Official Filesonic.com Launch - Announcement & Feedback

Hey guys, I ve been having trouble with my download speeds. Its very slow!! I just joined as a premium member yesterday and started downloading files using Download Accelerator Plus. I checked my internet connection by downloading from other websites and it looked perfect. Only the downloads from filesonic were slow and still ARE slow. I am getting 300-400 KBps (compared to 1500-1700 KBps) from other websites. What's going on? This is the first time I ve been a member of filesonic, is that the download speed you offer or something is wrong? Are you guys working on it?

 

FTp about ~200 kb/s , when will it be fixed

 

Filesonic is cheating.Downloads reduce so much !

 

yesterday . My stat about 20% compared with the normal day

 

LOL I forgot about the parallel downloading thing. I'm glad you put an end to that.

To those that are complaining about your stats being lower; try reading previous posts on the forum. Filesonic isn't cheating, they're just stopping others from taking advantage of their services. Anything that increases sales and keeps server load down is good with me!

 

hmm... i think i see what i missed before... i was actually looking at a page that loads up when a free user clicks a file link... it goes to this page where there are no mention of the limit...



i can only see the page that you pointed out after you click "premium" at the top of the page...

i think this should be pointed out on the first page... but this can be done later...

 

I'd like to tell you guys an interesting story about the size limit for free users. When we first launched FileSonic, I told my programmers to set the limit 400mb, just like it was on SharingMatrix, but with a small buffer. My idea was to make free users happier, by allowing them to download files slightly over 400mb (like 400.5mb). You know what happened? Some affiliate caught wind of this and started splitting their archives into files just over 400mb so that they can earn points for a higher size bracket... another example of people taking advantage of our then loose policies.

This is why our rules will now be rigidly implemented. We haven't added a single new rule; we just made sure we're applying old ones. Excuse me for being blunt, but we're here to build a great file sharing site; we're not here to get screwed by people who think they're outsmarting us.

 

good point...

 

I'm premium and I'm getting 384 Kbs. speed is not good for premium users

 

I have 2 user joining FIlesonic by my referal link but in Referal page there's no their name in int.
R there anything mistake with this ?

 

I understand there are FileSonic affiliates here therefore I took the trouble to register my account in this forum so that I can get my support from FS .

I have made payment to Filesonic for about 2 weeks already , through paypal , but yet to have my account upgraded to premium , nor have my email replied ? What's going on ?

 

With these garbage rules you will say astalavista before rapidshare. Bye Bye sonic.

 

The best thing to do is to send a PM with the details of your problem & account to member filesonic-support

 

Do filesonic stop counting multiple downloads?
so if the movie have 6 parts i get only 1 download if all 6 parts are downloaded by 1 ip address?
Please answer for this question,because this is very important for uploaders.

Regards

 

I probably should comment on this as I sparked quite a bit of the discussion on it yesterday and wouldn't want my comments to reflect such a grim attitude. While I would agree with the gist of your conclusion, khantharee, I don't necessarily count the inability to RU FROM FileSonic as a negative.

The first thing we need to acknowledge is that file hosts do not provide RU as a service to their members in itself. RU is essentially a vehicle to encourage new members to join the host and a means, in terms of older members, of diverting traffic from competing hosts. With this in mind, there are two competing camps among file hosts when it comes to allowing RU FROM your host. The first group wants to prevent such losses from their hosts first and foremost. Not only are there hosts which actively block such traffic from their hosts, but there are even hosts which clearly state in their user agreement that your account will be suspended if they suspect you of mirroring files. This is why you will see practically every host promoting incoming RU, but varying restrictions from host to host on outgoing RU.

The second group sees RU more as a promotional tool and even though they may have certain restrictions, generally make both incoming and outgoing RU easy. There are valid arguments to promote both schools of thought and there are valid reasons why one approach or the other could be more beneficial to particular hosts.

