Latest Announcemnent
New thread

File Hosts with Affiliate Programs that DO NOT use the XFileSharingPro Script

Status
Not open for further replies.
P

Peter South

Active Member
607
2013
360
1,690
I was just cruising through the various threads listed in the File Hosts Official Support Section and it seems like the majority of them are using one of the various Turn Key File Host Scripts such as XFileSharingPro, YetiShare, OxiShare, etc.

At this point in time I'd never consider affiliating with any of these file hosts. Also, I'm sure I'll get responses saying how File Host XYZ is the greatest and that they always payout, and blah blah blah - I don't care, so don't waste your time (or mine) with any such PMs please.

My point of view is that if anyone is actually intelligent enough to and serious enough about developing a profitable, stable, and functional then they're simply not going to use one of these Turn Key File Host Scripts. I won't go into bashing various File Hosts, but all I can say is that I have ever only known one File Host owner that was worth affiliating with, and that was because he basically redesigned the very buggy XFileSharingPro Script and its total lack of providing any real scalability.

Also, I understand that some custom built file hosts have either been sold to new ownership, made poor business decisions after their launch, or whatever. Some of the file hosts I've listed below are ones that would fall under the aforementioned issue list by my standards. So I'm sure people are going to want to bash "RapidShaver" and whatever, but please lets leave the bashing of file hosts to other threads.

Simply put: I'm only interested in compiling a list of File Hosts with active affiliate programs that are built from scratch with no commentary about the pros and cons of each of these hosts.



Thank you for any suggestions which you may have to help me build up what I expect to be a fairly short list! :)

PS - I know the site in my signature "FileHostReview.com" is currently down. I still have all the data and I'm reworking the site from scratch (PHP, HTML, Javascript, MySQL, & Nginx coded all from notepad). I had slapped the site together using a heavily modified/customized build of Drupal, but for many of the reasons I listed above with Turn Key File Hosts, I just wasn't satisfied with the end result so stay tuned for FileHostReview.com version 2.0 :)
 
Last edited:
14 comments
Peter South said:
My point of view is that if anyone is actually intelligent enough to and serious enough about developing a profitable, stable, and functional then they're simply not going to use one of these Turn Key File Host Scripts. I won't go into bashing various File Hosts, but all I can say is that I have ever only known one File Host owner that was worth affiliating with, and that was because he basically redesigned the very buggy XFileSharingPro Script and its total lack of providing any real scalability.
Click to expand...

I do not agree with your claim, I think using xfs, yeti or oxi won't effect the quality of the business, it's the people who run the business that matter. these softwares are just the platform.
Building such complex softwares might takes months and in some cases years to build and perfect.

To make story short, if your working on a file host review site, you might want to consider adding a designated section for XFS, Yeti, OXi or any other script out there and not remove them all together as it's not a rational decision to make with a file host review site where you need to review ALL file hosts and not only the ones you like.
 
OneManCrew said:
Peter South said:
My point of view is that if anyone is actually intelligent enough to and serious enough about developing a profitable, stable, and functional then they're simply not going to use one of these Turn Key File Host Scripts. I won't go into bashing various File Hosts, but all I can say is that I have ever only known one File Host owner that was worth affiliating with, and that was because he basically redesigned the very buggy XFileSharingPro Script and its total lack of providing any real scalability.
Click to expand...

I do not agree with your claim, I think using xfs, yeti or oxi won't effect the quality of the business, it's the people who run the business that matter. these softwares are just the platform.
Building such complex softwares might takes months and in some cases years to build and perfect.

To make story short, if your working on a file host review site, you might want to consider adding a designated section for XFS, Yeti, OXi or any other script out there and not remove them all together as it's not a rational decision to make with a file host review site where you need to review ALL file hosts and not only the ones you like.
Click to expand...

It took us 9 months to build ezfile.ch, then again no other filehost has the same unique affiliate program or features for users such as "pay as you go"

I have been coding filehosting sites for almost 10 years now, those "off the shelf" scripts simply do not have the capability to scale and make the most of available hardware, tho as hardware gets cheaper and faster that is less of an issue i suppose, quite often they endup having to be modified at great expense anyways meaning it would have been cheaper to actually code something that was needed for the requirements of that site

We now have an "ecosystem" where each filehosting site is a clone of the next and no innovation to address the "elephant in the room issues" is attempted.

It seems it is simply more profitable to rollup yet another site with Yeti under a new name, advertise an affiliate program where the numbers make no sense, then pay first few uploaders building up a pyramid scheme of sorts, then whole thing collapses, uploaders cry, rinse and repeat :D tho I am not sure if that is a good long term strategy, some of us have been at this for a while and hope to be around for many years to come :)
 
Last edited:
ezfile said:
OneManCrew said:
I do not agree with your claim, I think using xfs, yeti or oxi won't effect the quality of the business, it's the people who run the business that matter. these softwares are just the platform.
Building such complex softwares might takes months and in some cases years to build and perfect.

To make story short, if your working on a file host review site, you might want to consider adding a designated section for XFS, Yeti, OXi or any other script out there and not remove them all together as it's not a rational decision to make with a file host review site where you need to review ALL file hosts and not only the ones you like.
Click to expand...

