![Quote](https://i.filesharingtalk.com/misc_fst/quote_icon.png)
Originally Posted by
optimus_prime
as said, invites ranking should stay as it is. it is
invites ranking.
if you need quality top list i can give it to you: ftn, sct, tl, bitme, bitmetv and oink are good others are mediocre. you're free to spread that on table with 10 levels and make it look serious
![Smile](//i.filesharingtalk.com/smilies/smile.gif)
so, once again, it's about
supply/demand and
not about quality. i hate picasso and i think his paintings sucks, that doesn't mean i expect sotheby's to rewrite catalogue and say "pablo picasso - crap - 1.99$".
Well said. It should stay sorted by trading value based on supply and demand. People who only care about the tracker's other attributes can simply just look at the number inside []. If it has a low value, then using their own judgment they can simply say, "Ok, I don't give a shit about rarity, I only care about its content and speed, so I will only use the number inside the [] as my guide for my trading activities, as opposed to the rarity."
Most people here probably care more about rarity because if they get a 'rarer' site, because they can then have more options on what site they can get. Notice that, if people don't care about rarity, then in theory, the rarity level should equal the tracker (content/speed/pretime) rating, but clearly most people do care about rarity.
UK-T can probably get you a whole lot of excellent sites even though its content and speed are not of good quality. Why? Because if you have it, you can trade it for pretty much anything you want. But some people don't want this 'power', they just want a good tracker that they can leech from. And that's cool, just look at the number inside the [], and trade based on that number. Simple.
Bookmarks