Nesclone is a temporary name for the clone/mirror fo Nesvideos I'm making, mostly to mirror the AVI files without using torrents (direct-download), and offering some more features not found here.
As of yet it only has support for some basic things (and it only shows one page), but I was curious if there's anything you would like added while it's still in the major planning stages.
(note that this is not a replacement for the nesvideos site; videos will still have to be published here, first!)
So you want to contribute in the original nesvideos site having less seeds than it already has? What for?
That can be a self-feeding problem. "I would download via bittorrent but there are no seeds, thus I download directly from this mirror site" thus making the problem of lack of seeds even worse.
If a file you download directly is EXACTLY the same as the torrented one, then couldn't that file also be used to seed the torrent? Of course I bet most people wouldn't realize they could do that anyway...
put yourself in my rocketpack if that poochie is one outrageous dude
We have video.google.com for the instant-gratification-addicted plebians. And if you were *actually* interested in *just* mirroring them as you say, you'd just mirror them. The original site can be edited to directly link to the files (which should also be done for video.google.com now that it's fairly populated. bisqwit could automate this based on someone supplying a list of urls). Your announcement serves primarily as a personal coding exercise.
It's generous, but best served by simply starting an instance of http://bisqwit.iki.fi/src/btfriend.py :)
And FODA, we need bittorrent in order to easily preserve authenticity of each file (checksum verified before you start downloading -- important to administrators and contributors) and reliability overall. Having the storage and transmission totally dependent on one single point of failure and one channel of network performance would just be foolish. Not to mention that it's the easiest possible way to increase community contribution, which is vital to any community. A community of mostly pure consumers is no community.
I see two possible solutions for this matter:
- either all of the videos should be hosted only at Nesclone (that is, bye-bye BitTorrent —> we have only direct downloads),
- or it should act as a solid seed for BitTorrent.
I think the second variant is better unless you have really nice bandwidth.
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
Okay. What on earth kind of sense is that unilateral and unsubstantiated declaration supposed to make? :)
"I think the second variant is better unless you have really nice bandwidth." ... and is provably 100% reliable, which is impossible.
Oh yes we do have the virtually indestructible and unlimited archive.org which we can continue populating. Thanks for the reminder, thus proving conclusively that we do not need another non-swarmed download site and that any further non-swarmed contributor is a net waste as others have indicated. I forgot about that!
Okay so you don't see why announcing unilateral and unsubstantiated statements is not a productive means of discourse? You may as well have said "all download sessions should be announced in the irc channel", if you're not even going to explain why. :)
I mean your suggestion of possibly abolishing bittorrent obviously can not have any point. That makes no sense, the two are not in any way mutually exclusive or wasteful, and there is no reason to even entertain the thought. That's perfectly clear, and not why I asked. I was just curious as to whether a real motive could be expressed because I like to hear any contribution as long as it's meaningful, or to help iron out thoughts into something productive. :)
Oh yes we do have the virtually indestructible and unlimited archive.org which we can continue populating. Thanks for the reminder, thus proving conclusively that we do not need another non-swarmed download site and that any further non-swarmed contributor is a net waste as others have indicated. I forgot about that!
Your sarcasm and nitpicking are so very bilateral, substantiated and utterly productive! That's how we should make a discourse! I forgot about that.
dtm wrote:
I mean your suggestion of possibly abolishing bittorrent obviously can not have any point. That makes no sense, the two are not in any way mutually exclusive or wasteful, and there is no reason to even entertain the thought. That's perfectly clear, and not why I asked.
The more direct downloads you have, the less peers are there in BT. Most people won't bother themselves seeding the file which was already downloaded off the web. Most of them will probably not open the BT client a single time for that purpose.
That's why they obviously will interfere with each other. And that was already stated by Warp. Thus we have only two choices: all for BT or no BT at all. Every middle position will grow the problem further.
But in light of the fact that we already have Googlevideos at our virtually unlimited disposal (which you already mentioned, BTW), that's not a big problem. Either way we have at least two different means of distributing video content.
Anyway, if you're so concerned about community, why won't you seed all the considerably rare movies out there to help other community members, instead of wasting your rhetoric skills here?
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
if the files are available for download why do we need torrent
Do you really think Bisqwit could have uploaded 47.6 terabytes worth of videos (well, actually a lot more since that number only takes into account the videos which are currently published) to people if he only had direct downloads?
What makes his site different? Unless he has a T1 all for himself, which I doubt...
If it's "all or nothing", perhaps we should just get rid of Google Videos and Archive.org and forget all about any other mirrors.
Cause, you know, direct downloads are the death of Bittorrent!
Suppose you have made a big bunch of pictures and you put them on your webpage at full resolution and carefully fine-tune jpeg settings in order to get the maximum quality/size ratio. Now suppose that someone wants to mirror those images in another site, but he thinks that the files are too big and thus reduces the sizes of the images and saves them as low-quality jpegs without bothering on the slightest to fine-tune the jpeg compression settings to get high quality. Then suppose that that mirror site is 100 times more popular than your original site.
What happens? Thousands of people all over the world will see lousy jpeg-compressed versions of your images, full of artifacts which make them look really ugly. These thousands of people won't realize that that is not what the author intended and that much more high-quality versions of the images would be available.
This happens all the time. With images and with videos. This is especially pronounced with videos: Someone will publish a high-resolution high-quality h264 video somewhere, and if the video is cool, someone else will take the video, rape it to a quarter size in pixels and rape it into a wmv with really lousy quality settings and publish it in a much more popular forum that way. The video will look like a postal-stamp-sized crap. Oh yeah, this happens all the time.
I know, this problem is not so pronounced with nesvideos (people seldom feel the need to reduce the size in pixels), but I still feel a bit uneasy about it.
You appear to be wrongfully assuming that I would readjust the quality levels, unless you are merely talking about Google Videos (which does this).
I would simply download it from the torrent, upload it to the site, and then possibly add it as a mirror here.
I have no intention, nor ability, to change the quality/size of any movie on this site.
