Filefactory....

[bigbobnobody]

Originally Posted by old alal

bigbobnobody. If you are referring to my posts and issue.....

In post 143 I said "I was getting this message "this site has been reported to Microsoft as unsafe"

I then asked "Anyone else?, and assuming I have reasonable good protection can I continue to download?

I then, in post 145, added the link I was having trouble with.
I am not sure how to make this any clearer.

If you are not referring to my posts and issues then ignore the above, however I still get the unsafe message on the link mentioned, but not on other links, and I am just unsure if I should continue to D/L or not.

Thanks for any and all replies.

Actually I believe I was talking about the fella having problems downloading
1st links in multiple link files.

Dunno if I can give you a hard and firm answer to your question, but
I can certainly give you a half way educated opinion on the subject of
those "reported to Microsoft" warnings, having had my share of plenty
of them over the years, although never a single time from FF's site, after
more than 5 years using them as my primary online storage site.

There's alot that I don't know about those MS report warnings, such
as how they are generated exactly......by users such as you and I
creating a report or what have you, or MS actually investigating any
site tagged with that warning. I simply don't know.

What I do know though, is that these MS reports, wouldn't come up
at all if not for my virus protection. Not saying that my virus protection
actually creates these reports, but that it seems pretty apparent to me,
that mine and other types/brands of virus protection programs, must work
in conjunction with MS in some sort of way, as well being integrated into
my web browser some how.

Curiosity killed the cat, as the saying goes, so I've on several occasions
bypassed that warning's advice, and went on to the page I was trying to
go to to begin with, rather than chose the "get me out of here" option,
the warning suggests we all take. So far.....going against their advice to
not go on to the page I was trying to go to, has not set off any bells and
whistles, telling me that I was under attack, and subsequent scans, found
nothing that got thru any possible virus protection cracks.

I can't say whether I've simply been lucky, whether my virus protection
has silently staved off any attacks, or if those MS report warnings, are
much ado about nothing. Ultimately, one takes a chance of picking up a
virus, the second that one hooks up their Ethernet cable to their computer,
with a live modem. It basically boils down to, how much confidence a
fellas has in their virus protection I'd think. Personally, although I do
put quite a bit of trust in my own protection, I do realize, that the best
protection one can have, is plain 'ol common sense. A business such
that FF is, won't stay in business very long, with bugs crawling all over
it, and is probably a helluva lot more secure, than many of the shady
joints this 'ol dog visits lol.

Doubt I helped you any bud, but it's a great subject to discuss

[J4ZZ]

Anyone else having problems with download links canceling at about 99% and starting from scratch? I'm trying to d/l a 250 mb chunk since yesterday but the file somehow won't finish. Everytime I checked JD it was loading at around 70kb/s and the progress was on different Percentages, so something must always prevent completion and issue a reset.

Moreover Filefactory doesn't support 'resume' feature (at least for free users) so maybe one should consider to remove it again from the Preferred Hosts List

Thanks,

J4ZZ

[riccaardo]

Moreover Filefactory doesn't support 'resume' feature (at least for free users) so maybe one should consider to remove it again from the Preferred Hosts List

I know filefactory is far from perfect, but - from what you have written - this would seem to only be about one file. Whilst I know how frustrating it can be, it does seem a little early to be calling for it's removal as a preferred host - especially when you look at some of the other filehosts and their horror stories. If - on the other hand - you have experienced this with a large number of files using different download methods - eg: more than one download manager and more than 1 browser - then I think there would be a case - especially if others write with similar documented problems. Sadly - these decisions affect a lot of people and can only be made rationally based on available data. Let's see who else is having these problems. :-)

[bigbobnobody]

Originally Posted by J4ZZ

Anyone else having problems with download links canceling at about 99% and starting from scratch? I'm trying to d/l a 250 mb chunk since yesterday but the file somehow won't finish. Everytime I checked JD it was loading at around 70kb/s and the progress was on different Percentages, so something must always prevent completion and issue a reset.

Moreover Filefactory doesn't support 'resume' feature (at least for free users) so maybe one should consider to remove it again from the Preferred Hosts List

Thanks,

J4ZZ

Have you considered the possibility that JDownloader is the problem???
It's a pretty well known fact, that the people that run JDownloader, either
don't have the skill or the gumption to figure out how to configure their
download manager for Filefactory. Filefactory, suggests that one uses
Downthemall, an add on to Firefox, as the best choice for a download
manager for their files. I've used it and it does great with FF files, although
not worth a damn with other file hosts. Either way...one can always simply
download a file thru the website, and their browser. Blaming FF for JD not
working correctly, doesn't make alot of sense.

As far as non premium users not being able to "resume" their downloads.....
I know of no other file hosts that do either, without premium accounts.
FF is on the preferred list, not just because of it's wide use, but the reason
behind it's wide use. Files uploaded to them, last longer than any other
file host, and their download speed for free users, is as fast or faster than
the average. In other words.....it's preferred.

