list of letters in an alphabet, etc. It should typically be exhaustible and the group as a whole should be notable. To the contrary, I can start a file hosting service that verifiably exists from my house this weekend. What we have is a list of examples of a given category. Wikipedia is WP:NOT a directory that seeks to include things just because they exist. There must be an additional reason.
All of this said, local consensus can, within the bounds of policy, establish a more specific inclusion criteria for a given list. I would be quite shocked if an e.g. WP:RFC on the matter would end with consensus to include redlinks, though. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 22:38, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
We can actually "cherry pick" a couple more... WP:CSC states, "the functions of many lists on Wikipedia is providing an avenue for the retention of encyclopedic information that does not warrant separate articles", "Red-linked entries are acceptable if the entry is verifiably a member of the listed group, and it is reasonable to expect an article could be forthcoming in the future.", and you apparently just completely ignored WP:NNC. So, we see that there are more options for inclusion available to us than just, "only Wikipedia articles allowed". It's funny how there are so many quotes to choose from, yet we get accused of "cherry picking". You demand to establish consensus for including redlinks (not very helpful, since, who would do that anyway?), yet there is no detailed inclusion criteria in the lead per WP:NCLIST, which states, "the detailed criteria for inclusion should be described in the lead". There I go quoting, I mean "cherry picking" guidelines again. Anyway, no inclusion criteria expressly forbids redlinks in this list, as it very commonly does in many other lists. If this were another list, I might agree with you, however, it's not another list, it's this one. Also, Numbersinstitute made the suggestion at the very beginning of this discussion to just remove the brackets so the redlink wouldn't appear, yet nobody seems willing to compromise with that suggestion. Instead, you chose to just revert without discussing, and then accused them of doing the same the edit summary. BTW, leaving a comment on a talk page, and then going directly to revert someone doesn't count as discussing. Regardless of the fact that Numbersinstitute did so without discussion or not is irrelevant because you really should know better. Huggums537 (talk) 23:59, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
First, I apologize for the cherrypicking accusation, which was not necessary.
"the functions of many lists on Wikipedia is providing an avenue for the retention of encyclopedic information that does not warrant separate articles" - As above, this is not that sort of article, but you're welcome to start an WP:RFC if you would like it to be considered as such.
"Red-linked entries are acceptable if the entry is verifiably a member of the listed group, and it is reasonable to expect an article could be forthcoming in the future." - This directly follows the first criteria: Every entry meets the notability criteria for its own non-redirect article in the English Wikipedia. So yes, if it's notable and we don't have an article yet, then in some cases it can be fit to include. To show that it's notable and that an article could be forthcoming, you could include multiple sources which show significant coverage such that it could sustain an article. But if you're going to do that, you might as well just write the article first. Also, that a redlink is acceptable in terms of policy/guideline, doesn't mean it's acceptable to add any redlink as long as you claim it to be notable. It's acceptable to add verifiable information to an article, but not all verifiable information should be added, for example.
and you apparently just completely ignored WP:NNC - We're not talking about notable content, we're talking about notable entries which comprise the content. As that says, notability doesn't have to do with the content of an article, thus we are obviously talking about the notability of individual subjects and their fitness for the article. That would be odd if NNC were so directly at odds with CSC.
"the detailed criteria for inclusion should be described in the lead" - indeed it should. if you would like to propose something along those lines, you are welcome to. The default, however, is not to include every example that exists, given WP:NOT and the very standard interpretation of WP:CSC, for which this would fall under the first criteria pending a different local consensus.
Changing the redlink to blacktext is effectively the same for the purposes of this discussion, since the question is about inclusion rather than styling.
Regarding reverting, even if it were a bluelink, if its inclusion were contested, standard operating procedure is WP:BRD (someone makes a change, someone else reverts, contesting that change, and discussion comes next so that the person who made the change can convince others that it's a good edit. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 00:33, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
