Making packed picture sets mandatory?

[nobadguy]

I downloaded a lot pictures of many models over the years from VEF and the usual problem was and is that many sets are incomplete, even the newest sets get incomplete that way sooner or later.

So my question is if such complete sets(from models or other 3rd party webpages) should also be provided packed on a filehoster.

I'm just working through a Nadine Jansen collection that is really COMPLETE(unlike the VEF thread here) and provided on a filehoster instead a picturehoster, and it feels damned good to fill the empty spots(pun intended) of all these incomplete sets. I'm not talking about providing packed links for every user made collection of pictures but all these webpage sets really deserve to be kept complete.

[buttsie]

Never going to happen - using Modern as an example

Members are Restricted to Five (5) Download Links in any 24 hour period.
These 5 links can be in a single post or spread across as many as Five (5) posts.

Unless the forum wants to slow down upload posting to a trickle
imagehosts are here to stay

Its the age old old debate over how do you please the most members

Filehosts were king for awhile but eventually as the size of files got larger
members werent amused at downloading 200mb or 300 repetitive pics to get a handful they wanted so imagehsots with gallery option was the happy medium choice

Collectors now arent amused at only getting 95-99% with
dmca notices for individual pics eating into full sets over time

Best you can hope for is uploaders use pixhost and choose the gallery option
enter that via pic - top right and you have a zipfile download top middle

I've never gotten all that upset by getting partial sets given photographers
rarely release a true full set 300-500 pics

How to improve VEF 2013-
http://vintage-erotica-forum.com/sho...&highlight=vef

[fats]

Yep, I agree with ^.

Even as a relative newbie here, and not having taken the time to read that earlier very long thread (sorry), I can easily see that the results of such a rule would be a disaster. Assuming that the current limit of 5 links per 24 hours is removed and zip/rar links are required from then on, the uploaders will say "To hell with it" and go elsewhere. With the rules as they are now, uploading using only the image hosts is fast and painless. The later decay of many (most?) sets due to takedowns and/or screwups at the image hosts is just something we all have to put up with. It would be great if we could depend on communal archival storage there, but we can't, and that's just how it is because those are for-profit businesses. Your local disk drives, and backups of those, are your archival storage.

It's also not feasible to depend on the file hosts for reliable archival storage. In my experience as a downloader, big problems with the file hosts vastly outweigh the problems with the image hosts. The main thing at the moment is that Captcha has become completely evil and is now deliberately used, just about everywhere, to punish non-paying downloaders. It's easy to say "OK, everybody use the excellent 1filcher and pay for a membership there", but any one file host is not a good long-term solution, for a bunch of reasons. For how long will 1filcher remain excellent? As an example from a slightly different realm, remember many years ago when it didn't seem like Google could ever be evil, and it even started using the corporate motto "Don't be evil"? What happened to that? Well, Google turned evil, that's what. Also, "All eggs in one basket" is not a good practice to begin with.

Speaking as a downloader who doesn't want to pay ridiculous prices for memberships at half a dozen (or more) file hosts, my experience lately is that when I can successfully download a rar or a zip or a video, I am very surprised, because it's a blue-moon event. That free-downloading process has become such a PITA in the last year or two that I have pretty much stopped trying. Only when there's something featuring a model I'm really crazy about will I try beyond a few captcha iterations, assuming that the file hasn't already been deleted from lack of downloads or by a targeted takedown.

The file hosts have turned into a crock of dung. You can say that 1filcher (which I have no experience with) is different, and I believe you and that's great for now, but it would be foolish to depend only on that in the long run.

[nobadguy]

All said about filehoster counts equally for picturehosters except for the captchas, but despite them videos are still uploaded to them and downloaded from them, and many more than picture sets.
At least filehosts usually don't maul filenames unlike some picturehosters were all you get is a sets with senseless file names that is neither in the right order nor in a state to compare it to the own collection.

I also don't see any problem raising the upload limit to 10 to allow picture sets to be mirrored on filehosters.

And the talk about running away from VEF is just an illusion, other board don't work with pictures hosters at all except as preview, all the sets are upload to filehosters.

[fats]

Originally Posted by nobadguy

other board don't work with pictures hosters at all except as preview, all the sets are upload to filehosters.

Not true. The best one I've ever seen aside from VEF uses almost entirely image hosts, with file hosts optional, for pic sets. I've been getting tons of great stuff there using IHG to rip.

Oh, yeah, p.s. about munged file names: I agree that it's a big PITA, and one necessary workaround for it, just for starters, is for everybody to stop using coddamned imagebam. Argh.

[fats]

Another thing occurred to me about deliberate takedowns as opposed to the apparently random "picture rot" (image decay) over the months and years.

We all know about various rightsholders that are notorious for immediately jumping on uploaded material and sending out takedowns for it. I have my own personal list of maybe half a dozen of those problem brand names. (I mean in addition to what's on the Forbidden Lists, both stated and unstated, here at VEF.) Sometimes they use checksumming on the files that are uploaded so they can automate the process: any file with an MD5 (or whatever) that matches an entry in their database of proprietary stuff gets targeted.

OK, here's my point: When that process is not completely automated, which is to say when those people actually look at various venues and see something of theirs and send out the takedowns, they're going to do that with zip/rar/video files (assuming that preview pics are posted or keywords are present in titles and posts) just as they do with individual image files in picture sets. So I don't think that zipping or rarring the pic sets is going to guard against the DMCA damage ... unless you want to be really cryptic about everything and never post any actual pics or previews or studio names or model/actress names, etc. And what fun is that?

[buttsie]

Eons ago there was a site called giffer

It had oodles of rare content but had one no no for the serious collectors
All filenames had been changed - didnt even realise it until the serious Scan section
began and started rejecting collections started

99% were happy because they were unseen but the 1 % wouldnt touch it

Filehosts are useful but they require the uploaders to keep re-upping
over & over in my experience where as pics on an imagehost still offer something
to the fourm long after the member has left the forum


Good luck when the filehosts start closing or deleting content due to inactivity
Mediafire & Depositfiles my 7th & 8th filehosts used in just 11 years

I've only used 4 imagehosts - all are still alive

The deceased
- rapidshare , megaupload , toucan sharing , packupload , multi-upload , put locker

The court episode with the popular 1fichier having to kill off oodles of content to just survive a classic episode of why this forum has headed down the imagehost path

Originally Posted by fats

Another thing occurred to me about deliberate takedowns as opposed to the apparently random "picture rot" (image decay) over the months and years.

We all know about various rightsholders that are notorious for immediately jumping on uploaded material and sending out takedowns for it. I have my own personal list of maybe half a dozen of those problem brand names. (I mean in addition to what's on the Forbidden Lists, both stated and unstated, here at VEF.) Sometimes they use checksumming on the files that are uploaded so they can automate the process: any file with an MD5 (or whatever) that matches an entry in their database of proprietary stuff gets targeted.

OK, here's my point: When that process is not completely automated, which is to say when those people actually look at various venues and see something of theirs and send out the takedowns, they're going to do that with zip/rar/video files (assuming that preview pics are posted or keywords are present in titles and posts) just as they do with individual image files in picture sets. So I don't think that zipping or rarring the pic sets is going to guard against the DMCA damage ... unless you want to be really cryptic about everything and never post any actual pics or previews or studio names or model/actress names, etc. And what fun is that?

Our sister forum planet-suzy devised a method to stop reporting
Still going today - in their TV section which i frequent

Essentially it hid the links posted until a member thanked it
admin - jenny has spoken about it elsewhere on VEF

If content went down too quickly you just checked who had thanked it
and banned the obvious candidate