Review: Filehostreview.com

[gibalah]

@Peter South
SeeingMole definitely understands the two units well according to his posts. He merely suggested you use KBytes/sec (KB/s) instead of Kbps for convenience and user friendly. Although you insist what unit is used to measure the network bandwidth, the fact is that major browsers and download applications shows KB/s instead of Kbps; some applications provide options for both, but the default unit is usually KB/s. Anyway, the site is yours, so it's up to you.

Besides, I guess it's an error that you put the "Speed Throttle" column in the "Premium Uploader" tab, while it's not displayed in the "Free Uploader" tab.

 

[Oldone3pp]

Peter South wrote

I've been working on a file host review site with the goal in mind for helping downloaders, uploaders, webmasters, developers, & file hosts by presenting various information in a clean unified format.

Creating something in it's simplest form so that the average joe (downloaders, uploaders & users) can understand is the best way to go, webmasters & developers will work things out in either format. Anyway since you have mentioned that you will add a noob switch this will compensate those that may have trouble understanding some of the mumbo jumbo. Pete everyone is intelligent but not everyone has the same degree of intelligence that others may have, nor does everyone see & understand things the same way as you do.

SeeingMole & DJboutit please settle down and appreciate the efforts of pete's creation instead of attacking his creation thru a lack of total understanding

Peter South wrote

Any future libel against the accuracy of filehostreview.com by assholes who don't know their bits and bytes will be reported to WJunction staff.

Basically what your saying here is that you will report them for being dumb, don't understand your point of view & criticise your methods. Pete I'm sure you have better things to worry about just take their thoughts & criticism as a grain of salt and move on, cool heads all around will prevail.

 

[SeeingMole]

I'm starting to wonder what was the point of this thread again? So that OP can plug his site and expect people to lick his ass and compliment him? He's obviously really not interested in any advice or alternative points of views.

Also, who the fuck cares if djibouti has bad codes in his site. The only thing which matters is that he's making money and for all we know, possibly more than you.

You can have excellent perfect code, but if it sucks and not really user-friendly and complicated, it'll fail regardless.

 

[Peter South]

@Peter South
SeeingMole definitely understands the two units well according to his posts. He merely suggested you use KBytes/sec (KB/s) instead of Kbps for convenience and user friendly. Although you insist what unit is used to measure the network bandwidth, the fact is that major browsers and download applications shows KB/s instead of Kbps; some applications provide options for both, but the default unit is usually KB/s. Anyway, the site is yours, so it's up to you.

Besides, I guess it's an error that you put the "Speed Throttle" column in the "Premium Uploader" tab, while it's not displayed in the "Free Uploader" tab.

Please provide a link to an official site that states data transmission is measured in binary values of bytes, until someone can provide such link this will not be up for discussion. Hint: Your not going to find one.

Thanks for letting me know about the missing column for free uploaders.

I recently shuffled around some of the fields and I must have accidentally dropped this column in the process and didn't catch this until you pointed it out.

I just put the speed throttle column for free uploaders back in there, thanks again for pointing that out!

__________________
Added after 3 minutes:

Peter South wrote


Creating something in it's simplest form so that the average joe (downloaders, uploaders & users) can understand is the best way to go, webmasters & developers will work things out in either format. Anyway since you have mentioned that you will add a noob switch this will compensate those that may have trouble understanding some of the mumbo jumbo. Pete everyone is intelligent but not everyone has the same degree of intelligence that others may have, nor does everyone see & understand things the same way as you do.

SeeingMole & DJboutit please settle down and appreciate the efforts of pete's creation instead of attacking his creation thru a lack of total understanding


Peter South wrote

Any future libel against the accuracy of filehostreview.com by assholes who don't know their bits and bytes will be reported to WJunction staff.

Basically what your saying here is that you will report them for being dumb, don't understand your point of view & criticise your methods. Pete I'm sure you have better things to worry about just take their thoughts & criticism as a grain of salt and move on, cool heads all around will prevail.

Please provide a link to an official site that states data transmission is measured in binary values of bytes, until someone can provide such link this will not be up for discussion. Hint: Your not going to find one.

They're referencing that the information is invalid, which to me is simply libel. I've repeatedly gone into deep dives explaining to these two individuals both in this thread as well as the help section of the site that I will not be deviating from using proper notation.

__________________
Added after 7 minutes:

I'm starting to wonder what was the point of this thread again? So that OP can plug his site and expect people to lick his ass and compliment him? He's obviously really not interested in any advice or alternative points of views.

