Talk:Comparison of video hosting services

message: I'd like to add bitchute to the comparison, at least so long the video hosting comparison pages are not merged, which I would support. My edit was flagged as vandalism and I was asked to get consensus first. Bitchute is now ranked 2318 by alexa.com which, in my opinion, makes it relevant enough to warrant it being listed here. What are your thoughts? Wolfgang.brehm (talk) 21:54, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The service has its own article, which is a prerequisite No. 1. The prerequisite No. 2 is that you have to be able to find reliable sources for all the information in the tables (like the number of videos, technical information etc.), unless it's listed as unknown (which is much better than making something up). If you can do it, I would say go ahead.—J. M. (talk) 22:26, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add bitchute 

message: Hello, I'd like to point out that the sources for the column "# videos (millions) sources" for Dailymotion and Vimeo don't match what I'm currently seeing (72,500,000 and 20,800,000 respectively). I doubt that the real/actual number of videos has gone down over time, though I don't have a source to back up that claim. 
However, I'd also like to point out that basing this data off of a Google search seems problematic to say the least, as Google owns YouTube. I don't have an alternative to propose, but I'd say taking these data at face value doesn't seem like a good idea when there's an obvious conflict of interest. At the very least it should be written on the page that most of the data in this column is from Google.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bl4kers (talk • contribs) 05:42, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The Google "site:" searches as sources are total bullshit. Someone should remove all of them from the article. --143.176.30.65 (talk) 22:25, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources for the "# videos (millions)" column 

message: All information provided in this section comes from only one source: alexa.com, which clearly states in its Terms of Service https://www.alexa.com/help/terms that nothing from the website will be re-distributed in any form.
This is not compliant with the CC and FDL licenses and should be completely deleted, as I will do right now. Francisco Ferioli Marco (talk) 03:36, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: There are only two sources that I know of that provide this sort of data for free: alexa.com and similarweb.com. Of these two, Alexa is more complete. As for Alexa's terms of service, you seem to be misunderstanding the sentence that reads You may not incorporate any portion of the Software into your own programs or compile any portion of it in combination with your own programs, transfer it for use with another service, or sell, rent, lease, lend, loan, distribute or sub-license the Software or otherwise assign any rights to the Software in whole or in part. This clearly refers to their software, not to their published data. If linking to their webpages is a copyright violation, most of Wikipedia is also in violation.Vgy7ujm (talk) 16:49, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleting "Site traffic" section for copyright violation