Searching for shared files
 

OK, first, I apologize, since I'm sure that this has been asked many times. However, I've done a number of searches that brought up tons of pages with irrelevant posts.

Anyway, how do I search the network for my original files? I leave my clients running 24/7 (LW Pro 2.5.5, NapShare, or mutella) and I'm constantly serving files to people. A number of these files are original works and I would like to ensure that they are being shared - how do I do so? I've tried opening clients with no shared directory, alternate ip addresses (my NIC addy instead of the router addy (this, to see if my own computer will show up)), alternate ports, and web based Gnutella search sites, and I've never seen any of my files. Any recommendations on how to do this? Or should I just assume the files really aren't being shared?

Moderators: I guess this should probably be moved to the General Gnutella Forum. I'm kind of curious how to do it with LimeWire though.

Thanks bpmax. I understand that aspect of it - I'm really more interested in whether or not someone is sharing files that they have downloaded from me. I've just never seen any of the files when I do a search, and they have distinctive filenames. I suppose I might check that with a different computer eventually.

yes - I've wondered the same thing - I have 2 upload slots constantly in use (dial-up - sigh) and I see plenty of evidence of other files with distinctive filenames on multiple hosts that are obviously being widely shared - yet I've never seen an upload from me appear in the search result


bad_vlad

I'm sure I should understand your comment but I don't really - If I search for any songs by **** A***** and I know that the file I've renamed to "***** ***** - *** ***** ***** @320" has been uploaded 20 times - shouldn't I eventually see some host that has my version of the file amongst all he other hosts with the original file that I downloaded called "****"

bad_vlad

Not necessarily. While I'm not 100% sure whether it applies to searching, most Gnutella clients won't even bother trying to download a file that you already have in your shared directory that has the same file name and file size.


Therein lies our problem.... how - aside from using someone elses computer, do we do it? I've tried a number of ways (i.e., running a client without a (or with a different) shared directory, and it hasn't worked yet.

ummmm - its not so much he download success/failure I'm interested in as the general search result window - shareaza has a cute feature whereby if a search hits upon a file somewhere else that I already have it shows the file greyed out (even though the file has been renamed the hashing feature means the file is recognised as identical to one I've dowloaded/ripped earlier) -

just once in limewire I had the wiered experience of search requests I made resulting searches of my own hard drive and nothing else - it was kind've pointless but also kind've interesting seeing my (renamed) files come up

but but but - apart from that one time I've never seen one of my files appear in the search results window even though my occupied upload slots mean files of mine should be about the place (unless every upload has been undertaken by folks who refuse to share them - unlikely, especially since I've set the freeloader filter at must be sharing at least 1 file)

I noticed this behavior also, though sometime ago and I didn't try very hard. Essentially I searched Gnutella for some less common filenames a few months after sharing those files and didn't turn up anything. Two primary reasons how this happened is the people who I uploaded to are not connected or outside my horizon. Also, I may be connected to those I uploaded to but they deleted the file earlier.

When I download a file, say an mp3 file, I ALWAYS change it to fit my needs. I do not have an "ear" for music and can not tell the difference between 64 and 128 kbs. I am sure some people can, but it sound exactly the same to me. So, if it sounds the same, why take up the HD space when not necessary for my enjoyment. AND I most always change the tags to fit my needs also. A lot of times after importing it into my mp3 player the song title, album or something is not correct so I change it.

If I downloaded a file from you, you would not find that song from me looking the same :)

can you tell the difference between 64 and 192 or higher though? - an mp3 at 256 or 320 really is near CD quality - at 64 its just gotta be like listening to a radio you dropped to the bottom of a deep dark well

on the other hand - if they really do sound the same to you I guess you can fit a truckload of music into a damn small space

Cheers, bad_vlad

Absolutely !!! - one kind've cute/odd thing I've discovered is that having an external sub-woofer in a wooden cabinet with attached speakers then placed quite high off the ground (like over a meter) really dramatically improves the sound (given that its the bass/depth thats often weak on an mp3 I s'pose)

good to see other folks treating 128 as the very bottom end of acceptable - bad_vlad

Awesome !!! - damn but your files must sound good

envious_vlad

Sound quality
 

Like Dennis, I do not have much of an "ear" for sound quality but I do like the thought of smaller files. Maybe OGG is the answer to keep both the audio bufs and the disk misers happy.

Sorry to spoil all your fun guys, I am just not a music aficionado. I listen to the songs, and unless they sound horrible, its okay. Seriously, at 64 they sound just as well as playing a CD and I really can not tell they are any worse. I never listen to the radio. and I have Boston Acustics digital speaker system on my PC with surround sound.

I suppose that makes you a better people than I (perhaps you are flawed for having such terrific hearing ;), and yes, I have 1400 songs in as little over 2 gig.

my thoughts exactly

damn appealing

bloated_vlad

I'd be happy to help you and put some of your original files in my shared folder. Either tell me what to search for or e-mail me one. My E-Mail can only get 10MB at any one time.

Well, Peerless everyone is passionate about something and great music is yours so you have the right to enjoy the best quality available.

Since music is not my passion (want comment on what is :)) its lucky indeed that what is music to my ears does not sound horrible at a lower bitrate. Keep on listening to that great music!

Sorry, that last post was me, forgot to put my name.

urg
 

No "sorry" is necessary... but I gotta say... I completely agree with Peeerless. There is a MAJOR difference... regardless of someone's poor speaker, system, or ear performance. (And think... I built 140db+((twice the volume of a jet engine at 1 meter)) systems for several years!... If I can hear the difference.......)

My hearing is trashed!!! But I can tell the difference. It's more than likely the sound card and speaker performance... but an ace is an ace, a spade is a spade. Thank goodness for the great HQ search results on fastTrack!

Thanks for the earlier strokes on the music systems, Vlad!

Sorry dude... but B**L MF S**T! You most definately are high on something... if you think 64kb/s sounds even remotely close to even 128kb/s. (Let alone 192-320kb/s) The whole concept makes me roll. Let's just see if anybody else agrees with your statement..........

I personnaly download to an unshared folder!

sometimes MP3s are not of very good quality, even chopped of in the end. So I always download 4 or 5 times the same "title" but has different size and/or bitrate. then I share the good files only!

same goes with compressed stuff... I always check if there is a virus, if the zip is damaged, etc.

this way I can filter out the fake files (text files disguised as porn links, or downloaders through a high cost overseas call!)

unfortunately... my files would appear in other's search result as a file with the same name, same size, but not grouped with the original source!

limewire already test MP3s if they are corrupted or not when finishing the download... it should also test ZIPs and RARs, or at least let an antivirus check the files before sharing them. There should also be a more advanced file manager so you can create subfolders, save or move files within a shared folder...

why ???? - you're just reducing the sharing possibilities for other folks - why not just go for the largest/highest bit rate on offer

ummmm - why not just treat the default download location as a temporary directory for 'parking' new downloads (or even better nominate during the install a "park files' subdirectory) - then - if you decide to keep/share the file you just use the standard OS file manager to move it into whatever subdirectory you want (I have files spread over more than 30 directories defined by genre - all of which are 'shareable')