I have downloaded quite a few of your uploads over time for which I am appreciative and thank you for all the effort you have put in to sharing your enthusiasm for music.
But, why oh why do you persist in utilising some of the worst file hosting managers that exist: namely Uploadedto and now worst of all Nitroflare?
Oboom was not quite so bad.
Take a leaf out of many of the other classical music uploaders and consider using MegaNZ amongst others - you do not need a CAPTCHA, no waiting, can stop and start the download at any point and a it is fast.
You may well have other reasons for using the file hosts that you do, but it is definitely not conducive to SHARING your music.
Please reconsider your policy.
Thanking you in anticipation of a positive change.
We had long discussions about hosting servers file (free) and believe me always the same conclusion: there is no better free server. The policy they (the servers) is making life difficult for users to "free". At the end of the day all servers delete files and thus the "claims" of our "megalómano". The policy is simple: MP3 publish the highest quality possible and use hosting servers to keep the files current maximum time and "uploadedto" is one that does not delete files (so far). We know of another system to share our music. We also use (less often) Mega NZ. Thanks for the information, consider your suggestion. Apologies, English is not the native language
Thank you for taking the time and courtesy in replying to my comments.
I can appreciate that your comments and priorities as an up-loader are different to those of us who do not upload (time, patience and technical capability prevent me from doing so).
If you have to employ Uploadedto, then I can live with that, but PLEASE, PLEASE DO NOT USE Nitroflare - the worst host server that I have ever encountered as a down-loader.
As I stated earlier MegaNZ is the best - it would be really good if other host servers copy this management approach.
But I do worry that if everyone employs MegaNZ, then deleterious monopolistic practices might ensue - not "to keep all the eggs in the same basket"! - might be the best practice.
I understand Carlos's good reasons but I totally agree with Douglas on this issue. Nitroflare is absolutely horrible for downloaders. Oboom is not far behind in awfulness.
Like many other people I use "debrideur" (to use the French word) websites that allow you to have access to a large number of host servers as a premium user by paying one relatively small sum of money. Some hosters, however, including Nitroflare, Oboom and others, are totally unfriendly to debrideurs and make it very difficult or impossible to debrideurs to allow premium membership to their users. Those hosters force the user to buy from them a premium access in order to download files. Aside from the fact that buying premium accounts from all host servers would be absolutely insane and financially unfeasible for anyone but a wealthy person, I do not accept, as a matter of principle, that hosters force me to buy premium accounts to download stuff. So as long as you use Nitroflare or Oboom I can not download the music you so kindly share, and must part from your otherwise excellent blog.
I apologize for the lengthy message but I just wished to explain the situation of many downloaders as regards the good / bad host server issue. Thank you for your great sharing, which is very appreciated.
Hello Carlos,
ResponderEliminarI have downloaded quite a few of your uploads over time for which I am appreciative and thank you for all the effort you have put in to sharing your enthusiasm for music.
But, why oh why do you persist in utilising some of the worst file hosting managers that exist: namely Uploadedto and now worst of all Nitroflare?
Oboom was not quite so bad.
Take a leaf out of many of the other classical music uploaders and consider using MegaNZ amongst others - you do not need a CAPTCHA, no waiting, can stop and start the download at any point and a it is fast.
You may well have other reasons for using the file hosts that you do, but it is definitely not conducive to SHARING your music.
Please reconsider your policy.
Thanking you in anticipation of a positive change.
Cheers,
Douglas (UK)
Dear Douglas:
ResponderEliminarWe had long discussions about hosting servers file (free) and believe me always the same conclusion: there is no better free server. The policy they (the servers) is making life difficult for users to "free". At the end of the day all servers delete files and thus the "claims" of our "megalómano".
The policy is simple: MP3 publish the highest quality possible and use hosting servers to keep the files current maximum time and "uploadedto" is one that does not delete files (so far).
We know of another system to share our music.
We also use (less often) Mega NZ. Thanks for the information, consider your suggestion.
Apologies, English is not the native language
regards (saludos)
Hi again Carlos,
ResponderEliminarThank you for taking the time and courtesy in replying to my comments.
I can appreciate that your comments and priorities as an up-loader are different to those of us who do not upload (time, patience and technical capability prevent me from doing so).
If you have to employ Uploadedto, then I can live with that, but PLEASE, PLEASE DO NOT USE Nitroflare - the worst host server that I have ever encountered as a down-loader.
As I stated earlier MegaNZ is the best - it would be really good if other host servers copy this management approach.
But I do worry that if everyone employs MegaNZ, then deleterious monopolistic practices might ensue - not "to keep all the eggs in the same basket"! - might be the best practice.
Do hope that you will use MegaNZ a little more.
Thank you for listening.
You have no problem with your English.
Cheers,
Douglas (UK)
Dear Douglas:
EliminarMega NZ has a restriction of 50 Gb, then that must be paid. My account on that server is nearly at max, but I will use it as much as possible.
regards (saludos)
Hi Carlos,
EliminarFully understand.
Thank you for all your efforts.
Much appreciated.
Take care.
Cheers,
Douglas (UK)
I understand Carlos's good reasons but I totally agree with Douglas on this issue. Nitroflare is absolutely horrible for downloaders. Oboom is not far behind in awfulness.
ResponderEliminarLike many other people I use "debrideur" (to use the French word) websites that allow you to have access to a large number of host servers as a premium user by paying one relatively small sum of money. Some hosters, however, including Nitroflare, Oboom and others, are totally unfriendly to debrideurs and make it very difficult or impossible to debrideurs to allow premium membership to their users. Those hosters force the user to buy from them a premium access in order to download files. Aside from the fact that buying premium accounts from all host servers would be absolutely insane and financially unfeasible for anyone but a wealthy person, I do not accept, as a matter of principle, that hosters force me to buy premium accounts to download stuff. So as long as you use Nitroflare or Oboom I can not download the music you so kindly share, and must part from your otherwise excellent blog.
I apologize for the lengthy message but I just wished to explain the situation of many downloaders as regards the good / bad host server issue. Thank you for your great sharing, which is very appreciated.