On 22 sept Droplr was added & reverted. On 24 sept I opened a discussion on this talk page. On 26 sept I undid the reversion. Normally I wait a week for discussion on the talk page, but I wasn't sure how "undo" would work if further edits happened in the meantime, so after 2 days seeing no discussion I undid, and noted there was a discussion on the talk page. I'm glad the discussion is starting. There are several useful lists like this one, all of which need to grow, and I think the encyclopedia will be better if we just add services to lists like this, instead of also creating new stub articles. I do agree better criteria are needed, and I opened a talk section on criteria below. What about Alexa ratings or annual downloads, or some other indication of real use? Newspaper, reviewer and book mentions mean something, but they may reflect the sponsor's schmoozing with authors, more than importance in the ecosystem. I don't know anything about Droplr except what I see here. I found a couple of references on Google Scholar to create a compromise, but the issue will arise with other services. Numbersinstitute (talk) 01:46, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
For context, regarding "cherrypicking" though not defending the term, the reason discussions like these often elicit frustrated responses is because people constantly add spam to list articles on Wikipedia (this is not an accusation of spamming btw), promoting a piece of software they like, their business, their friend's record label, a website, themselves, etc. It can be difficult not to respond the same way when someone adds something in good faith to the same effect (still a problem for WP:NOT, etc.). It's an issue that, because there are often messy intersections of policies and guidelines, becomes time-consuming to discuss repeatedly despite the fundamental problems.
It's a problem to just include something because you like it, because it exists, or even because you think it's important. Wikipedia relies on what independent reliable sources say is important to determine what's included. The line of argumentation above is about including redlinks in general, not notable subjects supported by sources for which we do not yet have an article. I find the latter makes for poor quality lists, but it's not as clearly problematic as an unreferenced entry. In fact, I admit that when I reverted I had on my screen this version, but it reverted the one with refs, too. Those refs do not quite show notability, but they're definitely on the right track, and if I saw them first, I don't know that I would have reverted. Sorry for the oversight. I want to ping Mean as custard before restoring, though, since he/she had an objection, as well. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 00:56, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
Wow. Thanks for the apology, Rhododendrites. Was not expecting that. However, I still feel that WP:NNC is not at odds with WP:CSC, but goes hand in hand with it because WP:CSC says, "While notability is often a criterion for inclusion in overview lists of a broad subject, it may be too stringent for narrower lists; ...". Also, I'm glad you noticed that Numbersinstitute did in fact provide sources. I agree there is a problem with people adding content that is not notable, but I could argue there's just as much of a problem with people going around deleting stuff just because it doesn't have a blue link, and slapping the "not notable" label on it without even looking at it or considering whether or not it even has to be notable or not. Too many experienced Wikipedians are confused about the difference between "not notable", and "not verifiable". Maybe there might yet be hope for the Wikipedia process afterall... Huggums537 (talk) 03:20, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Just to throw in an apple to this discussion, I will point out that I have no time to write a Droplr article, but a quick search engine query suggests the following links to establish notability: CNET | G2 Crowd* | Crunchbase | 9 to 5 Mac | Mashable | App Advice* | Finances Online* | MacWorld #1 | Quora | MacWorld #2 .... There's plenty more, but I think you get the idea.
* (questionable, source is unknown to me)
That's WP:NOT enough for me, just the CNET and the two MacWorlds, right there. And if it stays redlinked for a while, it's not because of lacking notability. -- Eliyahu S Talk 19:28, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Criteria for inclusion

The lead now says

File hosting services are a particular kind of online file storage; however, various products that are designed for online file storage may not have features or characteristics that others designed for sharing files have.

This is unclear. The article File hosting service includes services for single users as well as services for sharing. I think it would be better to be consistent with that article, but I'm not sure what difference previous editors meant between File hosting service and online file storage. The term online file storage redirects to File hosting service, so the current WP definition seems to be that these are the same. What "features or characteristics" distinguish them here? Numbersinstitute (talk) 16:44, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

TeamDrive?

TeamDrive seems to be another entry that should be here; in fact the article Other links to this one. --Eliyahu S Talk 19:32, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Comparison_of_file_hosting_services/Archive_1&oldid=1223122235"