It took us 9 months to build ezfile.ch, then again no other filehost has the same unique affiliate program or features for users such as "pay as you go"

I have been coding filehosting sites for almost 10 years now, those "off the shelf" scripts simply do not have the capability to scale and make the most of available hardware, tho as hardware gets cheaper and faster that is less of an issue i suppose, quite often they endup having to be modified at great expense anyways meaning it would have been cheaper to actually code something that was needed for the requirements of that site

We now have an "ecosystem" where each filehosting site is a clone of the next and no innovation to address the "elephant in the room issues" is attempted.

It seems it is simply more profitable to rollup yet another site with Yeti under a new name, advertise an affiliate program where the numbers make no sense, then pay first few uploaders building up a pyramid scheme of sorts, then whole thing collapses, uploaders cry, rinse and repeat :D tho I am not sure if that is a good long term strategy, some of us have been at this for a while and hope to be around for many years to come :)
Click to expand...


Well put, however the only thing I disagree on is cost of hardware offsetting the usefulness of these horribly written scripts.

From what I've been told, XFileSharingPro is written in Perl, and the codebase is proprietary and file host admins complain about lack of useful support. <- This is unsubstantiated, its simply what I've been told via private chat on Skype by numerous XFileSharingPro Site owners.

So I guess I should add ezfile.ch to the list?

__________________
Added after 2 minutes:

Blura said:
i think u can add : Uploadable.ch
Click to expand...

Nope, its xfilesharingpro

__________________
Added after 2 minutes:

dkp said:
rapidgator uses modified xfilesharingpro scipt
Click to expand...
Hmm, interesting. Would you be as so kind to cite a reference to this claim?

Also, even if this can be confirmed, I think RapidGator is clearly so much modified that it just doesn't even resemble the XFileSharingPro origins.
 
Last edited:
Peter South said:
Well put, however the only thing I disagree on is cost of hardware offsetting the usefulness of these horribly written scripts.

From what I've been told, XFileSharingPro is written in Perl, and the codebase is proprietary and file host admins complain about lack of useful support. <- This is unsubstantiated, its simply what I've been told via private chat on Skype by numerous XFileSharingPro Site owners.

So I guess I should add ezfile.ch to the list?
Click to expand...

Yep you can add ezfile.ch to the list (its predecessors: filecloud.io and ifile.it before it going back to 2005 were all custom coded by me)


There is another problem with "off the shelf scripts" they are designed to run on your average shared hosting / vps environment and no attempts is made to make use of latest technologies, for example I was using nginx for years now since apache is a pig, these scripts like yeti only now starting to make use of it

I on other hand control and design everything from the server hardware to the page the user sees, and this opens quite alot of room for optimization since I do not have to worry about the code running on some locked down sharehost.

another example, hosts using md5 hashing on files, this gets very slow and resource intensive with large files (1GB+) this gets exponentially worse if many large files are being added at same time this results in servers falling over with high load, 5xx errors, files not being uploaded and so on. I seen this problem almost 8 years ago and realized it was going to get worse as files get larger and went to the drawing board and made my own "fasthash" fingerprinting hash function, now the time to get a hash/fingerprint a file is the same regardless of its size and servers are humming along happily :)

There is a long list of examples I can make from using redis for caching data to inter cluster communication to compiling own software (php, mysql, nginx etc), to proper database design, with only what you need to squeeze the most out of your hardware. Basically while these "off the shelf" script might make it easy for anyone to start a site they also make it exponentially harder to grow and optimize such a site above a certain size, with the owners often having to resort to throwing money at the problem by getting more servers than they would have needed if the code was good.

Tho in fairness of all these "off the shelf" scripts i was the most impressed by Yeti one, their developer seems very good and professional and i hope him the best in his venture :) and it does seem better than the rest of the lot. I havent seen the code but the interface is fairly nice and that indicates that the underlying code might be good too

BTW (you heard the idea here first) I am surprised that instead of offering a script for sale (and risk having it being stolen etc) no one is offering a hosted solution, there the "webmaster" can create a filehost by pluging in their name, domain, affiliate details etc they want and being able to modify design slighly. Tho I suppose the problem would lie with handling DMCAs and all sorts of legal implications... and the fact that whole ecosystem seems to be populated by cheapscates out to scam each other.
 
Last edited:
yes its true filehosts using xfilesharingpro script not seem serious ones though the affiliate program is genuine. the main reason is lack of specific customization. all filehost admins should consider upgrading to better scripts. fully customized attractive pages will greatly improve confidence among customers and also greater sales conversations.
 
Uploadable-Jo said:
We have never used or founded our script on the basis of XFS Pro. Your claim is borderline libel.
Click to expand...

Borderline libel?

I find it interesting that you immediately go on the defensive here in a thread that makes no references to you.

Also, I ran one Google query for some of the text on your site and found it nearly identical to many file hosts, all of whom share the same similar layout to yours, here are just three examples.

justfile.net
gweru.nl
3files.net
 
Peter,

Defensive? No, we're just pointing out the obvious here. You have made references to us in this thread: "Nope, its xfilesharingpro". That's libel.

If you can't come up with better sites (in which only the first has copied us, and did a horrendous job of that), and excuses for why we're using XFS Pro, you should 'stop' before making a bigger fool out of yourself.

I have a better suggestion - Email them and ask. We expect an apology for your incompetence for identifying XFS Pro sites.

Thanks
 
well, oboom, extabit, cloudzer, inclouddrive.com, storage.to, 7x.to, filesonic, fileserve, wupload, etc all used custom scripts and see what happened.

the people behind the XFS service is the shit not the script.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top