300MB "Movie" that is actually a 75MB clip with 275MB of "image.rar"

[behemoth]

This seems to be happening more frequently. You find a clip you want (some of the more recent Angelica Bella posts come to mind) and see it's a .rar file of 250 or 300MB so you download it. Once it is downloaded you extract the file only to discover the film clip is a about 75MB and the balance of the download is a file such as "images.rar" which doesn't open but is the majority of the download. A new twist is that there is an image folder, but one of the files is a 175MB .png file.

The point is that it is all very misleading. Often we think that the bigger the clip, the better the quality- it just seems like a waste of time to me. Before I accuse posters of being scam artists (I asked one about the unopenable image.rar file and he explained, "it is images." Oh. Thanks.) can anyone tell me why this is? What is the motivation? Or, is it ignorance on my part?

[hound dog]

I've noticed a lot of downloads like you've described, myself. I use 7-zip to extract .rar files, but I click the .rar file first to open it and see whats in it, then I only extract the video file. After the video is extracted, I'll watch it, to see if it works and is something I want to keep, then I toss the original .rar file with all the extra's I didn't want. I imagine some people include a screen grab and the cover photo's to have everything in the .rar that would be needed to post it again for whatever reason. Less effort needed on the posters part to make it available again.

Also most posters give the screen resolution in their posts, or their screen grab title has that info included, I always try to take a look at that before making a decision on downloading, too small for my tastes and I wont bother with the download.

[behemoth]

Yeah, but it still makes no sense. A 250MB download consisting of a 75MB video and 175MB of screenshots? F.O.H.

[pferdewurst]

On which hoster was the file? I think he made it to get more points or whetever. The ranking is mostly

under 100MB

over 100MB

100-500MB

500-1000MB

1Gig and more.

So he made this get over 100MB.

[a435843]

Ideally, I would like to see compressed files banned. Technically, it's not really necessary (it may save 1%) to compress .mp4's, .jpg's, etc., since the data is already compressed in the native format anyway. I know that some posters like to password protect their .rar files, but that's becoming less common.

At least, I would like to see a requirement for posted compressed files that lists the file manifest in the post itself, with the respective sizes of the videos, ancillary graphics, etc. That way, the forum member can decide whether to download the whole .rar.

[behemoth]

Interesting. Now I see the member has been banned..... "vierfo7" was his username

[captpike]

That user isn't the only one there is one more out there also doing the same

[EsotericKnave]

Originally Posted by a435843

Ideally, I would like to see compressed files banned. Technically, it's not really necessary (it may save 1%)

As I recall, it was originally done to hide the file from the file host company, for fear of deletion.

[retroanalyst]

Originally Posted by captpike

That user isn't the only one there is one more out there also doing the same

Should they be reported so that other members are warned of them, or does nobody really care? I have just discovered one of those people, joined only two weeks ago.

[chip]

Originally Posted by retroanalyst

Should they be reported so that other members are warned of them, or does nobody really care? I have just discovered one of those people, joined only two weeks ago.

It seems to me that padding a download with useless info just to get increased bread-post traffic/points goes against the spirit of the forum and the idea that all clips must be readily available and free.

Sure the downloads are free but so many of the filehosts have bandwidth per user allocations per hour (keep2share, depositfiles and so forth). I know I'd be pretty miffed if I burned through an allocation on a tiny clip that was packed with junk and had to wait a few hours to grab another file.

On banning zipped archives here: nope. I say keep the archives. Their only need is to throw off checksums that automatically nuke known uploads of reported files. Files packed with a small text file that says something like "this super cool file swiped from the Vintage Erotica Forum" or even an .info file like on a torrent means that the checksum sniffer has been defeated.

--