4 ms·

I'm not sure why you're getting downvoted. I went to download my photos today from Google Photos after reading about the end of the unlimited storage. The inter

by imgabe 6y ago

I'm not sure why you're getting downvoted. I went to download my photos today from Google Photos after reading about the end of the unlimited storage. The interface is incredibly annoying. It split them into 2GB zip files, which is fine, but then it takes multiple clicks to get each download to start. Oh, and then it logs you out every 5 minutes so you have to re-enter your password. It's pretty clear they were not super concerned about making it a user-friendly process.

acdha 6y ago
If you say something negative about Google you’ll reliably get downvotes from Android fanboys even if it’s completely accurate. (Apple has similar fans, although they seem to be less defensive now that the company is doing so well) It’s not worth worrying over except as a reminder that rating systems need to handle bad-faith voting.
- lorenzhs 6y ago
  This doesn't mirror my experience at all, and I think blaming it on fanboys isn't fair. I used Google Takeout recently, had it set to split into 50GB tar.gz chunks, and it worked perfectly fine. I wasn't logged out once, and downloaded the archive with around 90 MB/s (720 mbps). It was a very smooth data export experience. I'm very much not a Google/Android fanboy and avoid Google's services wherever possible. The OP is being downvoted because their experience isn't representative. EDIT: It does seem that there are more people than I expected for whom the experience isn't as good as the one I had, so maybe Google should test this with (and make it work better on) internet connections that aren't as good as their office lines.
  - acdha 6y ago
    I’ve also used it and the original poster’s experience rang truer than yours. Most people do not have gigabit internet connections and manually downloading the default smaller chunks is annoying.
    - lorenzhs 6y ago
      But can't you just download larger chunks over whatever connection you have? Or is it common for internet connects in (I assume) the US to be so bad that you can't download a 20GB or 50GB file without errors?
      - acdha 6y ago
        It’s really a question of how well it resumes: if you’re trickling in a 20GB file and get a couple lost packets at 10GB, was that earlier transfer wasted? Most people use wireless so it’s not hard to have a transient failure which will disrupt a TCP connection but won’t last that long in absolute terms.
    - ConceptJunkie 6y ago
      Yeah, it's been a real hit-or-miss process for me, too. The process is way too manual, and increasing the chunk size from 2GB to 10GB causes a lot more failures of the individual downloads for me. And I don't particularly want to hear "get a better network connection". My connection works just fine for everything else. That said, if you're able to download everything, it's reasonably well-organized, although as stated elsewhere, there's a lot of duplication of data.
  - rpdillon 6y ago
    I just finished the process last night for about 80GB of photos and GP's comment represents my experience very well. It took hours of tedious clicking and logging in dozens of times to get through it. Miserable.

by imgabe 6y ago

acdha 6y ago

If you say something negative about Google you’ll reliably get downvotes from Android fanboys even if it’s completely accurate. (Apple has similar fans, although they seem to be less defensive now that the company is doing so well) It’s not worth worrying over except as a reminder that rating systems need to handle bad-faith voting.

lorenzhs 6y ago
This doesn't mirror my experience at all, and I think blaming it on fanboys isn't fair. I used Google Takeout recently, had it set to split into 50GB tar.gz chunks, and it worked perfectly fine. I wasn't logged out once, and downloaded the archive with around 90 MB/s (720 mbps). It was a very smooth data export experience. I'm very much not a Google/Android fanboy and avoid Google's services wherever possible. The OP is being downvoted because their experience isn't representative. EDIT: It does seem that there are more people than I expected for whom the experience isn't as good as the one I had, so maybe Google should test this with (and make it work better on) internet connections that aren't as good as their office lines.
- acdha 6y ago
  I’ve also used it and the original poster’s experience rang truer than yours. Most people do not have gigabit internet connections and manually downloading the default smaller chunks is annoying.
  - lorenzhs 6y ago
    But can't you just download larger chunks over whatever connection you have? Or is it common for internet connects in (I assume) the US to be so bad that you can't download a 20GB or 50GB file without errors?
    - acdha 6y ago
      It’s really a question of how well it resumes: if you’re trickling in a 20GB file and get a couple lost packets at 10GB, was that earlier transfer wasted? Most people use wireless so it’s not hard to have a transient failure which will disrupt a TCP connection but won’t last that long in absolute terms.
  - ConceptJunkie 6y ago
    Yeah, it's been a real hit-or-miss process for me, too. The process is way too manual, and increasing the chunk size from 2GB to 10GB causes a lot more failures of the individual downloads for me. And I don't particularly want to hear "get a better network connection". My connection works just fine for everything else. That said, if you're able to download everything, it's reasonably well-organized, although as stated elsewhere, there's a lot of duplication of data.
- rpdillon 6y ago
  I just finished the process last night for about 80GB of photos and GP's comment represents my experience very well. It took hours of tedious clicking and logging in dozens of times to get through it. Miserable.