Are you even allowed to reject a run because of this?
5 years ago
Kentucky, USA

https://imgur.com/a/0xwfTRX I guess it was kinda stupid of me to use streamable but it was a really short video that I did within like a couple minutes. I'll probably just re-upload it to youtube or something but can you reject a run because of what site you post it to because it makes it harder to retime?

Antarctica

I would say yes, if the site chosen doesn’t provide an easy way to verify the authenticity of the run, then that’s grounds for rejection. As a side note, I’m pretty sure Streamable removes recordings after a while too so it’s not even that reliable of a hosting site.

XeroGoFast piace questo
Kentucky, USA

Alright, thanks for replying.

Canada

Streamable sucks, I don't know why you wouldn't just use YouTube. Also yeah as @Timmiluvs brought up: [quote]Videos that are inactive for 3 months are deleted in order to make room for new content[/quote]

This is a much more significant reason to not use it.

Modificato da l'autore 5 years ago
Avasam, XeroGoFast, e Lonne ti piace questo
Angus, Scotland

That is true, streamable deletes videos after a certain period of time if the video has low activity as a space saving measure.

Although i would definitely say that the rejection message itself is rather rude and uncalled for

CriscoWild piace questo
Valhalla

nah that's what you get for using streamable

SioN piace questo
California, USA

@pasrc true, i use that to re-time non-youtube runs.

Antarctica

It may be easy to download, but that still doesn’t fix the main issue that after 3 months the video can (and probably will) be deleted from the site.