Secret Sauce Secret Mixter
Home » Forums » Features » links rather than uploads?

links rather than uploads?

permalink   Sat, Aug 11, 2007 @ 6:35 PM
I’ve seen some of the concerns surrounding performance - so I’ve been wondering: might it make sense to be able to provide links to sound files rather than uploading them?

Some of us probably have decent hosting plans where we can store quite a bit as well as having pretty decent download quotas. It could save some bandwidth for ccMixter, as well as overcome issues such as the 10MB upload limit (which is a bit of a pain in the neck for those who provide complete remix packs or longer a capella’s in FLAC).

In my case I could host not only my own files but also a few by some trusted friends who also play on ccMixter.

In addition, there are more and more free or inexpensive online file storage sites popping up. So essentially self-hosting is becoming more commonly available all the time.

There are some downsides to that approach, but I wonder if the upsides would more than compensate.
DJ Rkod
permalink   Sat, Aug 11, 2007 @ 7:35 PM
Indeed, ‘tis a good idea. Especially since external files are already used for most of the bigger contest multitracks.

But you could just upload a partial or MP3 (bleh) sample pack and link to it in the description, if I’m not mistaken.
permalink   Sat, Aug 11, 2007 @ 9:06 PM
This has come up and the answer is somewhat unsatisfying because it makes nobody happy.

Some background: if you look around the web you’ll see sites that are either link managers or content managers. and Digg are link managers, flickr, YouTube, ccMixter are content managers. The software behind these sites are bifurcated along the same lines for very practical and horrifically boring reasons. Think of this way: a Content Management System gets confused when there isn’t any content to manage.

Having said that we accommodate other content sites (like the freesound project and Magnatune) using the Sample Pool mechanism. There have been several attempts and threats to bend that into a per-user link manager on our developer mailing list but I haven’t seen any results.

permalink   spinmeister Sat, Aug 11, 2007 @ 10:12 PM
I’m not trying to downplay the issues, but I do wonder if that possibly deserves another look. I can think of and understand some of the practical and boring reasons: consistent availability and performance of content is just one - not to be underrated - reason to host content.

On the other hand (unless I misread some of your forum posts) I’m sensing there is an arising hosting problem. I don’t know how severe it is, or if there are any other proposed solutions under consideration. But I would find it a crying shame to see ccMixter come to a slow grind or implosion.

In addition, I’m not sure, if the analogy and precedent of sites from youtube to digg are that applicable. All of those are commercial sites and all are children of their generation. To me ccMixter is unique and next generation, not only because of it’s absence of commercial motivation (although it sits happily side by side with a commercial undertaking like Magnatune - another next gen web/IP business effort), but also because it does something none of the other sites do: sequential collaboration with a first (but significant) step of formalized tracking of contributions (essentially IP). It’s another topic for potential further development (e.g. capturing songwriting origins).

So in my mind ccMixter is the beginning of web 3.0 / 4.0 type of application. (keyword: true collaboration, not just “friends” gathering and thumbs up/down) all in the name of the allmighty ad-click

If ccMixter stays a more traditional content management system, that would seem to have different (higher) funding implications than being a master database for distributed content, collaboration and IP tracking. If funding for the more traditional content management route can remain assured, then great, but if not - it might not be a bad idea to (re-)visit alternatives.
permalink   victor Sat, Aug 11, 2007 @ 10:25 PM
The issue is this: what you are asking is for is a different kind of software; When I mention those sites it’s not an analogy. An analogy would be: you email the guys that write a word processor and ask them to add spreadsheet functionality.

A remote link manager and a content management system are two different kinds of programs. You can’t upload links to videos to YouTube not because they are old fashioned 2.0, but because that’s not the kind of site they are.

Quote: If ccMixter stays a more traditional content management system, that would seem to have different (higher) funding implications…

not really.
Luke Tripp
permalink   Sat, Aug 11, 2007 @ 9:37 PM
Victor, would it be possible to see about setting something up with Ourmedia / Internet Archive to where you can upload files from here ccMixter and still manage them and whatnot but they’re all hosted over there. Mainly because that seems to be what Ourmedia does. You upload files with their site (or with their uploading application or SpinXpress) and you can manage them all there, but everything is hosted at the Archive. Don’t know if that’s possible or not, I’m not the greatest with website tech.
permalink   victor Sat, Aug 11, 2007 @ 10:28 PM
relying on as a main storage is a little scary, although JD and ourmedia have certainly fallen on a lot of swords we wouldn’t have to.

I’ve always thought a decent compromise would to be to make archive a Sample Pool, which last time I checked was more than trivial but is worth pursuing.
permalink   gurdonark Sun, Aug 12, 2007 @ 12:38 AM
I think it makes sense to do it the way you do it, with sample pools, particularly in light of these explanations.

A link-type place to go get more samples and downloads need not be
part of the mixter, as it would be far easier to have them either promoted in the forum; or, if a few became interesting, just to set up a links page which lists out worthy such services. But making mixter into a links aggregator in any big way would have mixter do something that new and different services will arise to do. I’d love to see a good links-based sample service arise, although in my mind the ways of policing such a thing for copyrighted material could be even more daunting than a sample-upload site.

It would be cool if the sample pools included one resource that was more or less just little seven second wave files of different instruments, as freesound is not quite that altogether. But then, as I say that, if I had the time and a few more skills, I’d just start one, rather than bemoan the need.