[lagerlout]

Originally Posted by bigbobnobody

Have you considered the possibility that JDownloader is the problem???
It's a pretty well known fact, that the people that run JDownloader, either
don't have the skill or the gumption to figure out how to configure their
download manager for Filefactory.

Really ?

The same files I am having problems with in JDownloader are not working in Firefox or Chrome either

I find it astonishing I have had 4 different downloads going 24/ 7 since Aug 22nd That only part #1 wont download . One even had new parts put up and guess what Part #1 just gave the same error . " This file can not be downloaded at this time "

[J4ZZ]

Originally Posted by lagerlout

The same files I am having problems with in JDownloader are not working in Firefox or Chrome either

Exactly, and I can add Opera as well.

And to add a few slomo hosts (30Kb/s) wich support resume...
********, publish2, salesfiles support it (and those are still on top of my personal worst (free) hosts list)

Basically most of them allow to resume your download in case you've lost connection during your allowed download session.

Cheers,

J4ZZ

[Sandi Anderson]

Is there sometimes a delay with the transfer process after uploading via filezilla, had 5 files uploaded, but not in filefactory ftp upload folder?. 2 have now appeared in ftp upload folder.

[bigbobnobody]

Originally Posted by lagerlout

Really ?

The same files I am having problems with in JDownloader are not working in Firefox or Chrome either

I find it astonishing I have had 4 different downloads going 24/ 7 since Aug 22nd That only part #1 wont download . One even had new parts put up and guess what Part #1 just gave the same error . " This file can not be downloaded at this time "

You bet your ass really. JD has ALWAYS sucked with FF files, and this
has gone on for years. You've said nothing about going to FF's site, to
see if there's any issues going on, where low and behold....this message:

https://help.filefactory.com/hc/en-u...ixed-s9-fixed-

That would be why the file you're having trouble with most likely is
currently out of service. As far as the poster putting up a "new" link.....
new to you and new to being stored at FF, is two different things. If
that link is stored on the server drive under maintenance, you'd of course
get the same results. It's easy enough to tell which sever a file is located,
but going to the download page. Obviously if a2 or s3 precedes the link
at the bottom of your page when you put your cursor over the dl button,
then it's going to be out of commission.
If you'd like, PM me the link you're having trouble with, and I'll check it
for you.

Originally Posted by J4ZZ

Exactly, and I can add Opera as well.

And to add a few slomo hosts (30Kb/s) wich support resume...
********, publish2, salesfiles support it (and those are still on top of my personal worst (free) hosts list)

Basically most of them allow to resume your download in case you've lost connection during your allowed download session.

Cheers,

J4ZZ

None that I know of, that aren't fairly well known to be chitty and I'd
probably not click on em to begin with, have ever had the resume
capability for anonymous downloaders. That's almost always been one
of the perks of having a premium account with a file host.

Originally Posted by LV Gas

Is there sometimes a delay with the transfer process after uploading via filezilla, had 5 files uploaded, but not in filefactory ftp upload folder?. 2 have now appeared in ftp upload folder.

The time it takes to get there will vary from upload to upload, but for
the most part......somewhere between a couple of minutes up to sometimes
15 or so. If it's taken longer than 15 minutes, that means that the remote
upload server is under quite a bit of strain, and that there's several people
on it at once.

[J4ZZ]

Originally Posted by bigbobnobody

None that I know of, that aren't fairly well known to be chitty and I'd
probably not click on em to begin with, have ever had the resume
capability for anonymous downloaders. That's almost always been one
of the perks of having a premium account with a file host.

Right, but those I mentioned work... And even if the speed is low, you can simply copy & paste the links into a downloadmanager and sit back instead of clicking each single link one by one after a certain period of time ...

So, I would rather use slow chitty hosts that work (and even support resume) than those that can't even complete a single file without errors.

Cheers,

J4ZZ

[bigbobnobody]

Originally Posted by J4ZZ

Right, but those I mentioned work... And even if the speed is low, you can simply copy & paste the links into a downloadmanager and sit back instead of clicking each single link one by one after a certain period of time ...

So, I would rather use slow chitty hosts that work (and even support resume) than those that can't even complete a single file without errors.

Cheers,

J4ZZ

I've got files/links that are older than most of those chitty file hosts you're
talking about have even been around, and they'll be around when most of
those are long gone as well. Each person that's wanting to download
something, has a choice as to whether or not they download from the
file host that's being used. What they don't have a right to, is to try to
tell someone which file host that they have to use. If you wanna download
it fine.....if not....that's fine too. Just don't try to blame a file host....in
this instance FF, for not working with a download manager that has hardly
ever worked with FF. Despite what you may think, the majority of people
store files at FF, because of their dependability. The glitches that come up
occasionally, usually have sound explanations, and for the most part are
taken care of fairly quickly. It makes alot more sense to try to find out
what's going on and a solution to what a problem is, than to throw your
hands up in the air and proclaim some file host sucks. But then that's your
choice too.