I've already covered this topic before, but it seems it got mostly ignored by our members, so once again I have to say this:

Some uploads are excellent, with subfolders, proper filenames and compressed archives or checksum files. Excellent work.

And some uploads are outright terrible. No checksum files, not compressed. Not even labeled properly. Let me give you some examples from the recent uploads:

--------

MSDOS211Generic.dsk
What's "generic" about this? What platform is it for? Why isn't it compressed?

MSDOS31310.dsk
Lots of 3s and 1s in this filename. Also, what platform? Compressed?

ZZZ_MSXDOS10.(EN) (19xx)(-).dsk
Even the rom collectors didn't properly identify this. Is it v1.0 really? Also, compression? This applies to the rest of the ZZZ*.DSK files

Win95_OSR251.rar
Retail? OEM? Build? Perhaps a beta? Who knows... (the uploader does, too bad he didn't want to share the info along with the files)

Alphaf84.iso
What is this? Full name? Version? Architecture? It's not even compressed...

usa_2509__x86fre.pro_whistler_fixed (Alt).rar
What's fixed? No readmes or anything explanatory...

--------

There are many more examples with varying degrees of mislabels and bad handling.

C'mon people. You complain that your uploads don't get processed, yet you upload files with cryptic and incomplete filenames and leave me stuck identifying them and checking if they are correct. YOU uploaded them, so you already know what they are, why not then help me out and take the 5 minutes needed to give them proper names and zip them at least? Then it's all a matter of unpacking, quick checking and adding them to the upload queue for BA. As it is now it's shoved to my "unchecked" folders and I add only the ones I can quickly identify, leaving the rest for a rainy day to process. I don't have the time to sit down and install every build just to check that it's really a properly labeled file, and that it's not corrupted. And with increasing members I get increasing uploads, which means I put the least amount of time possible to get the most amount of releases up on BetaArchive. Which means I pick the ones most easily identifiable. The rest gets processed after, if I have time.

If you want examples of GOOD uploads then asiekierka, DeFacto (even without subfolders they are easily identified by its filename), trustBA and others. They label their stuff, sort it for me and compress it for me so I can easily identify bad uploads (decompression fails etc). The little time it takes you to properly label these the more time I get to process them along with others.

So, to make it clear to all of you;

• I will not add and credit any uploads to BetaArchive unless they are properly labeled and uploaded. The files uploaded that aren't properly labeled will simply be downloaded and put in an archive and processed when I see fit. Any members offering to help identify and label these builds will automatically be credited for releasing them.
  

Would this be preferred to all of you? Or can I count on proper filenames and packs from now on?

That 2509 one is from TheCollector1988, loads of files have been replaced by 2505 files (A* to C*), so it is not an (ALT) but (Hacked together build) not wordy of the FTP.
Win95_OSR251.rar it seems that is the Windows 98 4.03.1132 build (since it identifies itsself as 2.5.1).

The others I do not know.

I saw those filenames in the topic by Andrew (isn't that your job to make such a topic?) and wanted to notifiy you, but you already posted it.

MSDOS31310.dsk Is a MS-DOS 3.10 Apricot OEM and it was uploaded by Andrew Tapferke...

It's wordy to the FTP cause it is a lot more stable than the original and your fixed ISO is not needed.

to all users, for my MS-DOS uploads, let me label them again

Actually, mrpijey does not upload hacked together builds and customs...
Unless that rule have changed...

All the ZZZ*.DSK files are MSX-DOS releases

Also PeterPanPirate posted that ZZZ_MSXDOS10.(EN) (19xx)(-).dsk is MSX-Dos 1.03 Command 2.2

It's not about stability, it's about originality. If you patch a file or two its fine, but not a third of them. If everyone did that with broken builds we'd have frankenbuilds all over this place...

that build had about 400 corrupted files!

That's right. You can upload an incomplete build and I will label it as such - "(incomplete)". If you want to provide info on how to make it work then add that info to the upload and I will include it with the release. But I don't want any pre-fixed/hacked builds.


Well, that is an exception, and if we could get an "unfixed" version I would have replaced this one. And as DeFacto stated, it's not about stability but providing a build as original and unmodified as possible. There's no problem providing extra info on how to make it work though.


Then I provide the build without the corrupted files. With a description on what to do to make it work. Technically I could even add a .ppf file to a separate category to patch an ISO with the fixed update.

ok, let's do this mrpijey, I will release the fixed files of 2509 and I will upload my MSX-DOS and MS-DOS stuff properly

Alphaf84.iso[/b]
What is this? Full name? Version? Architecture? It's not even compressed...


viewtopic.php?f=16&t=17155

VMS 8.4F for the Alpha ODS2 image (which you can't mount in Windows)

If it's too much trouble you guys that need it can get it straight from HP (F is a beta):

ftp://ftp.hp.com/pub/openvms/openvmsft/jedi/

o_O
already posted here, how they should be called.

2509 how to fix:
Replace files AAAAMON.DL_ to CYZPORT.IN_ from 2505, these files are corrupt, during install, ignore the device driver errors.

and for 3615, don't tell me, I have the solution in mind already

Understand people, I can't dig through the forum everytime someone uploads a file with a bad name. All info to release it has to be provided with the upload. If you want to make a topic to discuss it then it's fine, but I won't search the forums for explanations when all you need to do is label the file, and include a readme if there's important info to add.

already uploaded 3 files.

Here's something interesting if you look at the image...

"ACT Apricot PC & XI MS-DOS 3.10 RAM BIOS, Version beta 3.1, 23rd July 1985"

I guess the DOS itself isn't a beta, just the ROM...

look in the upload server, it is now named correctly

yeah People need to label properly

Lucky me i dont have anything to upload

so should we include .nfo files explaining what it is that has been uploaded? Even the MS names can be.. useless at times (although once you know what it is, it's good in retrospect... )..

I think some kind of description besides a file name may be a good thing...? Even if it is only for the upload phase to make it clear what it is?

Not to mention the whole 'OS/2' vs 'AmigaDOS 2' days when it was all OS2 filenames... clashes can and will happen.

Any extra explanation is good if there's some confusion to the filename, product or dupe of filenames etc. The more info the better. Proper filenames does most of the job.