who agree with me that iTS/SCL/TT should goes up in lvl's put hand up
Printable View
who agree with me that iTS/SCL/TT should goes up in lvl's put hand up
ScL go down, open for signup
I am not sure about SCL now :DQuote:
Originally Posted by metanaboll112
i think now that the only must go up are TT and ITS
puretna is open for signups so should be level 1 instead of 2, no?
scl
should go down to lvl4
no, level 2 is the right level nowQuote:
Originally Posted by lovejj
i think you can't enter it :naughty:Quote:
Originally Posted by predateurno, level 2 is the right level nowQuote:
Originally Posted by lovejj
it didn't open up for that many people, and now that it's closed it's not any easier to get intoQuote:
Originally Posted by predateurno, level 2 is the right level nowQuote:
Originally Posted by lovejj
yeah try to find a invite or signup now. Pisexy has been open for a month-should be level 1! TVT.ro also was open ( a few times in the month) and ranked level 3????? Backwards. I stopped reading this. lol
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.
@red ransom, and everyone else ^^Quote:
Originally Posted by WTAW
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).
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by kojin
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by NPAX1
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:(
WTAW, I posted this because too many trackers seem to have ratings that are subjectively very high and seem unjustified. Too many trackers have ratings of seven to ten without, and this is my opinion, scoring above five on any one of content, speed or pre's.
I agree that different trackers should be rated using the most appropriate criteria but in this case what should they be?
edit: from the first page it seems that all trackers ratings should be judged solely as stated below:
Tracker Ratings
- Trackers have ratings from 1 to 10 in the [#] tags.
- This is based on Content and Speed and Pre-Times.
"Content and Speed and Pre-Times" for all zero day trackers still seems appropriate, but for "dedicated trackers" lets have different criteria then (and make sure people know about it by changing the first page).
Content seems to be most important for dedicated trackers, but measured using raw torrent numbers or quality? Is request ability, and how many fills, important? Retention and content for non-0 day trackers then?
I would have liked some objective criteria to measure these ratings by mainly to remove the 'x tracker must be 8 because it is better than y tracker at 7', based on some noobs very subjective opinion. Of course far worse is the 'tracker x +1 level' with nothing to substantiate it...
stoi, the ratings you suggest are fine with me but some of the new torrents uploaded are very slow. Taking an example from today, the wii game 'Players choice T4...', it is 4gb and uploaded seven hours ago with no completions. It is the variability of speed that made me assess BC speed so low.
A few responses to stoi's post.
and how do you know the speeds are 5, if you download from elsewhere and seed on BCG.?
-because I download from BC as well, this was to reflect that not all new torrents on BC are equally fast. The speeds you quote for old torrents are impressive but I have downloaded some new torrents with one seeder at 30kB and some old torrents at 4kB. This is not a problem for me as the torrents all complete which is the one of the most essential things for me in a torrent site.
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.
-Lets not kid ourselves, BC gets a ten from me and from almost everyone who knows anything about torrent sites (BC is a must have for all serious gamers), but this was a point made to show how the current ratings are skewed based upon the three subjective (and I will keep saying subjective) criteria that are supposed to apply to all trackers based on the FST rating system. BC does not deserve a ten based on the FST ratings but to put it in context most sites deserve rankings below five.
6-7 for pres, but then if you can do better, apply for Uploader.
-Compared to what? How do you measure it? What is the average pre on BC, and how does it compare to other sites? I cant do better but the question is more is BC good where pre's are concerned and and can it do better?
This is the problem as i see it: you think a six or seven rating, I do not and we have problems quantifying who is correct. As an example, if we use this as an objective measurement 'if a site has an average pre of over an hour but less than three hours then it should get a five rating' we have something that can be measured and agreed upon by all. We can work out the average pre on BC, over a specific time period, and use it to get an agreed upon rating. BC's pre's might be 'between fifty minutes and an hour' for six, or 'forty minutes to 49:59 minutes' to get a seven.
8 for speed.
-Again difficult for us to assess without some objective measurement and statistics to fall back on. How and what do we compare BC to to get the eight rating?
Well i cant compare it to anything, because, well im not a member of anywhere else.
But you have to remember, If your a PU you can apply to be an uploader on BCG, we dont have any silly rule where you must have a Seedbox with a gigabyte connection to be an uploader.
So of course some uploaders own rips, like the one you mentioned, are going to be slow.
But then if we stipulated that every uploader needed a seedbox, we would never ever see that game on BCG, or he would go and upload it elsewhere.
But faster seed = harder to get a ratio of over 1, unless you have a seedbox yourself, slower uploader, = piece of piss to get a ratio of above 1 even if you have a relatively slow upload.
this is why i do not understand members that sometimes are users, saying i will wait for more seeders on a release before they start to download it, they will never get a good ratio that way. and people are far to impatient these days.
Ok if a 6gig game is going at 2 KBs for the life your downloading it, i would probably get pissed off and look elsewhere, or report the torrent (we have got a report torrent function you can use you know). But if its going at 30-60KBs and there is only the original uploader, but a good amount of leechers, i would be thinking, Increase ratio time here.
but in your oppinion, no tracker would deserve a 10, because i think ease of use (how easy is it to keep a ratio without a seedbox) should be factored into it, and most 0 day trackers would get a 1 for that lol
But like i mentioned this is why i brought up the table idea, i dont think its that far back in this thread, and has been quoted as well, so you cant really miss it. this will be a lot better imo than 1 number that tells how good a tracker is.
But they are not going to use it for this thread for some reason, oh well i tried lol
K will quote it for you so you dont have to look.
