So I've come along this submission and already on the first page there are two unofficial encodes, one of which is claimed unpublishable by the maker, and the other may or may not be so.
I would like to point out to all encoders that, while Internet Archive provides direct download links at no cost and no penalty, it absolutely shouldn't be used for temporary uploads.
There are several reasons for that. First of all, it creates redundant entries for what is essentially the same file, cluttering the search queries and putting stress on the servers. Second, Internet Archive is a content preservation project — a digital library funded by many organizations, and such liberal use of it is about as ethical as using Wikipedia like a public notepad. Think about it.
Additionally, naming scheme for the uploads (both submission and publication) should be put to some kind of consistency and reflected in publication guidelines. For one, at least the submission number should be included because it is unique for every movie and easily identifiable.
Discuss.
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
I just want to say that in the event someone puts something on Archive.org with some text before it was published, after it is published, please direct the links to the movie page, not the submission page.
Thank you.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 11/22/2004
Posts: 1468
Location: Rotterdam, The Netherlands
I'm glad you made a point of this. If you're going to upload a temporary encode, send it to Youtube.
The Internet Archive is meant for things that need to be preserved for posterity, and while I won't argue that only final products should be uploaded there, it's important to realize that it isn't just a free web host.
It's always possible for funding to become more of an issue for them in the future, and I would hate for video game movies to be considered for culling because of the low signal-to-noise ratio.
Joined: 11/22/2004
Posts: 1468
Location: Rotterdam, The Netherlands
Warp wrote:
Can existing temporary files be removed from archive.org in order to fix the damage already done?
A curator might, and the only person that I know is a curator for the video games section is Radix from SDA.
edit: though we'll want to be a bit careful with what we remove. Some stuff really may have some kind of additional value or might be the only version available. Like encodes of games that were rejected, for example.
Joined: 11/4/2007
Posts: 1772
Location: Australia, Victoria
I agree... perhaps encodes should instead be uploaded to Mediafire (Or some other acceptable service that won't penalize for excessive bandwidth usage) until the movie is accepted, and publish a chosen encode onto Archive.org and reduce redundancy that way.
Either way, a formalized way of uploading to Archive.org should really be done... I'd put proper emphasis into this post, but I am far too busy to be making a proper post, I have people visiting me and I need to cater for them.
Can existing temporary files be removed from archive.org in order to fix the damage already done?
A curator might, and the only person that I know is a curator for the video games section is Radix from SDA.
Maybe we should build an official list of files to remove from archive.org and kindly ask him (or someone else who has the rights) if he could remove them?
I am really sorry if I caused all this trouble. I was under the impression that archive.org was the host of choice because I saw many other people uploading movies there, and I just went with that. Which is understandable, as there are no ads, no download caps, nothing of the bad things which usually come from Mediafire, Megaupload, and so on. Last time I checked, those hosts were extremely discouraged.
That said, I realise that this can't possibly continue, so I'm hereby requesting to have my Movie Editor powers removed, I won't make any other encodes in the future.
Eh, I think you are overreacting. That is absolutely not what I aimed for with this topic.
What you are doing is helpful. It is really a good thing, and I wouldn't want you to stop. Besides, the "damage" (unlike Warp I think it's too strong a word to refer to that) you've done is by no means irreversible.
But any help should be mindful. The reason it happened is not really your fault but largely a community issue, because we've never had any guidelines on uploading streaming content, rather than input files (and even then it was largely DeHackEd's sole initiative that saved us from one-click hoster chaos back in 2005), prior to publication. This is an issue that should be dealt with collectively with complete understanding of pros and cons of each viable choice, otherwise stuff like this will continue and volunteer helpers will feel guilt and want their powers revoked.