Also, who the fuck cares if djibouti has bad codes in his site. The only thing which matters is that he's making money and for all we know, possibly more than you.

You can have excellent perfect code, but if it sucks and not really user-friendly and complicated, it'll fail regardless.

The point of this thread is to provide a dialogue for the site which I have developed. If there are errors listed on it I would really like to know so that I can update the site and maintain its accuracy.

Regarding the references to the bad code in his site, maybe I got a little carried away there; However I was merely providing factual information that both refuted his libel towards filehostreview.com while at the same time showing his overall incompetence.

I fully agree with your last point as its been quite the undertaking to displaying all the various variables and fields used on the site in a logical and easy to understand layout. At the same time I certainly don't want to complicate matters by incorrectly referencing units of measure.

However like I said earlier there are people such as djbouti who has proven in this thread that he lacks the most basic and entry-level concepts of how the internet works. For these people I plan on implementing a switch to toggle between bits and the incorrect unit of measure of Bytes.

I guess I need to make this a top priority now to shut up fools like djbouti who really need to spend more time getting educated instead of trolling nonsense on internet forums.

 

[gibalah]

Please provide a link to an official site that states data transmission is measured in binary values of bytes, until someone can provide such link this will not be up for discussion. Hint: Your not going to find one.

We know it's measured in bits, but we are talking about user friendly. I understand you are trying to teach all people use correct units; however, it doesn't work because almost all applications display it in bytes.

End users don't care about units, but they care about the convenience. You should understand why most applications display KB/s rather than other forms. GUI often displays filesize in KB or MB, so those applications decide to display the transmission rate as KB/s or MB/s so that it won't confuse end users. It's just a method to make the units displayed to end users consistent, not a method to fool everyone. And it's the point that SeeingMole tried to tell you. Most uploaders are end users, not professional network operators, so it would be better if you would like to change the display approach. Again, I don't plan to force you to modify it. I simply want to clarify what other people intend to let you know.

BTW, RapidGator doesn't cap the upload traffic. Is it a mistake? I use zoom's file & image uploader and an NL dedicated server.

 

[Blast Support]

First I would like to say that this is a great idea, kudos.


But I do want to suggest a few things from my personal point of view.


I'm somewhat a graphics junky and I like to see some more graphics in a website I travel to so in that sense I was disappointed to see the logo

...
Dude, wtf is that thing? a guy who pukes in the annual oktober fest in Berlin can create a better colorful logo, please adjust.


About the host names, I would add a small favicon size host logo near it's name.

That would be all from me for now
I have to go...


Read this post while playing the below video while your getting high
[video=youtube;hiP14ED28CA]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hiP14ED28CA[/video]








Bye.

 

[Peter South]

First I would like to say that this is a great idea, kudos.


But I do want to suggest a few things from my personal point of view.


I'm somewhat a graphics junky and I like to see some more graphics in a website I travel to so in that sense I was disappointed to see the logo

...
Dude, wtf is that thing? a guy who pukes in the annual oktober fest in Berlin can create a better colorful logo, please adjust.


About the host names, I would add a small favicon size host logo near it's name.

That would be all from me for now
I have to go...


Read this post while playing the below video while your getting high
[video=youtube;hiP14ED28CA]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hiP14ED28CA[/video]








Bye.

The logo is total shit, I'm aware of that as we discussed on IM It was a 30 second photoshop hack job and I just haven't gotten around to giving that any attention just yet.

I thought about putting the favicons next to the file host names but it'd require a lot of coding to make it work, since I've done half the work with gathering up the images already I'll try to take a stab at this today. Great suggestion!

__________________
Added after 3 Hours 16 minutes:

I just implemented the favicons to be displayed inline with the file host names on a few of the tabs, let me know whatcha think on how they look, if you like then I'll bang out the rest of the tabs so that they'll all appear the same

 

[nitro85]

You should post speeds in Kb/s, speed in bits is very confusing since people are used to check their uploads/downloads speeds in bytes

 

[rew2]

Creative idea, love to bookmark these unique websites, Good luck

 

[Peter South]

You should post speeds in Kb/s, speed in bits is very confusing since people are used to check their uploads/downloads speeds in bytes

Don't be an asshole, and in case you didn't read the nonsense about this topic then don't be a fucking moron.

By the way, you typed Kb/s which is Kilobits per second and FileHostReview.com uses that unit measure as its that's the proper way to report bandwidth; not in KBps or Kilobytes per second.