FileSonic seems to have come down in the former camp. This is not a problem or negative in itself. Server load is an issue and not providing outgoing RU will cut back on load. I think we can all agree that stability is the primary concern at present. FileSonic is also experiencing severe problems with fraud. If they don't quell such fraud, not only will downtime continue, but the financial health of the host will be put in jeopardy. Anyone who thinks FileSonic doesn't deserve a profit is foolish. How long would payments to you continue without a profit? There is also the issue of mirroring. While there are many of us who do not actively mirror, there are probably more affiliates who do. Not only does this have no immediate benefit on FileSonic's bottom line, but it is probably diverting more traffic away from FileSonic than it is attracting after the troubles of the past two months. At a time when FileSonic has started to bounce back from it's lowest point, this is important. FileSonic cannot afford to be as magnanimous with it's traffic (and thus it's sales) as can the big boys at the present time. Let's compare FileSonic to another upstart, FileServe, that were at about the same point last April. Although FileServe had a slight edge going into August (check out Alexa) both hosts had practically quintupled their presence during those months. Unfortunately, since August FileServe has doubled that quick growth and FileSonic fell below the numbers SharingMatrix achieved. As stability has improved the past couple weeks, that loss has stabilized and it is going to need to remain stable if the growth is to resume. FileSonic is also at a point where we may need to "force" folk who have come to distrust FileSonic over the past months to "re-try" the service and see for themselves it is regaining its promise. Mirroring doesn't help in this regard and in this light, eliminating RU to make it hard to mirror doesn't seem as bad, does it? (BTW: I don't intend to put down those who mirror. it's a personal choice. I think we just need to be aware of it from a file host's perspective.)

So, my quibble yesterday was not that RU FROM FileSonic had been eliminated, but rather that it was not being acknowledged. For me, it's an issue not because I need to mirror, but I do feel it is necessary to backup my files elsewhere to protect against further downtime. I hope I won't need it, but better safe than sorry after the past two months. Thus, I like to know the status so I can plan my transfers accordingly. I'll grant FS-IT that preventing RU may not have been their primary goal (as I outlined above), but this was the end result of the re-directs FS has instituted. The argument that other hosts need to "adapt" was silly. First, this is not how the established competitors behave and FS is well aware of that. Second, any incentive they would have to adapt their code is more than counteracted by the fact FileSonic has changed code so often of late and that since August FileSonic's marketshare poses no significant threat to their continued well being. Thus, there is little gain in them spending their time and effort in "adapting" to FileSonic's changes.

As I've said many times in the past, like or dislike the new impementations, stability is key right now. Give FileSonic the room to do this and a couple months down the line when their reputation has been regained and growth is again a reality, we can begin pestering them about such things as RU to other hosts.

 

FS count multiple downloads from free users, but only (1) download per premium user (unique IP) per 24 hours.

 

hey can anybody help me i am not able to add my website to filesonic

i just want to ask few questions when i download the key and put it in my root directory then what should be the filename is it

1. sharingmatrix_key_xxxxxxxx.txt

2. filesonic_key_xxxxxxxx.txt

3. filesonic_key_5l5whvwRkykpNe3oUfKGHfAkGlp88Nr3Ymq6IMOTbY9O322O8D.txt

4. sharingmatrix_key_5l5whvwRkykpNe3oUfKGHfAkGlp88Nr3Ymq6IMOTbY9O322O8D.txt

although i tried all 4 but none of them seems to be working and my website is still unconfirmed

 

Rules or no rules, as a free user, how many of us would queue a 1gb non-resumable file? I know I wouldn't. From a personal point of view, 250-400mb archived parts do the most service to free users. Thus, I have no concern over the 400mb limit FS has. Others have made the argument earlier in the thread that larger files should be allowed, but I'd argue to keep the limit, at least for the time being, with many of the same arguments I expressed above in regards to FS's RU changes.

 

They will not show as referrals until they earn money. The referrals in your list now are either earning money or were referrals you accumulated prior to the change from SM to FS.

 

Well said!