[META] Can we make it mandatory to include the size of the file in the title?

AlexS101 | 342 points | Oct 04 2016 09:48:01

[META] Can we make it mandatory to include the size of the file in the title? | Megalinks MegaDB [META] Can we make it mandatory to include the size of the file in the title?

Right now the formatting of the title has to include "Name of the Movie, Year, and Quality", but quality isn’t enough information for me. When I am looking for high quality movie rips, "1080p" doesn’t help at all because I am not interested in a 1.2 GB 1080p rip. Currently we have to click the link, enter the key, and then we’re able to see the size and can decide if we want to download it or not.

So can we please make it mandatory to include the size of the file in the title? What is everybody’s opinion on that?

[-] 3obad55 | 52 points | Oct 04 2016 09:51:40

I second that, It's a great idea.

[-] parashivsihaniya | 43 points | Oct 04 2016 10:14:29

That would be great for saving a lot of time. I'm not interested in a 4+ GB 1080p rip any more than you are in a 1.2 GB 1080p.

[-] Aidache | 33 points | Oct 04 2016 11:21:19

I recommend downloading 1.2gb 720p movies rather than 1.2gb 1080p movies as they will look better. Higher resolution doesn't mean anything unless the bitrate is there to support it.

[-] rongkongcoma | 11 points | Oct 04 2016 17:32:51

It also depends on the source. A 5gb web rip usually won't be as good as a 2gb hd-dvd / bluray rip

[-] Aidache | 1 points | Oct 05 2016 01:25:47

Yeah, I've stopped with Web dl altogether now. Agreed

[-] rovaals | 5 points | Oct 04 2016 15:08:07

I agree. Back when the Lorax came out I have what you describe, a 720p and a 1080p that were about the same size (the 1080 was a YIFY rip) The 720p look so much better because of the better bitrate.

But if you can use x265, you can get small filesize and good quality.

[-] SpatialWheel | 10 points | Oct 04 2016 10:27:41

Yes please

[-] CausalProjectIon | 10 points | Oct 04 2016 14:35:18

Absolutely! Fantastic idea. That would save me a lot of time going back and forth between the mega download page to check the file size

[-] smokybison | 10 points | Oct 04 2016 14:40:03

This is a great idea as I myself am limited in storage space. However, what of those of us who post collections of movies or tv shows?

It wouldn't be practical to include the file size of every file in the title. And it also would not be useful to include the total size of all files especially if you only wanted one or two files of a collection.

The only option then is to have the file sizes of every file listed in the description which isn't unreasonable as many people do that currently.

But if we make something mandatory then that also means that failure to include this information comes with consequences such as your post being removed.

At the very least I think it should be mandatory to include the file size in the description that way you only spend one click to find out what the file size is as opposed to going all the way in only to decide it is too big or too small and not worth the time.

[-] [deleted] | 3 points | Oct 04 2016 15:07:25

I agree with you about collections. Maybe just make it mandatory for single file uploads.

[-] FenriCZ | 9 points | Oct 04 2016 10:42:55

That would be helpful indeed. I support this idea.

[-] Aidache | 7 points | Oct 04 2016 11:19:39

Yes, thank you. Playing anything under 2.5gb x265 movies and 10gb x264 movies looks pretty bad on any screen larger than 50".

Edit: if hard drive space is more important to you, having the size stated will make it easier for both large and small sizes

[-] Vepanion | 3 points | Oct 04 2016 17:06:58

Agree, on 100 inches you really don't want that 2 gig MP4

[-] ashtodes | 4 points | Oct 04 2016 12:29:52

Agreed.

[-] anonymEYE | 4 points | Oct 04 2016 12:40:24

This is exactly what I'd suggested in the General Discussions Thread but I didn't get a nod. Yours is gaining mileage though so; YES,I SECOND,THIRD & FOURTH the notion....up-vote for you mate. Hopefully this thread'll Git 'er Done!!!

[-] 95teetee | 4 points | Oct 04 2016 15:04:18

I vote for this, too (I'm one who prefers smaller files even if I do have tons of hdd space).

[-] imranr11 | 3 points | Oct 04 2016 14:13:59

I wouldn't mind that at all. More helpful to those with limited bandwidth/storage.

[-] ljocampo | 3 points | Oct 04 2016 14:41:08

This should be mandatory for directories also

[-] achimba | 2 points | Oct 04 2016 16:37:24

Not everything can be put in the title. I think that it would be fine to place this information in the comment where the key is. I would encourage people to also provide whatever additional details they have about the media. Bitrates, codecs, etc...

[-] Hadam10Rose | 2 points | Oct 04 2016 21:43:02

I'd stop posting if it was Mandatory, hell I don't even post quality on my links. Because I don't give a fuck about that. To me, beggars can't be choosers, don't look a gift horse in the mouth. These are free, you can tell how big something is going to be after you click the link IE - http://sta.sh/01qsfcr3q1kl (Image showing were it is)

[-] [deleted] | 1 points | Oct 04 2016 23:19:11

Welcome to /r/megalinks, where gifthorses get mandatory dental exams, anal probes, blood tests, and if they don't pass every test, WE PUT THAT HORSE DOWN. | Megalinks MegaDB DOWN.