If you have any questions you should take five minutes and watch this video: Techquickie - Bits vs Bytes as Fast As Possible

This is not up for discussion and I'm not going to debate it anymore and anyone else who trolls this thread making stupid comments like this will simply be re-directed to that video URL

Creative idea, love to bookmark these unique websites, Good luck

Thanks!
__________________
Added after 2 minutes:

I just figured out a way to better display all the PPD information within one chart, rather than segregating it through those annoying tabs.

For now its just three file hosts' PPD information because I was still working on the best way to display it.

Over the next few days I'll be populating more file hosts' PPD information so check back if your a new file host affiliate who is starting out with PPD as it can probably help you.

 

[Matthew88]

Keep adding to that list. That will make the site better.

Great idea btw...!

 

[Peter South]

Keep adding to that list. That will make the site better.

Great idea btw...!

Thanks! I just added in a couple more file hosts today, I'm gonna try and work on a bunch more tomorrow.

Today I did make some minor tweaks to the layout which should make the site look better for anyone older tablets and monitors.

Having 3x 27" 1440p LED and 1x 27" 4k LED I easily forget how many people on the web are still using 1080p (and even 720p) displays, so everything should like crisp for nearly everybody and if it doesn't you seriously need to get a monitor capable of handling at least 1024x768, lol.

If there are any file hosts on WJunction that anyone is interested in that is also missing from FileHostReview.com let me know as I'll work on them first when I start back up tomorrow.

 

[nitro85]

Don't be an asshole, and in case you didn't read the nonsense about this topic then don't be a fucking moron.

By the way, you typed Kb/s which is Kilobits per second and FileHostReview.com uses that unit measure as its that's the proper way to report bandwidth; not in KBps or Kilobytes per second.

If you have any questions you should take five minutes and watch this video: Techquickie - Bits vs Bytes as Fast As Possible

This is not up for discussion and I'm not going to debate it anymore and anyone else who trolls this thread making stupid comments like this will simply be re-directed to that video URL

I just asked if you could put it in bytes instead of bits, because people are used to bytes, and you thrown a load of pointless BS

Keep adding to that list. That will make the site better.

Great idea btw...!

Thanks! I just added in a couple more file hosts today, I'm gonna try and work on a bunch more tomorrow.

Today I did make some minor tweaks to the layout which should make the site look better for anyone older tablets and monitors.

Having 3x 27" 1440p LED and 1x 27" 4k LED I easily forget how many people on the web are still using 1080p (and even 720p) displays, so everything should like crisp for nearly everybody and if it doesn't you seriously need to get a monitor capable of handling at least 1024x768, lol.

If there are any file hosts on WJunction that anyone is interested in that is also missing from FileHostReview.com let me know as I'll work on them first when I start back up tomorrow.

I have a 21.5" 1080p monitor, I feel so outdated...

21.5" 1080p = 102.46 PPI
27" 1440p = 108.79 PPI

almost same shit,
and I have the advantage of not having to turn my neck around when looking at the sides of the screen

And I guess you have to use binoculars with that other 4k monitor, in the browser you turn up the zoom, what ends up to be the same BS but probably worse using the Windows GUI

 

[anurr]

@Peter,

can you please confirm if InCloudDrive indeed has 45 secs Initial wait, followed by no wait at all for Intra-Downloads?

I'm having people saying that they must wait "hours" for another part of a multi-part upload.


Cheers for very necessary work, btw!

 

[Peter South]

I just asked if you could put it in bytes instead of bits, because people are used to bytes, and you thrown a load of pointless BS

Keep adding to that list. That will make the site better.

Great idea btw...!

Thanks! I just added in a couple more file hosts today, I'm gonna try and work on a bunch more tomorrow.

Today I did make some minor tweaks to the layout which should make the site look better for anyone older tablets and monitors.

Having 3x 27" 1440p LED and 1x 27" 4k LED I easily forget how many people on the web are still using 1080p (and even 720p) displays, so everything should like crisp for nearly everybody and if it doesn't you seriously need to get a monitor capable of handling at least 1024x768, lol.

If there are any file hosts on WJunction that anyone is interested in that is also missing from FileHostReview.com let me know as I'll work on them first when I start back up tomorrow.

I have a 21.5" 1080p monitor, I feel so outdated...

21.5" 1080p = 102.46 PPI
27" 1440p = 108.79 PPI

almost same shit,
and I have the advantage of not having to turn my neck around when looking at the sides of the screen

And I guess you have to use binoculars with that other 4k monitor, in the browser you turn up the zoom, what ends up to be the same BS but probably worse using the Windows GUI

I typed a response to you but WJunction crashed and appears it got lost so I'll make this brief.

