Talk:Comparison of video hosting services/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

I think that it would be nice if that were noted as well, as some users actually SEARCH FOR ONLY that kind of video on the internet, a LOT (i see it in my stats logs). 184.57.140.37 (talk) 20:10, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

FYI: Template:Digital_distribution_platforms has many entries in its Video section, but the article has only the ones in bold:

Amazon Video on Demand · AOL Video · BBC iPlayer · BigPond Movies · blip.tv · Break.com · Brightcove · Crackle · Dailymotion · Fearnet · Hulu · iTunes Store · Joost · Metacafe · MUZU TV · Netflix · The NewsMarket · PlayNow · PlayStation Store · RTÉ player · RuTube · Tudou · TVCatchup · V Cast · Veoh · Vimeo · Xbox Live Marketplace · Youku · YouTube · Zattoo · megavideo · 56.com

Joeinwap (talk) 12:45, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Mytv2me.com and a2btv.eu should be added —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.29.201.242 (talk) 11:59, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

What about Hulu? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joe2832 (talk • contribs) 04:33, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Glumbert I cant seem to find info on Glumbert. Should this be in the listing too? —The preceding

vSocial Stumbled upon another YouTube Variant, please add appropriate info... From the site: vSocial is an online community built around the singular objective of providing the fastest, easiest way to upload, watch and share your favorite video clips.

please add ths site - www.xtube.com www.xtube.com, is similar to www.pornotube.com.--Peterm1991 17:50, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Google Video, Eyespot, Grouper, MSN video and Stage6 --HybridBoy 06:02, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

RedTube

Brightcove (but the main article needs to be cleaned up) -- -- Robocoder (t|c) 02:47, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Viddler http://www.viddler.com/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.112.72.52 (talk) 02:56, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Megavideo? Isn't megavideo (.com) a big enough site by now to be added to this list? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.80.150.50 (talk) 23:13, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you. Unfortunately I do not know enough about the details of Megavideo to add them on the article. JnRouvignac (talk) 11:01, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Xtube Added the xtube entry back in. They have a fair amount of content and even a wiki section of their own. We can make additions to the relevant articles as needed. Others have done similar work in the past only to have their work sumarily deleted for arcane reasons. Leave an entry for xtube on. They're valid & unique.
By cbean - October 30, 2007

Another Popular Website Not Mentioned There is another website out there which is called www.str8up.com. It is a very adult oriented website. Smith152 (talk) 06:11, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

What about LiveVideo.com? These were the first guys that I saw as an alternative to YouTube. Qed (talk) 22:48, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

You may wish to include a link to a site I've built that is a comparison between some of the embedding services available http://www.virb.com/kareltests or at least leave it here as a heads up. Excellent page you've created here - good work! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Karel Bata (talk • contribs) 08:49, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

There is an other site,

YouTube I edited the YouTube sections to include information on the director/normal account limits, WMV and Divx/MP4 formats. -Brian ^{(How am I doing?)} 17:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Great work on this. How about special notes for things like myspace requires Flash 8.0 or above because they use the soreson 8 codec vs others like youtube will work with flash 7.0

I am sure there are others that use windowsmedia 8.0 codec vs 9 codec too

I would suggest something similar; adding a column of the video format which is actually used by the site, as opposed to which codecs you can upload, which are currently in the table. Most of the sites use either Sorenson Spark (requires Flash 6/7+) or VP6 (rquires Flash 8+).

I think the name is too ambiguous. I would like to suggest moving this page to "Comparison of video-sharing sites" or "Comparison of video-hosting sites" after it survives AfD. Anyone with me? --Czj 08:46, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• Addendum: There is already a Category for "Video hosting", so I'd like to withdraw the first suggestion. I think when the page moves, it should be "Comparison of video-hosting sites" for the sake of consistency. --Czj 08:52, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Lets specify "Comparison of online video services" ? Štěpán Böswart (talk) 16:33, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Some services allow you to sell your video (rather then just share it), eg. GUBA and later google video. I would love to see a comparison of these services! THANKS!! -- Michael Janich 13:51, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

PS: Why do you want to delete this page? First someone has done a lot of good work (which would discourage this person to ever work again for wikipedia, as it happened to myself) and second this page is usefull and great!! Michael Janich 13:51, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

When hosting a video somewhere, an important question is if you are actually able to embed it in your blog. Therefore it would be useful to have a table with these technical features. (Thumbnails = there is a reliable way to get a thumbnail for a given video, for linking with an image)

Youtube has embedding, API, auto-play and Thumbnails (via API) Myspace allows embedding afaict, but doesn't have API or thumbnails. Google Video allows embedding, might have an API, and apparently there is a way to use thumbnails Revver has permanent thumbnail URLs and an API, but doesn't have autoplay

I can also support the earlier call for flash version required. I can for example not play any of the myspace videos. Google and Youtube are fine.