Quote:
Fav : Name : Seeds : Leechers: Members : Torrents: Pre : Rarity : Speed : Content : Community : Usage: Open : Overall : Type : Updated
Fav = Favicon pic
Name = tracker name linked to review
Seeds = Seeds
Leechers = Leechers
Members = Members
Torrent = # of alive torrents on the tracker
Pre = Pre Time # from 1-10 or even a % out of 100 if you want (same for the ones below)
Rarity = how hard it is to get in, but again, you can scrap this for me.
Speed = Speed when you download from the tracker
Content = Number of torrents, and Quality of the torrents
Community = how active are the forums, and the torrent comments
Usage = how easy it is to keep a ratio easy/medium/hard
Open = Like i said in my previous post
Overall = overall rating maybe this one could be out of 100%
Type = 0day/games/ebooks/movie etc etc
Updated = just the date it was updated by whomever updates it.
You could also have the columns sortable as well but that might take javascript which imnot sure you can do in a forum thread.
I will probably come up with more columns later, but that will do for now lol
and you could add staff in there somewhere as well lol cheers for the poster above me who mentioned that.
KennyX what you're describing seems like a description of the WTO thread
+1 = [9] :)Quote:
I don't understand how TL could have a 10 rating while SCC has a 9.
TL pretimes are a lot slower than SCC, and SCC has better speeds on most torrents. SCC also has an archive section with freeleech, and a growing number of packs.
content and speed, also the fact that they have old torrents active as hell. that's why mate ;). TL's da Beazt :PQuote:
Originally Posted by NPAX1
Level 5
ScL[8] iTS[6]
Level 8
FTN[9]
Level 9
FSC[10]
Level Changes explained:
Simple, FTN gave a bunch of invites (as in hundreds) out the past month if they stay 8, then by logic FSC goes up one.
FSC...no invites...in 7 months, maybe 30 new users in that time period per admin account creation?
Bracket changes:
FTN--although they do have a few uploaders and their own dedicated 1gbs box uploading to the site...content wise they are still a mile behind ScT. They get stuff slower, have less seeders, dont have a request section.
FSC--Has one of the most active request sections and has more dedicated uploaders who meet requests then anywhere else. Simple as that, if you are looking for something and cant find it, they will find it.
iTS--Although active, content has gone down over the past month due to uploaders leaving. Speeds are down, users arent that active anymore.
ScL--very active uploading group, fast speeds, numerous seeders due to peer count expanding and users up to 2500.
Cheers.
fsc invites have been around and were only stripped very recently. I had 4 invites there until just last week and I am not staff or Elite or VIPQuote:
Originally Posted by fatcat69
about ITSQuote:
Originally Posted by fatcat69
i dont agree with you about contant
site very good about contant and great speed
see the packs in this site to know uploaders leaving site or not
This "5" is ridiculous, tbh. MBT has unique rare content in best possible quality, that will never be uploaded on waffles or what.cd, or any other place. Only because of the content MBT deserves at least [7]. Look, shitty (imo imo) filemp3 has also [5]. what's up?Quote:
MBT[5]
Also, MBT is rather active (average ~10 peers per user, ~5-6 torrents per user, which is great for 1200 userbase). So, i claim MBT deserves [7]. at least.
TS Tracker should go lvl 2 or 3... they have lots of invites and is so easy to get acc.. you can think that the sign up is open...btw the signup was open and lots of new users sign up... so lvl3 for ts is fair if you check the others tracker on this level
You had invites but couldnt use em lol...check forums, invites were disabled in jan.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mister Moofsc invites have been around and were only stripped very recently. I had 4 invites there until just last week and I am not staff or Elite or VIPQuote:
Originally Posted by fatcat69
I have like 100 invites to hdbits.org, but when its full, people cant get in...same thing.
Just bc you have em doesnt mean you can use em.:whistling
@ the iTS comments
Just having packs does not make a site have good variety. And yes a bunch of uploaders have left, I just spent 20 minutes updating the "welcome new uploaders" thread on the site...there are 8 left.
0day is basically non existent aside from one of the staff members and 2 uploaders uploading when they have free time.
Content is down, just look at the new torrents added daily. We used to do about 30-40 a day...now maybe 10-20...on a good day:pinch:
trust me, i know the current status of uploading at iTS...im the oldest active uploader there lol.
why are uploaders leaving iTS?
bc some dont have the patience nor the space to seed something for 3 days and have noone downloading.Quote:
Originally Posted by robotpirate
If you are pu or higher, get invites and get more people at the site...bc 1600 users...with only like 600 active...is just sucky.:cry:
same situation with GFT except there's no lack of uploaders. over 100 ups since Weeds dropped last night :P none of them have more than 1 snatch..
packs seem to be active there, i don't like to run peoples patience out with my 32kb/s up speed :S
but i might............
hey banana6986, you are still pretty new over there (22 weeks) anyways, some of the older members had invites that were active until last week. (I know this because I invited one of my buddies to the site last week) anyways no point arguing about this here with all the tradernoobs.Quote:
Originally Posted by fatcat69You had invites but couldnt use em lol...check forums, invites were disabled in jan.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mister Moo
why the box.bz quality is L-10?
it's speed is so bad
Quote:
Originally Posted by lsw0794
You shouldn't judge by its speed alone, dude.
Everybody knows that theBOX has a great content of British stuff which u could hardly find on another tracker.
http://filesharingtalk.com/vb3/f-bit...e3#post2710462Quote:
Originally Posted by Mister Moohey banana6986, you are still pretty new over there (22 weeks) anyways, some of the older members had invites that were active until last week. (I know this because I invited one of my buddies to the site last week) anyways no point arguing about this here with all the tradernoobs.Quote:
Originally Posted by fatcat69
Response:Quote:
Originally Posted by Tokeman
now are you sure you weren't dreaming that you invited your friend ?Quote:
Originally Posted by DV8type