[-] Hadam10Rose | 0 points | Oct 05 2016 00:12:33

also where you use a website, but not know how to fucking use it...... look at the size before you hit download if its to large for you

[-] [deleted] | 2 points | Oct 05 2016 00:25:04

I think you missed my point. I was basically agreeing with you.

[-] Hadam10Rose | 1 points | Oct 05 2016 00:45:49

I know, I realized that after I wrote the OG post, so I edited it to add onto what you said

[-] [deleted] | 2 points | Oct 04 2016 22:26:41

It would be NICE to have the size. Maybe a suggestion in the sidebar. But mandatory? No. Fucking christ on a cracker, you're getting FREE SHIT.

[-] eightballthrowaway | 2 points | Oct 04 2016 22:58:33

I think this is a good idea, but maybe just mandatory in descriptions? You can't edit titles so it would be easier for people who upload stuff to go back and edit their previous entries in case someone comes to it later. Plus for multiple uploads in one post that wouldn't work, you'd need to put it in the description.

[-] AnAnonymousEscape | 2 points | Oct 05 2016 03:15:43

I think its a good idea however i dont think making it mandatory would be a good idea.

playing devils advocate,

everybody knows that in the file sharing communities the uploaders are always multiple times less than the general users of the platform, with that note it should be argued that we must try to make things as easy as possible for uploaders.

Keep in mind that nobody in this subreddit was forced to upload anything, and there are no real consequences if you dont submit anything to this subreddit. Everything ever posted in this subreddit was out of goodwill, and is especially true for big time uploaders who probably do this as a hobby.

I understand that including the file size in the tittle, description or whatever would be incredibly convenient for the general user base; but for the uploaders, the more restrictions placed, and the more complex posting requirements are, the less incentivized it is to post.

I expect an argument being made that "Its very easy to do", I'm sure it is for files probably a gig or over (Since for anything smaller you would have to be pretty accurate), but its besides the point, going back, for uploaders it just acts as another barrier, and for reocurring uploaders id imagine it would just be irritating.

[-] emily1974 | 2 points | Oct 05 2016 05:08:48

the specs on the movie too. like bit rate, fps, audio bit rate ac3 dts acc 5.1 etc.

[-] [deleted] | 1 points | Oct 04 2016 11:00:42

true! imagine 10 GB 1080p as compared to 1.2 GB 1080p. I would just wait for the lighter file

[-] AlexS101 | 16 points | Oct 04 2016 12:05:51

Funny, I would do the opposite :)

[-] [deleted] | -4 points | Oct 04 2016 12:25:21

I tried comparing one time, there's not much difference. edit: hmm, i maybe comparing x265 vs. x264 haha I can't remember

[-] [deleted] | 0 points | Oct 04 2016 14:41:39

Do you watch them on a tv or a computer?

[-] staler | 1 points | Oct 04 2016 16:50:01

Its all about monitor size.

[-] [deleted] | 1 points | Oct 04 2016 17:08:11

Yeah. On my old 15" Macbook I couldn't tell a difference in 480p and 720p. Now I can't stand 480p. The difference a 50" TV makes.

[-] LordSifter | 1 points | Oct 04 2016 11:26:10

As someone who doesn't care about quality (within reason) but only has limited storage I second this. The 'p' of a film means nothing to me, the 'mb' or 'gb' does.

[-] jjuk1 | 1 points | Oct 04 2016 16:13:43

Great idea. If I could suggest taking it a step further - include the resolution too so that it can be determined how much a film has been cropped. Just a thought.

[-] greatflicks | 1 points | Oct 04 2016 22:35:21

excellent idea, quicker and easier to figure out if you want it or not. as mentioned collections would be a different criteria.

[-] [deleted] | 1 points | Oct 05 2016 16:43:40

So 250 people (or more) want to force a rule on the very few people who bring them free content.

This is like if you have a sweet neighbor who brings you pies frequently, out of the goodness of their heart. Then, you decide that your neighbor, who also gives pies to other people, should be forced to calculate and label the calorie count on any pie they offer you or anyone. For free. Every time. Mandatory.

If we were to take the analogy another step, this would be your demand in a world where everyone already has a calorie measuring device built into their computer(which you were already sitting at while browsing the massive collection of pies), which only takes a couple of seconds and a couple of clicks to measure.

[-] AlexS101 | 1 points | Oct 05 2016 19:21:19

So it’s no problem to have a rule to include the resolution of the movie, but it’s too much to ask to just add one more number that would save us having to go to the comments, copy the key, click on the link, wait until the page has loaded, enter the key, then wait again until finally to decide, ah, no, thanks, but that’s not for me?

Maybe "mandatory" sounds a bit too harsh but I really don’t see the issue with it at all.

[-] [deleted] | 3 points | Oct 05 2016 22:58:15

So it’s no problem to have a rule to include the resolution of the movie,

I didn't say that. If you want to debate existing rules, that's another post.

but I really don’t see the issue with it at all.

Of course you don't, you made the post.

My issue is that you have paid exactly ZERO dollars and ZERO effort into uploading content(at least as far as I can tell), yet you want to place an additional requirement on those who do.

Now, if vcdupper or indigo6alpha made this post and said, "hey, I'm going to begin adding the file size to the title, should this be an everybody thing?" that would be different.