What Trackers Are Worth [With Reviews and Ratings]

The thread has gone through a significant edit. Basically got rid of level 8 and then split level 9 into including level 8. It doesn't mean FtN and FSC are any easier to get into, it just means that the level structure is slightly altered.

Keep in mind that the rating (ie [10] v. [6]) is often a better tool determining usefulness than the level.

Feel free to suggest changes in rating because they are still being tweaked.
Keep in mind that you must state WHY when suggesting any change in this thread, or else you will be ignored.

WTAW Firstly Thank you look like right

Quote:

---

Keep in mind that the rating (ie [10] v. [6]) is often a better tool determining usefulness than the level.

---

this is realy usefeul but I dont agree with PTN:dry: especially PTN [7] for 7

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WTAW

Feel free to suggest changes in rating because they are still being tweaked.
Keep in mind that you must state WHY when suggesting any change in this thread, or else you will be ignored.

---

@red ransom, and everyone else ^^

i must say i agree with all the changes :D

somebody out there understands what i'm saying...

guys wtf ? TT and iTS up, scl down (1lvl)

Why SCL down?
It was actually open for sign up just for a total of 23 minutes to get an extra 600 members, that's all.
Now it's closed with only 2500 members. Can anybody get in it now?

iTS down to level 3. Same reasons as when I posted in the previous thread.

Invites are available to people who are active members on any one of several other torrent and torrent related sites. They are actively recruiting. It is easy for members to get invites with the fairly low upload amount to become a PU being all that is required. Lots of spaces are still available. The only reason to keep it as high as level three is that the new members, excluding all the disabled accounts, are only about a hundred per month. As an aside, this is more new members than S*T which has remained between 18,500 and 19,000 members for almost a year now.

Bt-Arg and Snowtigers to level two as they both open signups when a user is disabled.



A more general point about the rating of sites: almost all of them should be reduced, most reduced a lot. Most people fail to realize that it is supposed to be a combination of content, speeds and pre-times (where pre's are applicable).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kojin

Karagarga is still at [9]

You claim ratings are based on content and speed, so until ScT gets Ovoce Stromu Rajskych Jime up on their tracker, Karagarga should be [10]

---

Lets take KG as an example, as it was mentioned on page 13. It might well have some unusual content (give it a ten as it has twenty four thousand active torrents) but its speeds are very poor (subjectively two?), pre's are not really relevant here so this should give it a rating of six. Why six? Well ten plus two is twelve and then divide it by two to get a rating of six.

I dont think it needs me to defend it, but S*T speeds are the highest and its content is over twenty two thousand torrents: ratings of ten in both areas, combine this with great pre's give an overall rating of ten. To answer kojin, once 'Ovoce stromu rajskych jime AKA Fruit of Paradise' has a pre-time then it will be on S*T!

I know stoi is looking for some constructive criticism on BC, well the pre's (where applicable, for me it is on PC games) could be much better. Lets change the rating of BC from ten to seven: content is ten, speeds are five and pre's are six ([10+5+6]/3=7). As an example, to get ratio on BC I downloaded 'stuff' from another site and waited for it to be uploaded to BC to seed it just to become a SPU.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NPAX1

I believe SCC should go from 9 to 10.

Pre-times are excellent, speed is even greater (I hit at least 7mb/s on every new torrent). And with the free leech mp3/0day section (and the newly free leech archive section), it is easy to remain a productive member with a decent ratio.

Although I think SCC should move from 9 to 10, I believe it should remain at Level 3, since invites are so abundant at this moment (and you can donate for more).

---

I would disagree slightly with this assessment regarding rating. SCC deserves a rating of eight. It is a touch below S*T in speeds (I have seen some pretty amazing speeds on S*T) and pre's, say nine in both, but the content, with under 5000 torrents, deserves a far lower score of about five. A combined total of twenty-three, divided by three would equal a rating of eight for SCC.


I am still concerned that many sites, take iTS for example, are vastly over rated in all three categories: speed two (they have an unusual rule which limits seeders and as a result speeds), content three (under 2000 active torrents) and pre's two (they suck big time in my opinion). I use iTS as it is the best example of an over rated tracker under this FST rating system but please note that this is not intended as an unfounded criticism of iTS, and I can and will justify it with stats from iTS if required.


One thing that occurs to me as I write this is that there is no objective standard for measuring speed, content or pre-time's. Perhaps a method for calculating these would be useful?


Many people mention the level of difficulty in getting invites as a reason for increasing level but if we accept this premise then should trackers with no invites and no new signups become level ten? I am thinking of filelist, the level three site, as an example with no new peeps at all.


Please note: I have used equal weighting in the speed, content and pre-time's when I was reassessing tracker ratings as I think they should have equal weight.

I know BCG pre-times are not great, but our speeds are (on most torrents).

I downloaded 3 PC games the other week, all at the same time,and they had been on the tracker for 16 months each.

I got 800KBs on 1, 600KBs on another and 400KBs on the last one.

thats 1800KBs over 3 torrents. my max download is 20meg, which is about 1800KBs.

Ok, im not naive to think that every single game that is on the tracker will go at that speed, but then i doubt the last torrent on browse on a 0 day tracker, would go very fast either.

and we cant win, we get complaints that downloads are to fast, as we have to many seedbox users, so normal users (yes we do allow members that do not have a seedbox, unlike 0 day sites) cannot get their ratios up. and then you give us a 5 for speed, wtf.

edit:

and how do you know the speeds are 5, if you download from elsewhere and seed on BCG.?

Edit 2:

In all honesty, i do not think we deserve a 10 either, this is why i brought up the idea of the table last month.

10 for content yes.

6-7 for pres, but then if you can do better, apply for Uploader.

8 for speed.

thanks for someone finally stepping forward and giving criticism on the ratings KennyX. Unfortunately I can't agree with you on most points. The ratings system isn't an addition formula on those 3 criteria, that wouldn't make sense because not every trackers purpose is to have fast pretimes (or pretimes at all for that matter), and not every tracker's goal is to maintain retention over long periods of time (ie most of the 0day trackers). KG is high BECAUSE of it's content and retention. BCG is high for the same reasons. You can get almost any game you want there, even if it's from the 90's, and if it's not on the site someone will most likely fill your request. I'm not a member of iTS so if that went down I would need some feedback seeing as the review is very outdated.

It's good that you've brought this up. Over the past week or so a lot of the ratings have gone down, and it's gonna be an ongoing process over the next couple weeks till it's all pretty much agreeable. If you want to argue that a rating should go up, a good updated review proving it would be more convincing than only posting here. If you want something to go down then a review would be nice but not necessary. I'm basing it on the current review, or if I'm a member then by the current stats.

Its sad to see FTN and FSC @ 8th:(