Do Sysops care?

[whitmar]

I'm not a sysop, nor do I know any. I do own a business, however, and I expect that they have many of the same concerns.

Firstly, meeting day to day operating costs are paramount. Without cash flow to pay for the infrastructure, the site is dead in the water.

Secondly, attracting high-caliber customers. Since a full-page ad in The New York Times, for example, could lead to a security risk as well as a financial liability, they have to rely on word-of-mouth referrals. That is where the WTAW thread could come in handy but, as kaffeine alluded, it's a double-edged sword. The higher the level, the more it becomes a status symbol in a forum like this one, and creates a frenzy of desire that could bring a detrimental amount of attention and scrutiny. Not to mention the throngs of "groupies" seeking e-Viagra for their e-penises leading to constantly full PM and email boxes and unwanted publicity for the individuals running the most sought-after sites.

This brings me to my third point: The long term viability of the operation must always be kept in mind. Since the first and second requirements are limited by political and legal constraints, the security of a business with an "ethically flexible" mission becomes quite a challenge. Keeping the site at full server capacity is difficult while keeping the membership devoid of people whose agenda is to shut the site down and wreak legal havoc on the administration. The site must set forth rules and remain constantly vigilant that their member stay compliant for their very survival.

In the general scheme of things, I imagine most sysops would prefer the list not exist, or at most, be considered less relevant.

[fatcat69]

I'm not a sysop, nor do I know any. I do own a business, however, and I expect that they have many of the same concerns.

Firstly, meeting day to day operating costs are paramount. Without cash flow to pay for the infrastructure, the site is dead in the water.

Secondly, attracting high-caliber customers. Since a full-page ad in The New York Times, for example, could lead to a security risk as well as a financial liability, they have to rely on word-of-mouth referrals. That is where the WTAW thread could come in handy but, as kaffeine alluded, it's a double-edged sword. The higher the level, the more it becomes a status symbol in a forum like this one, and creates a frenzy of desire that could bring a detrimental amount of attention and scrutiny. Not to mention the throngs of "groupies" seeking e-Viagra for their e-penises leading to constantly full PM and email boxes and unwanted publicity for the individuals running the most sought-after sites.

This brings me to my third point: The long term viability of the operation must always be kept in mind. Since the first and second requirements are limited by political and legal constraints, the security of business with an "ethically flexible" mission becomes quite a challenge. Keeping the site at full server capacity while keeping the membership devoid of people whose agenda is to shut the site down and wreak legal havoc on the administration. The site must set forth rules and remain constantly vigilant that their member stay compliant for their very survival.

In the general scheme of things, I imagine most sysops would prefer the list not exist, or at most, be considered less relevant.

[denise119]

I can only speak for TorrentBytes but our only aim is to make our current members happy, not to please someone who hasn't even signed up and just taken their info from some tracker level that has been dished out to us.

The level means very little as it appears to be only based on how hard it is to get into the site, and for a site such as ourselves who will welcome everyone from the newest person to torrents who don't have a clue what their doing...through to the most experienced of members who has seen it all before.

For that reason we will never introduce an invite system and will keep our signups open on a first come first served basis.

Our site has always seen itself as a diverse community from the very first day it opened and thats how we intend it to remain.

We do listen to what our members have to say on our own forums, but we would never be influenced by what someone who isn't a member has to say.

[KFlint]

if a sysop actually care about WTAW rankings, then be sure that they aren't serious staff, and definitly poser who seek recognition nothing more

i'm pretty sure sysop don't like either WTO or WTAW threads because they both bring attention to their sites

so it makes me laugh when an FSTer start a new site and say, we are the next level 10 tracker....wow, awesome way to start a tracker, stfu

[apunpktun]

for some... yes, it gives them an inflated e-penis....... or so they think..lmao

true dat.... and also true for staff of some sites... but, most high level tracker staff r good

[jasperr]

he just said signup were closed...

look at the quote within the quote .. notice something??

[shutdk]

if a sysop actually care about WTAW rankings, then be sure that they aren't serious staff, and definitly poser who seek recognition nothing more

i'm pretty sure sysop don't like either WTO or WTAW threads because they both bring attention to their sites

so it makes me laugh when an FSTer start a new site and say, we are the next level 10 tracker....wow, awesome way to start a tracker, stfu

That's what I'm talking about!

[silvertec]

In the Current environment sure all syops would be happy if their sites weren't listed here at all, rankings mean nothing, maybe better to have a low ranking so you stay unnoticed and stops a site been traded by kiddy card collectors.

[grimms]

I don't think LVL's should matter. If i was a sysop I would care more about the quality of my site, it's content, community, pre-times, etc. Who cares about the level. I mean it's good to know you site is valued, but if i was a sysop, it would be more of an afterthought.

[zxion]

Some trackers are in it for the money too

I'm pretty sure for some of them this is their main source of income hehe

But they deserve it for the amount of work they put into it