Talk:Comparison of online backup services/Archive 2

How to improve this
I've been watching this page for a little while as one of many potentially spam-prone internet-related lists, but admittedly hadn't really looked closely at the content of the page until today, while responding to on my talk page concerning the best way to add a column.

There's a lot of useful information throughout, but the presentation is a mess:
 * First and most obviously, the table runs off the right side of the screen even with a small font -- and my monitor is larger than average.
 * Second, the notes at the bottom are disproportionately long and seem out of place in the current configuration.

So some questions/ideas:
 * 1) What do we think of the columns that currently exist? Should any be added or removed?
 * 2) How can we group the columns such that we can break the existing table into maybe 3 separate ones?
 * 3) *I had a couple ideas (e.g. operating system support, service plans, and features; or local software, service plans, and hosting features), but neither configuration seems quite right and many of you are going to be more knowledgeable than I on the subject.
 * 4) How best to format the notes?
 * 5) *We can use reference groups (see Help:Footnotes) to better organize and take advantage of reflist features.
 * 6) **Using reference groups this way would remove the need to use fixed reference numbering as currently exists, which makes it more difficult to insert new references in new columns [without changing the rest].
 * 7) **We could have a ref group for descriptions of each column's contents sitting below each table (like the present "Legend")
 * 8) **Another group for provider notes at the bottom combining the current "Comments" and "Versioning" sections
 * 9) **A general notes section for comments about particular cells (like "64-bit only" or "for 30 days")
 * 10) **And finally the actual references list.

Thoughts? --&mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 17:07, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Proposal for Improvement
Regarding 1., I think a column for open source vs closed source could be useful? As for example stated in the article about Wuala (Wuala), open source can at least theoretically be checked for security holes or backdoors etc. 46.127.143.25 (talk) 15:06, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Regarding 1./ Add columns for Version tracking and Retention time.24.123.91.158 (talk) 20:21, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Total refactory
I'm currently working on a total new version of the article on my sandbox. Any help / suggestions / corrections will be welcome (as English is not my primary language) (Gabriware (talk) 15:48, 12 May 2016 (UTC))

Columns to be removed / merged
This column has no data and no legend. It makes no sense until someone improves it, I would delete it if you agree. (Gabriware (talk) 15:19, 2 October 2015 (UTC))
 * Checksum
 * Column deleted. Gabriware (talk) 16:14, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

IIRC, ITAR specifies nothing about the storage system on which data may be kept, only that technical data about munitions (and other things on the list) must not be conveyed to non-US persons. Any storage system where access to files containing technical data can be limited to specific authorized users (who have been confirmed as "US persons") would seem to qualify. That seems to be a property of all the systems on the list.
 * ITAR Compliant

If there is some other definition of "ITAR Compliant" consistent with Wikipedia's policies, that needs to be on the page. If there is not, then it is useless marketing speak (and as such violates WP:NPOV and other policies when not clearly disclaimed as a vendor representation), as well as currently wrong (since it claims most of the entries aren't compliant) and uninformative if corrected (since, again, a quick glance does not suggest that any entry can not be compliant with the correct configuration, while incorrect configuration could break compliance in any of these systems), and therefore should be removed.Winged Cat (talk) 20:05, 20 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Blackberry

The marketshare of Blackberry 10 is rounded to 0, and Blackberry has " announced that there are no plans to release new APIs and software development kits (SDKs) or adopt Qt version 5. Future updates, like versions 10.3.3 and 10.3.4 which are scheduled to be released in 2016, would focus on security and privacy enhancements only." - BlackBerry 10

So it seems like this column should go as well.

Pieceofmetalwork (talk) 12:40, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Microsoft Azure
Similar to the question about Amazon, lets also add Azure Backup offerings since they provide software agents in addition to selling storage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steelgrip (talk • contribs) 00:38, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Rsync.net missing
rsync.net — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ericfluger (talk • contribs) 15:56, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Standart protocol(s) ?
Howzabout a column for support of standard protocols like sftp and webdav? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ericfluger (talk • contribs) 15:58, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Comparison of online backup 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/20140903053419/https://carbonite.service-now.com/carbonite/kb_view.do?sysparm_article=KB000395 to https://carbonite.service-now.com/carbonite/kb_view.do?sysparm_article=KB000395

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:43, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

elfCloud missing
This seems like worth adding on the list: https://secure.elfcloud.fi/en_US/ --Andyt80 (talk) 19:02, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Comparison of online backup 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://archive.is/20120714005450/http://carbonite.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/1440/partner/carbonite/default.php to http://carbonite.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/1440/partner/carbonite/default.php
 * Added tag to http://keepvault.com-newsflash.info/sdk-php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120113044554/http://manual.syncplicity.com/w/page/12564555/About%20Syncplicity to http://manual.syncplicity.com/w/page/12564555/About%20Syncplicity

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:24, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

IDrive is missing from table
IDrive (https://www.idrive.com/) is mentioned in the comments but does not appear in the table.

-- Bob Collins (talk) 05:41, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Added some initial data for iDrive to the table. If you know more about it than what I was able to find quickly, please add data to the columns I left blank.

-- ToddDTaft (talk) 15:02, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

SpiderOak File Size Limitations
On their support site, SpiderOak writes:

"SpiderOak One and Groups have no hard limit on the size of a file that you can back up, sync, share, or download. There are however practical limits that cause us to recommend that you limit yourself to individual files no larger than 10 GB or so for backup, and no larger than 3 GB or so if they are to be synchronized..."

As a user, I've seen these "practical limits" cause problems with large file uploads. Should the comparison table be updated to show that SpiderOak does in fact have file size limitations? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.105.21.31 (talk) 14:28, 6 June 2019 (UTC)