What Trackers Are Worth [With Reviews and Ratings] Part 1

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DrReD

swedvr 4 or 4.5

---

Maybe (4 +) or( 3.5 +) I think :naughty:

Quote:

---

i can d/l with 1000kb/s and i max out my connection on every torrent... if thats a 2.5 then what is a 5? how many ppl actually have >1000kb/s download speed? i would def not give it anything more than 4.5, compared to say sct speeds, but a 3-3.5 in speed is defenetely realistic..

---

if thats 1000 kb/s than most people have faster connections (at least in the US). if its kB/s than yeah thats good speed, especially for a specialized tracker like theplace.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Patriot foreve

23 Feb Updates
============
The place has moved 0.5 point up to lvl 3.5 (No invite syste,no signups,demand increased)

---

:lol::lol:

just a 0.5 increase.strange. for me itz a level 9(yeah cloud no 9):)

It's a little odd that the absolute lowest rating any site has is 2.5, and most sites go no lower than 3. You end up with absurdities like FSC being rated the same as whatever the hell proaudio torrents is.

Are you afraid of hurting these sites' feelings or what? If necessary, why not increase to ratings to out of 10, so the proper differentiations can be made.

Its a rating based on their rarity and demand at this forum only and also from our users recommendation and agreement.

And the majority of users would use fsc as much as proaudio torrents?

Again, I'm speaking of the ratings in brackets next to each site, not the rarity ranking.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hedonist7

It's a little odd that the absolute lowest rating any site has is 2.5, and most sites go no lower than 3. You end up with absurdities like FSC being rated the same as whatever the hell proaudio torrents is.

Are you afraid of hurting these sites' feelings or what? If necessary, why not increase to ratings to out of 10, so the proper differentiations can be made.

---

cause then people would take them even more literally than they already do.
(and it is out of ten in a way...)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hedonist7

It's a little odd that the absolute lowest rating any site has is 2.5, and most sites go no lower than 3. You end up with absurdities like FSC being rated the same as whatever the hell proaudio torrents is.

Are you afraid of hurting these sites' feelings or what? If necessary, why not increase to ratings to out of 10, so the proper differentiations can be made.

---

Might be that a three is average or the norm which most sites might be. Have to a bit crappy to go below I suppose. Top notch or special to go above. Makes sence if you look at it like that dosent it...

My point is simply that the ratings aren't very helpful if they cannot distinguish sites. And with half the sites rated at 3, and the very disparate quality of trackers rated 3.5, they are not doing a good job distinguishing sites. Perhaps having more gradations will help.

What you say makes sense, but your explanation itself reveals the limitations. Either a tracker is crappy, average or good. Beyond that, it's anyone's guess.

Youll have to do a some research of your own at a point.
The reviews are a good place to start perhaps...