Sorry for being hostile about the bits and bytes, I thought you were trolling like the others were in this thread. But like I said this isn't up for debate as the standards are bandwidth=SI (bits) and file sizes=binary (Bytes).

I use 1440p for windows 8.1 and ubuntu and have no problem with seeing text and don't zoom in at all (CTRL-0). I sit 4 feet from the displays which are on an 80" wide IKEA desk so I have no neck issues. I only go up to 4k when I am gaming, because it is difficult to read text at normal zoom with 4k displays.

@Peter,

can you please confirm if InCloudDrive indeed has 45 secs Initial wait, followed by no wait at all for Intra-Downloads?

I'm having people saying that they must wait "hours" for another part of a multi-part upload.


Cheers for very necessary work, btw!

Re-testing now, I suspect I had no wait because I used a small file to test with. So this time I'm doing it from my dedicated server with a gigabit uplink and a 2GB sparse text file.

__________________
Added after 26 minutes:

@Peter,

can you please confirm if InCloudDrive indeed has 45 secs Initial wait, followed by no wait at all for Intra-Downloads?

I'm having people saying that they must wait "hours" for another part of a multi-part upload.


Cheers for very necessary work, btw!

Re-testing now, I suspect I had no wait because I used a small file to test with. So this time I'm doing it from my dedicated server with a gigabit uplink and a 2GB sparse text file.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, somewhere they reported free users can upload up to 10GB but the UI only allows 1GB so I updated filehostreview.com with the accurate 1GB limitation for "Free uploaders max file size".

There definitely is a 45 second wait for both anonymous and free users before answering a CAPTCHA to initially start the download, however I can't determine anything for intra-downloads time waits. When I tried to download the file it tells me I can only download one at a time when in reality I wasn't downloading anything.

So I then connected to another of my dedicated servers and opened up the download link as an "anonymous user".

I waited out the 45 seconds, completed the CAPTCHA challenge, and the download successfully completed.

I then opened a new tab:
I waited out the 45 seconds, completed the CAPTCHA challenge, and the site reported that I'm only allowed to download 1 file at a time.

Clearly they have a hidden wait in between downloads but its impossible for me to tell what it is. This may be an intentionally placed bug to force people to upgrade to premium accounts or it might simply just be something broken on their end.

Unfortunately I can't really report any intra-download wait times because it doesn't even tell me that I have to wait any time before starting the next download.

I've pasted these steps into their official support thread to see what they have to say, link: http://www.wjunction.com/95-file-hosts-official-support/192630-52.html#post2034922

__________________
Added after 2 Days 1:

Still no response from inclouddrive, and I'm feeling too lazy to invest any time into trying to manually figure out their hidden intra-download delay times, so for the time being I'm gonna leave the site as is.

Yesterday I added PrivateFiles & JunoCloud, which brings the total to 21 File Hosts listed. I was gonna try and knock off at least a couple more today but I'm gonna work on some metadata stuff for the site's SEO instead.

If there are any sites anyone wants me to research and add to the site please feel free to request them right here. I just prefer that we keep it to File Hosts that have official WJunction Support Threads, I really don't want to waste time figuring out some random fly-by-night file host...

__________________
Added after 6 Days 23 Hours:

I'm thinking of adding a poll feature to award a file host with a "File Host of the Month" award.

The poll will allow one vote per IP; TOR Browsers, & the MANY CIDR ranges of various datacenters I've collected will be denied access as to prevent duplicate votes. Furthermore the poll will be protected by a hard to break CAPTCHA of some sort.

What do you guys think of this idea?

 

[Dredd]

The poll is a good idea, it gives users the opportunity to let others know which host they like best.
It will also give us some sort of warnign on who is going down, and let ust know when to quit using some hosts.

 

[Spox]

Could you add on Filehostreview the review of datafile.com please?

 

[upAfile]

Good Work

Excellent site! very information....

 

[First-servers]

Nice Website... good luck

 

[Peter South]

Could you add on Filehostreview the review of datafile.com please?

I was going to tell you that I was going to add Datafile.com in the next few days, however I see now that their official support thread is missing and the unofficial support thread is full of affiliates complaining that sales have ceased.

Sounds to me that DataFile might simply be a good candidate for FileHostReview's scam hosts page? What do you guys think?

Nice Website... good luck

Thanks!