19silver21
Member
Downloads speeds equal 1Gig an hour.Problem fixed?
Filefox support
- Thread starter FileFox
- Start date
-
- Tags
- filefox.cc help
Yeah speeds are again very slow (2 MB/s) while everything else is operating normally. I'm tired...
19silver21
Member
Agree
19silver21
Member
3hours for a 300MB . Im a patient person but this is ridiculous. And know its not on my end. Thanks
@19silver21, please contact to our support team to get help.
Lazarus
New member
I will then cancel my subscription. I don't need a filefox account, but I got it just to help out this website and, relative to the content on this site, what I planned to upload is nothing to be concerned about. I have never encountered a policy like this on any other provider. You may have valid reasons I do not understand, but, on principle, I find the fact that I have to get my content reviewed and approved first to be unacceptable.
Lazarus
New member
I have nothing to hide and--I'm not sure that you are implying I am, but to be clear-- I reject and resent any insinuation that my lack of appreciation for this policy indicates that. It's a strongly entrenched principle of mine that the individual is innocent until proven guilty. I associate the notion that someone "should be willing to be searched to prove they have nothing to hide" with totalitarian regimes. That's what makes me bristle.
Having said that, filefox has every right to institute the policies they want. And, despite my objection to the way it was handled, I can somewhat understand the intent of the policy even if I don't agree. But, I don't really understand the reasoning... Unless you're actually going to inspect every single upload for the duration of my subscription, it doesn't make sense to me how it would stop a client from posting material you're concerned about. I have no interest in making money off of my downloads. All I wanted to do was post my Kona Kolani collection of videos for people on KK. But, after that is approved, who knows? Maybe in a few months, I'll want to post my collection of child-incest-snuff films featuring Bobo the rapid rapist mastiff. Will you still be reviewing then? Might it not be just as effective to monitor the http referrer with the presumption that if it's linked from a forum like kitty-kats, that it won't contain questionable content? There may be technical reasons why that particular solution wouldn't work, but certainly there are more transparent approaches that would be just as effective without the negative ramifications to the customer than that they first seek review and permission.
You state that many filehosts have this policy, but this is the first I've ever encountered it and I've used every filehost that kitty-kats has recommended (dating back to before they were KK) as well as others preferred by other forums. That doesn't invalidate your reasoning/need for the policy, but it should make you sensitive to the idea that there are many like me who will be surprised and puzzled by this policy. How do those other filehosts avoid the problem you're concerned about?
If this is simply one of those annoying legal requirements that you wish you and your customers didn't have to follow, but you're required to, I commiserate with you. I despise that kind of thing. But, one of the following probably would have caused me to be more understanding.
- Make it clear when a customer subscribes to the service that uploads will require at least an initial approval. Do not put a big "upload your files now" button on the page until that approval has been received, or, at least, put some kind of note near it, or is presented when I click on it, that initial uploads will require approval so that people like me don't have to waste time trying different browsers and contacting filefox thinking that this is a technical glitch. I spent a while ruling out browser and javascript-type problems before I felt justified in contacting you that the problem was on your end.
- When a customer contacts you because the button that says "upload now" doesn't work, don't reply with the simple response, "What files are you going to upload and what for?"... which suggests the customer may be guilty of improper use, that the burden is on them to negotiate for a service that they've already paid for, and that it's a perfectly acceptable user interface to confuse the user with buttons that don't do what they say.
Silicate
New member
I have a question. I've used FF for awhile now and the one failing (apart from the weird three day data thing) is the multiple windows to download a file. I've recently upgraded to Pro - and I also noticed the following "Downloads start instantly" as a stated feature of both Pro and whatever the standard version is called. Now I can't deny that once I click on the download button on the second window - after I've already clicked on one button to generate a download link - it DOES typically download immediately. However, this is not "Downloads start instantly" as experienced with other similar providers. With other providers once you've logged on to your account and initiate a download it simply starts, no rigmarole. I can only imagine that what you mean is "there is no download timer if you pay us money", and frankly any fileserver that offers free and paid versions does that and nobody would bat an eye to find a timer nor be surprised when, once they subscribed the timer disappeared. It is this awkward two stage process that I find difficult to justify and touting "Downloads start instantly" as a feature when clearly they don't is just annoying and mystifying.
@Red Baron, fixed!
Red Baron
New member
Last edited by a moderator:
@Red Baron, @SAN, yes, we have fixed everything really fast.