The 'general information' table should have a column indicating if embedding elsewhere is possible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Karel Bata (talk • contribs) 11:25, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

The services don't seem to distinguish between file formats for their size limitations, so the maximum sizes table doesn't make sense at all. We could just add a single column to the first table instead. -- memset 23:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey guys. How come this article says Google Video has a maximum size limit? I've uploaded a file that was more than 1GB and haven't noticed ANYTHING regarding a size limit. --ReCover 22:23, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

The 100 MB limit applies only when using the web-based uploader instead of the "Google Video Uploader" software. -- memset 23:02, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I propose to add an "Downloads" comparison column, which gives information such as whether the service allows users to download a video, and if so, what formats it is available in. For example, I know that there are third-party websites/extensions/etc. that can be used to download videos from YouTube, but only in .flv format; whereas for Google Video, there are third-party ways to download in .flv and .avi, and sometimes other formats. These details vary from site to site, and it would be interesting to see the comparison. --Spoon! 03:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Seems the download format is an important topic. These are video rebroadcast provider websites, and their choice of download formats - as well as streaming formats, which is technically the same thing - is very important when doing service comparisons. Even when the primary delivery method is through Adobe Flash Player technologies, there is often additional delivery options. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.20.47.71 (talk) 12:34, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I wonder if we can obtain the market share percentages from anywhere?...
138.243.129.4 11:55, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Please no, Alexa is not a serious marketshare instrument. --87.78.23.227 (talk) 21:57, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Please add a column named "multilingual?". 16@r 18:56, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Does any video hosting site allow you to do this? Right now (Sept 10th, 2007) the list is just two No's and a whole bunch of question marks. I suspect most video sharing sites don't do a lot of things, but does this mean we need a column to identify a unified characteristic? Maybe someone can update this section and determine if it is actually needed. --Nick Penguin 16:04, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

One thing missing from the video format information is the resolution and bitrate of the native video - there's a huge difference in quality between the sites. Youtube's 320x240 @ 300kbit/sec looks pretty poor compared to some of the other UGC sites which stream at higher resolutions and bitrates. The audio is also a small part of this equation. The problem is this is a lot of information, furthermore it's not easily available for other sites e.g. imeem doesn't publish any official information and recently it's managed to block downloads of its video, I know it used to offer 700+kbit video at 400x300, but since they broke all the downloaders they also appear to have upped the resolution of the player.

Anyway so far I have a few sites that use flv - If other people have details maybe we can get enough sites covered to add the extra column.

• Youtube: 320x240, 300kbit video, 32kbit mono audio.
• dailymotion: 320x240, 300kbit video, 64kbit mono audio
• guba: 320x240, 500kbit video, 128kbit stereo audio
• veoh: 540x304, 512kbit video, 64kbit mono audio
• imeem: 400x300, 700kbit video, 96kbit stereo audio

the two biggest non-flv sites I can think of are google video and stage6 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hedkandee (talk • contribs) 01:39, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that quality is a very important detail - one of the most important, probably. So I've added it in, along with the data in your post (though I couldn't find Guba on the list). There might be a better way of doing it than I did it just now, though... I'll have to think about this a little... Esn (talk) 00:55, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I've created a special new section just for this, and moved two of the columns from the "general" section into it. I hope that it will get filled up. Esn (talk) 02:02, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

This is an important section. The question is how to asses and present the video quality in a simple manner. There are the given technical data (file size, video resolution etc.), but there is also the aspect of the perceived video quality. The last one depends on many more factors than just the hard data. The resulting video quality depends on the complete web site solution including all of the data above (i.e. the codec implemented, the web player used, the video download speed) and more. Do you have any ideas how to make this quality section more informative?

• Are there any standards in video quality to be a measure?
• Should we create a ranking list based on positive or higher values (incl. years of service)?

Štěpán Böswart (talk) 17:25, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Maybe should be able to sort the list for those sites that do or do not allow adult content. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.61.22.33 (talk) 10:17, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

trafic rank:36 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.85.133.174 (talk) 16:16, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Is That Video Site popular enough to merit inclusion here? Octan 21:01, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

This is a good idea to mention whether the video site also supports uploading music or images, I imagine this would make a big difference to artists who perhaps primarily want to upload video and find out they can use a site which also allows them to post music and pictures without having to go to other sites.

