Pedro's BTM : Change of Rules regarding seeding (Overseeding)

**cinephilia** · 06-11-2009, 08:38 PM

Originally Posted by T.S.O.L.

If a torrent dies then request it again in the requests section.

i mean even classics are deleted automatically and reuploaded later... i don't get the point. if someone need a torrent that no one has anymore, he can always contact staff to remove the torrent (after having tried to leech it during a certain time) in order to permittmembers to reupload it.

Originally Posted by T.S.O.L.

They should work on a better request system if that is a prevalent problem. If requests don't get filled it goes back to a shitty userbase, and there's nothing you can do about that.

yeah, staff should allow only 2 or 3 active request per use for example or a system of votes like KG does (your req is bumped when you add a vote).

Originally Posted by Skiz

I agree. E has a terrible system where uploaders are allowed to select their torrent as "permanent" and it will never be purged. There are old torrents that people would like to reupload but they cant b/c it already exists on the tracker albeit with no seeds for a year.

this system has been implemented not so long ago and it's always better than deleting torrents imo; torrents with no seeds (even for a long time) are reseeded very fast and if by any chance no one would be able to reseed it, i'm pretty sure staff would agree to let the torrent being replaced by a new upload.

**sez** · 06-11-2009, 10:07 PM

No ratio has proven to be extremely poor when it comes to retention,It would be the worst idea for any music tracker,what pedro has done is as far as it should go imo.

**kukushka** · 06-14-2009, 05:03 PM

at the end of the day, seems to me, this tracker requires more efforts/.torrent from users and staff than any other... personally, i don't think that all these limitations with tracker load, overseeding etc etc are the optimal solution, but somehow this game has its fans, so.. until it will stay the good source for music, i don't really mind

**Roooney** · 06-14-2009, 05:22 PM

Kind a strange rule for a tracker, overseeding... It's not okay to have a low ratio, and now you can't have too good ratio.. It's not easy being a torrenter these days

But what the heck, i love Pedro's and I will respect their rules.

**cottonseed** · 06-15-2009, 01:48 AM

I would be willing to bet that those that are posting against such a rule have fast bandwidth at a relatively cheap cost, i.e. not the U.S., and think that seeding to a 4 or 5 ratio on a new torrent somehow gives them some type of prestige. P2P is about sharing, not about excluding those that don't have fast bandwidth. I bet if you were forced to use a slower connection as that is all that is available or is what you could afford that your attitudes would be a lot different on the subject. Just a guess and I could very well be wrong.

**Lovestoned** · 06-15-2009, 07:04 AM

Originally Posted by cottonseed

I would be willing to bet that those that are posting against such a rule have fast bandwidth at a relatively cheap cost, i.e. not the U.S., and think that seeding to a 4 or 5 ratio on a new torrent somehow gives them some type of prestige. P2P is about sharing, not about excluding those that don't have fast bandwidth. I bet if you were forced to use a slower connection as that is all that is available or is what you could afford that your attitudes would be a lot different on the subject. Just a guess and I could very well be wrong.

Well said, my sentiments too.

If something like this wasn't in place, it would become something like BitMeTV.

Really hard to seed, and not practical enough for daily usage.

**kukushka** · 06-15-2009, 02:28 PM

Originally Posted by cottonseed

I would be willing to bet that those that are posting against such a rule have fast bandwidth at a relatively cheap cost, i.e. not the U.S., and think that seeding to a 4 or 5 ratio on a new torrent somehow gives them some type of prestige. P2P is about sharing, not about excluding those that don't have fast bandwidth. I bet if you were forced to use a slower connection as that is all that is available or is what you could afford that your attitudes would be a lot different on the subject. Just a guess and I could very well be wrong.

yes, you're wrong because it's just the system that is built like this. for example, dumb alternative solution: after the user has hit 3.0 ratio, his upload stop to be counted for him and is being redistributed between users at the swarm with lower ratios. limiting users from seeding is definitely not about sharing.

**Lovestoned** · 06-15-2009, 05:13 PM

Originally Posted by kukushka

Originally Posted by cottonseed

I would be willing to bet that those that are posting against such a rule have fast bandwidth at a relatively cheap cost, i.e. not the U.S., and think that seeding to a 4 or 5 ratio on a new torrent somehow gives them some type of prestige. P2P is about sharing, not about excluding those that don't have fast bandwidth. I bet if you were forced to use a slower connection as that is all that is available or is what you could afford that your attitudes would be a lot different on the subject. Just a guess and I could very well be wrong.

yes, you're wrong because it's just the system that is built like this. for example, dumb alternative solution: after the user has hit 3.0 ratio, his upload stop to be counted for him and is being redistributed between users at the swarm with lower ratios. limiting users from seeding is definitely not about sharing.

If most users actually wanted to share not just for the torrent ratio we would still be using public trackers.

Pedro is just being more down to earth.