Thread: What Trackers Are Worth [With Reviews and Ratings]

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.

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

Originally Posted by NPAX1

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

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.

Originally Posted by fatcat69

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.

about ITS
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

MBT[5]

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?
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.