What Trackers Are Worth [With Reviews and Ratings]

[LivingInSouthPark]

Where do you get that? I stated about 10 posts ago that AOM is level 6, due to how hard it is to get an invite. What are you smoking kid?


Just because it is not in high demand here at FST doesnt mean its not rare.

I havent seen a demand for F*** or u*-* in a while, so those arent rare anymore? seriously, look at your argument, atleast I have facts to back mine up.

If demand =rarity, then water is the rarest substance on earth...since everyone demands it.


Believe it or not, FST is not the entire torrent invite world

SO IF I CREAT NEW TRACKER WITH 80 TORRENTS AND 50 MEMBERS THAT NO ONE HAS INVITES, AND I WILL MAKE A REVIEW OF IT IN FST, WILL IT BE LEVEL 10?

YES

[predateur]

Demand has nothing to do with level!

If that logic was true, then u*-* would be level 4 and Waffles would be level 10

To your rankings:

Nearly all your reasons are not viable in this discussion, they are personal opinions and not fact. Levels are based on how hard it is to get into the site.

FTN in no way is harder to get into then FSC. FTN still has invites out, and lots of them. FTN also has alot more members, therefore less rare.

ScT gave out invites to all power users at xmas. You state that it is more rare then iTS/ScL and other level 5's. iTS has only 10 users outside staff that have invites. 10 ScL only allows 50 of its users to ask for invites...ASK, it does not mean they will get one.

If you can show proof that there are less then 100 users with invites at ScT, id be happy to agree with you, however that is not the case. ScT has been offered for both of the above mentioned sites and turned down. ScT invite giveaways are far more common ever since the xmas invite granting to all power users.

You need to realize that content is in the [ ] while rarity is level.

Thor's land invite closed befor the creation of *its* but this new is more rare than thor's land because he since about 15days close invites , LOL
once WTAW told me thor's land cant go up because no demand on it, so if you know better than him, ask him to give you the job

[danio]

to fatcat69: they do actually have a point. to get a true picture of rarity i'd say you have to see demand and supply of invites in relation to eachother. for example, diamonds wouldn't be rare if only one person in the world wants them, right? high demand + low supply = highest rarity. likewise very low demand + high supply = lowest rarity level. then you have all the combinations in between. do you get my point?

[Shinigami]

to fatcat69: they do actually have a point. to get a true picture of rarity i'd say you have to see demand and supply of invites in relation to eachother. for example, diamonds wouldn't be rare if only one person in the world wants them, right? high demand + low supply = highest rarity. likewise very low demand + high supply = lowest rarity level. then you have all the combinations in between. do you get my point?

I agree totally. Rarity is not only how much invites are given or how easily or how difficult the tracker is to obtain. The demand also counts. For example, AOM invites or accounts are hard to get, but the demand is also low, and then you also need to consider the amount of people who really want the tracker or want it for trade. I think the tracker worthy level should undergo some drastic changes. One needs to look namely how high the demand is, and demands for different trackers switch throughout time. Of course I also agree that some trackers are hard to obtain, even so hard, that people are not trying even anymore.

Rarity = not only rartiy but also demand in my opinion.

What changes would I suggest? I do not know, that takes me some time to figure out and read what posters request and want.

[KFlint]

obviously, rarity take into consideration the number of users, the invite system, the difficulty to trade an account and the demand

to the person saying a 50 members tracker with 80 torrents and completly closed would be level 10, that's not how things work, i wouldn't even be listed which such content

for example, staff can apply to be community reps on FST but there is condition to match, the number of torrents and the date of creation of their trackers are part of it,

that's pretty much the same thing for trackers rankings...

[krunktastic]

Shouldn't the levels be composed of an amalgam of the quality of the trackers while the "rarity", which is subjective to say the least, should be put into brackets? Doing this emphasizes the importance of rarity which, in the torrent world, should mean absolutely nothing. When one organizes and structures this scene based on rarity, it draws unnecessary attention to trackers and promotes trading and cheating. Likewise, the ratings seem to be highly biased; how can there be so many "10" ranked trackers? There should be few 10's, if any and, instead of being biased, rated or justified on a scale that actually has a consistency to it. Just because everyone wants to be part of FTN doesn't mean it should be ranked so high; the content is par when compared to trackers like ScT and TL. There needs to be consistency for this whole thing not to be taken as a joke, while in my opinion, basis on rarity needs to be scrapped altogether.

[danio]

Shouldn't the levels be composed of an amalgam of the quality of the trackers while the "rarity", which is subjective to say the least, should be put into brackets? Doing this emphasizes the importance of rarity which, in the torrent world, should mean absolutely nothing. When one organizes and structures this scene based on rarity, it draws unnecessary attention to trackers and promotes trading and cheating. Likewise, the ratings seem to be highly biased; how can there be so many "10" ranked trackers? There should be few 10's, if any and, instead of being biased, rated or justified on a scale that actually has a consistency to it. Just because everyone wants to be part of FTN doesn't mean it should be ranked so high; the content is par when compared to trackers like ScT and TL. There needs to be consistency for this whole thing not to be taken as a joke, while in my opinion, basis on rarity needs to be scrapped altogether.

I totally agree on this one.. One should emphazise quality instead of using rarity as the main ranking.

[mamacita]

heh, I posted the same thing a couple pages back

[Mister Moo]

FB should not be a [7] seriously that site is horrible in content, I would give it a solid 4 or 5

[dragos]

FB should not be a [7] seriously that site is horrible in content, I would give it a solid 4 or 5

that site is horrible in every way ,not just content. It is the most useless tracker i've ever had the bad luck of getting my hands on