Anyone want to create a comparison of music sharing sites? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.72.33.90 (talk) 17:13, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Their FAQ claims that video size is unlimited, but the uploader does not accept over 1GB (tested). I'll go ahead and change that until someone can confirm otherwise. TMN (talk) 06:39, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

• Apparently their FAQ now says 1GB limit too. It didn't last time I checked. TMN (talk) 06:46, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

comment system, rating system —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.152.58.98 (talk) 08:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Karel Bata (talk) 11:31, 11 December 2008 (UTC) Column indicating whether embedding elsewhere is possible. Column indicating whether uploading a Flash file directly is possible (if the user is allowed to do this the result is often far superior to the bulk encoders hosts use)

The Censorship aspect is clearly meaningless at the moment - it simply tags whether sites allow pornography or not. This should rather be changed to an 'allows sexual content?' header, or, rather be classified according to some reflection of how restrictive the general content policies are (e.g. inflammatory content, violent content, etc). It's incorrect to say that a site that deletes inflammatory videos does not censor. Because censorship issues could take pretty much an article for each site and can't be summed up well in a table, I propose changing to 'sexual content?'. 92.40.14.196 (talk) 19:26, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I also think it should be removed (or renamed), EVERY website there must be censored in some way, does some website there allows child pornography? I doubt it... and that is called censorship... so I strongly think it should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.241.113.32 (talk) 21:43, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

It should definitely be clarified to something like "allows adult content;" the generic "censorship" term is not only ambiguous, but can sometimes imply things like political censorship, rather than porn/obscenity that practically all broadcast media censors. Stuuf (talk) 00:42, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I am reading what is written above and I still have little understanding of what "censorship" means here. Blue Rasberry 22:26, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

• That MUST be changed. Like explained above, probably every single website has censorship (muder videos, rape, child abuse, etc...) SF007 (talk) 23:59, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the censorship section. Like said above: "censorship" does not have a universal definition. Is blocking child porn considered censorship? I don't know. However, I think it is fine to add a section like "content not allowed" and then we can list stuff like "porn" "child porn", etc. there. SF007 (talk) 23:59, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

This has also confused me, and seems to have been added back some time in the last 5 years. Thus, I've changed the page to remove the column again. Maulkin (talk) 08:38, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

There is an error in the article. MOD files do work on YouTube. 87.55.68.116 (talk) 13:38, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Suggest the Creator column be renamed. Right now, most sites referenced just have the web page name repeated in this column. Suggest renaming this to "owner" or "parent company" to give some indication of the service's management. Even for YouTube, the most well known site on this list, the Creator column lists sketchy information. (User MTC) 20:46, 22 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.71.253.157 (talk)

This page seems to mostly deal with free (to the uploader) services like YouTube. How about services like Video Desk? That's a whole category of video hosting service that isn't being considered here.29.97fps (talk) 20:56, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I saw reference on

xTube article about this related site and would imagine it should be added to the list. As I know nothing about it beyond the name, I will leave that to someone else. Just a heads up. Surv1v4l1st ^{(Talk|Contribs}

Should there be a listing for xtube? Seems like it would fit, though I don't know enough about it to add an entry. Surv1v4l1st ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 23:50, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Could we add a column about mobile phone supported function? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Indyhsu (talk • contribs) 06:32, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

This is an important "quota" factor for the video community. Youtube ie 10mins. Can there exist discussion on how to update the page to influence our mental information exchange trafficing of all server systems branding under :) 'unicorp'. Please to note that the alloted space gives way to hard disk transfer size on both ends; Megacorp and endUser. I wish that this page would put out being that the information age gives rise to faults within it's bandwidth truffle of "wwwwiki' proportions, and there being enough to go around, a column space or two might suffice, one specifically being since I bring it up is time constraint per video file. 10 mins is not enough, so how do we find this info?... WWW.Wikipidia {Comparisons of Video Services}. There is not the infomation WE (as I) need. A referance search on a searcher will not suffice. This intends wiki expansion on our internet. Laboratories and Universities or most specifically moreover Scientists and Educators. Get it? Who spliced my modem line? This ethernet post (not port midi) smells good. Planetary Local Area Network Videos have some capacity for route distribution through neighboring communities and keeps things with broad boarders. This planet of ours, like to call it Europa, keeps getting bigger and better, now how do I find out about sites that can even offer 20mins per file. 30 mins:pizzow:, auto-calender check. Nice cufflinks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bill Riojas Mclemore (talk • contribs) 11:10, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Especially sites that, like YouTube, are open to user created content. Just curious. If this articles is about traffic, codecs, etc, it would seem appropriate. 72.155.127.56 (talk) 19:12, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

As long as the site is notable and has a wikipedia article it can be listed here.--

Crossmr (talk

) 01:42, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

--ADTC (talk) 04:43, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I think that maybe VideoBinc ould been added to the list but i don't know much about it. The site is related to Firefogg plugin for Firefox but can been used independently. Videos have to be encoded in Ogg Theora / Vorbis. Size is limited to 500MB unless you use Firefogg to convert+upload. See http://videobin.org/help & http://firefogg.org/index.html Antistress (talk) 13:56, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Add

205.189.194.208 (talk) 21:46, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorting of Monthly Unique Visitor (US) column of Site Traffic table does not work correctly. I am suspecting the "comma" or wrong classification of datatype. Can someone fix that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.233.157.251 (talk) 16:37, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Fixed. --Theaitetos (talk) 01:01, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Guys, no in ads should be green, and yes should be red, not the opposite — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.42.52.186 (talk) 23:43, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Why there is no Xvideos.com in the list?Manzzzz^(talk) 08:04, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I changed engagemedia censorship to yes.