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
Joined: 11/22/2004
Posts: 1468
Location: Rotterdam, The Netherlands
Noob Irdoh wrote:
I am really sorry if I caused all this trouble. I was under the impression that archive.org was the host of choice because I saw many other people uploading movies there, and I just went with that. Which is understandable, as there are no ads, no download caps, nothing of the bad things which usually come from Mediafire, Megaupload, and so on. Last time I checked, those hosts were extremely discouraged.
That said, I realise that this can't possibly continue, so I'm hereby requesting to have my Movie Editor powers removed, I won't make any other encodes in the future.
It's no problem man :) nobody's really thought about Archive.org as anything other than an unlimited host before, and others have done the same thing. It's mostly just something we need to keep in mind for the future.
Emulator Coder, Site Developer, Site Owner, Expert player
(3573)
Joined: 11/3/2004
Posts: 4754
Location: Tennessee
I agree it shouldn't be used for temporary movies. Also, such usages are rather rare from what I've seen. Typically we have one quality encode per submission/publication.
I am really sorry if I caused all this trouble. I was under the impression that archive.org was the host of choice because I saw many other people uploading movies there, and I just went with that. Which is understandable, as there are no ads, no download caps, nothing of the bad things which usually come from Mediafire, Megaupload, and so on. Last time I checked, those hosts were extremely discouraged.
The above is all sensible, but the next paragraph caused me a brain aneurysm:
That said, I realise that this can't possibly continue, so I'm hereby requesting to have my Movie Editor powers removed, I won't make any other encodes in the future.
I didn't follow the logic here. Could you please explain your rationale? I don't understand it.
The suggestion in the original post is that we should start using the free service at archive.org more responsibly and according to its stated purpose, which makes sense.
Joined: 10/28/2007
Posts: 1360
Location: The dark horror in the back of your mind
Noob Irdoh wrote:
I am really sorry if I caused all this trouble. I was under the impression that archive.org was the host of choice because I saw many other people uploading movies there, and I just went with that. Which is understandable, as there are no ads, no download caps, nothing of the bad things which usually come from Mediafire, Megaupload, and so on. Last time I checked, those hosts were extremely discouraged.
That said, I realise that this can't possibly continue, so I'm hereby requesting to have my Movie Editor powers removed, I won't make any other encodes in the future.
There's nothing wrong with use of archive.org for a published encode, such as for encodes for the unmirrored movies project (which is why you have those powers in the first place). It's where we see several encodes for a recent submission that the problem begins to arise.
Joined: 11/4/2007
Posts: 1772
Location: Australia, Victoria
What hosts should be used? And what if, for example, the encode is almost guaranteed to be published?
Personally, I think Mediafire makes a pretty good temporary host, assuming the file isn't too large (And encourages more optimized encodes, if the file is too large... unless people want to distribute encodes in split archives, anyway).
There are several ways to deal with that.
First of all, let's not forget we can use streaming services for any kind of videos.
In case a non-streaming version is warranted, there are still options. For highly promising submissions (such as long-awaited improvements or somesuch) a publication-quality encode can be uploaded to Archive, the key point is that we only need one such upload so preferably it should be made by an experienced encoder or publisher.
For submissions whose fate is yet unclear or otherwise controversial, one-click hosters can be used. An example of a nice service that doesn't require waiting, inputting a captcha, or dealing with tons of ads is SendSpace. It has a limit of 300 MB per file, 30 day inactivity period (more than enough for our purposes), and unlimited downloads.
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
Wikiupload is also a good alternative, as its ads are not obscuring, there's no "Wait 50 seconds," and it's not cluttered (look at sendspace if you want an example.)
YoungJ1997lol wrote:
Normally i would say Yes, but thennI thought "its not the same hack" so ill stick with meh.
My opinion would simply be mediafire. sure, it has a 200MB limit, but it allows download accelerators, with no real cap on how much you can download in a day.
If an encode needs somewhere to be hosted (as in, it's not worthy of a final product encode), personal space or a smaller encode (eg. lower quality to fit under that 200MB limit) so it can be uploaded to mediafire would be my advice.