From their editorial policy page

We will be accepting work that:

is well researched is well produced and edited focuses on the Asia-Pacific region aids in the development of social movements is innovative, engaging or entertaining is constructive, critical of the status quo or highlights key issues We won't be accepting:

work that promotes sexism, racism or homophobia or discriminates against dis-empowered members of the community advertising or advertorial videos that overtly promote the interests of any particular religion or religious groups, governments or corporations as a primary purpose

That clearly seems to me to be censored. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Winfredtheforth (talk • contribs) 01:32, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Why isn't Facebook included in this article? -71.174.188.43 (talk) 22:47, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Unknown is bigger than any number

>150.000.000 views on Youko is more than the 1.2 billion of youtube — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.21.3.151 (talk) 12:36, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out (many months ago). I'm not sure how to make Unknown appear before the numeric values other than perhaps to just leave that space blank when unknown. Doesn't strike me as a big deal, though. The numbers appearing out of order was because a couple didn't use

Template:nts. Fixed now. --— Rhododendrites ^talk

\\ 07:03, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

MediaGoblin is an open-source Platform for videos and other media. Link: http://www.mediagoblin.org/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrFrety (talk • contribs) 20:38, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

@MrFrety: It looks like MediaGoblin is software (the platform) rather than host (the service). In other words, MediaGoblin itself doesn't host users' videos but rather provides the framework for providing such a service. At least as far as I can tell -- please let me know if I'm misunderstanding. It may be more appropriate for list of content management systems. Perhaps someone else knows of a better venue? --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 06:56, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites There are several hosts running media goblin: https://wiki.mediagoblin.org/Live_instances . Well working e.g.: https://goblinrefuge.com/mediagoblin/  — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrFrety (talk • contribs) 20:42, 7 November 2015 (UTC) 

I ask that you read this post in the entirety before erasing any of it.

  "PLEASE BE CAUTIOUS IN ADDING MORE LINKS TO THIS ARTICLE. WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A COLLECTION OF LINKS NOR SHOULD IT BE USED FOR ADVERTISING. Excessive or inappropriate links WILL BE DELETED. See 
Curlie
 template." (The message concludes and starts with the phrase "NoMoreLinks")

-UnderCloud, April 4th, 2016

That particular warning message is only intended for external links section, so isn't the correct one for use in lists - someone inserted the wrong one. I'll search later to try to find the correct notice template. The notice should be stating that the established inclusion criteria for this list is that entries meet Wikipedia's guideline for notability (see

WP:WEB). I can't recall the exact phrasing, but I'll locate the right one and update the notice later when I have more time. --- Barek (talk • contribs

) - 22:17, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ZippCast concluded that we will not have an article on Zippcast and the article has been salted. References to Zippcast should be removed from this article. Toddst1 (talk) 19:41, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

I deeply consider this particular site to be unqualified for this list, as well as the least viewed website of them all. I feel like it's location here is for advertising so I am taking the liberty to remove it. Anyone who believes it should be kept (and has good reason) may go back to the edits and undo my removal. UnderCloud (talk) 00:13, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

We all know that a lot of the video hosting services listed as "not downloadable" are very easily dowloadable either using websites like Keepvid or by rooting around in the page source for the video URL or else fishing through Temporary Internet Files or using recording tools such as Real Video Dowloader etc etc.

I think a different name should be created for this column, soemthing like "Video Download Permitted?". The other direction to go in would be to give an in depth listing of each hosting services' vulnerabilties to savvy users like, well, most people these days! 62.190.148.115 (talk) 12:20, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

VK is a very significant video streaming site, and one of the largest in the world. It ought to be compared among this list. Is just not enough known about it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Squiggledog (talk • contribs) 21:01, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Comparison of video hosting services. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081227051252/http://www.nicovideo.jp/static/base/rule.html to http://www.nicovideo.jp/static/base/rule.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://v.qq.com/info/terms_of_service
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080222201534/http://rutube.ru/agreement.html to http://rutube.ru/agreement.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:00, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

There’s little difference between this page and

How about adding a few columns stating if they log information, what information that is and how long it is stored?78.53.162.221 (talk) 08:12, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

This list seems to be missing the video hosting services for porn videos. 2601:647:C802:767D:E063:D684:C221:1418 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:58, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Also, Bitchute is (still) missing from the list. Ayo (talk) 20:24, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

I have edited

I think therefore this page has little reason to exist.

Thoughts?