Posts: 1,879
Threads: 16
Joined: Nov 2004
Reputation:
0
I think your idea in point #1 is a great one. Anything that can allow people to make requests without eating up bandwidth and all those type things, sounds like a smart thing to me.
Posts: 8,614
Threads: 451
Joined: Sep 2002
Reputation:
0
Is everyone still receiving the new torrent upload notification emails?
Posts: 256
Threads: 10
Joined: Sep 2002
Reputation:
0
Now that you mention it, I can't remember the last time I got a torrent upload notice. Hadn't even noticed. I have gotten them in the past though.
Posts: 690
Threads: 16
Joined: Aug 2003
Reputation:
0
The mailing list is a great idea. I've always received tracker notices, but a separate list probably would be an efective way to request seeds and such.
As for the software, I haven't really had any problems but there's always value in improving a process whether it's for easier maintenance, user interface, increased reliability or all of the above. At this point, even if the existing torrent database was lost in the transition, so many of us have so many shows we could upload to the new system that I think the issue would be the potential for duplicate uploads rather than people losing out on shows they didn't have a chance to get.
If it will be easier on you Chris, I say go for it. It's obvious that you put a lot of time and effort into the tracker and the rest of your Hipfans.com site and I have to believe you take pride in it and want it to be the best it can be. Do what you think is best for your site and your visitors.
I'm pretty sure we'll all be stickin' around. :thumb:
1995-04-07 Toledo | 1996-06-29 Toledo | 1996-11-23 Detroit | 1998-08-22 Toledo | 1999-02-12 Auburn Hills |
1999-05-05 Grand Rapids | 1999-07-31 Clarkston | 1999-12-31 Toronto | 2000-01-01 Toronto |
2000-06-14 Pontiac | 2000-07-15 Clarkston | 2000-12-02 Detroit | 2002-08-31 Clarkston |
2004-09-18 Detroit | 2007-04-12 Detroit | 2009-05-29 Detroit | 2012-11-28 Detroit | 2016-08-08 London | 2016-08-16 Hamilton
Posts: 1,933
Threads: 100
Joined: Oct 2002
Reputation:
0
I've never received one. I even check my junk mail daily and delete it manually. Never received one.
Posts: 8,614
Threads: 451
Joined: Sep 2002
Reputation:
0
New topic for improvement
As more and more people join the tracker, torrents are getting slower - which is contrary to the idea behind Bit Torrent. This is because many users are just leeching, and not sharing. To rectify this, I've implemented a ratio system. Get those ports open and start sharing or your IP will be banned automatically.
Users must maintain an overall share ratio of at least 0.50 or they will be banned.
Posts: 63
Threads: 3
Joined: Mar 2004
Reputation:
0
Establishing a mandatory share ratio of at least 0.50, has a definite downside.
To give an example about why I don't believe this will work lets assume the tracker has only one torrent and one hundred members, all but one (seeder) of which are downloading the torrent.
For every member that has a share ratio of above 1.00 there has to be an equal number of members below 1.00. If there are ten members with ratios in the 2.00 to 3.00 range (which are not uncommon) it makes it even more difficult to maintain a ratio of 1.00 and almost inevitable that some members will have ratios below 0.50.
These users would be those that jumped on late or have the slower dl/ul speeds. If there are five users that fail to reach a share ratio of 0.50 and are banned the process repeats itself with 95 users.
It would be helpful for users to open up their ports, I'm doing so within the next few days if possible, this would definitely speed things up, but it would not remedy the leeching problem.
As for users with high share ratios; Overall they are great for the tracker by speeding up transfers, but as long as they exist it is certain that some members will fall below the share ratio. If a policy were put in place for members to stop seeding after reaching a ratio of 1.00 this would only slow down speeds.
I think the 0.50 requirement is a fairly modest one and may not be as harmful as I make out but in my opinion, as members are banned others will fall into their slot.
Of course, this is just a model and does not fully depict reality but I think you get my idea. I'm definitely interested to see what others think.
Posts: 8,614
Threads: 451
Joined: Sep 2002
Reputation:
0
stanslow12 - I think that your reasoning is flawed because it is based on a hypothetical which will not exist on our tracker. I ran the site for a few months to ensure that the majority of users would have established share ratios, and that there was a significant number of torrents, before I implemented this system.
The ban is based on your overall share ratio not the ratio for an individual torrent. So that means that although you may fall behind on a certain torrent, you can make up for it on another one. Additionally, you can very easily increase your overall share ratio by uploading something new to the tracker.
Finally, ratio bans are in place and working on many private tracker sites. Public trackers (ones that do not 'track' you IP/username in order to download - like the former Suprnova) are a different story.
But I appreciate the feedback, and look forward to reading more comments on this topic.
Posts: 1,708
Threads: 100
Joined: Jul 2004
Reputation:
0
I agree with Chris in that leeching has become a problem, and I'm for a ban-ratio, but perhaps 0.5 is too high to start with. If you initially set the ratio at something like 0.35, that might encourage the weaker sharers to try to hit that mark to stay on the tracker....then after a month or two, raise it to 0.4.
Posts: 1,242
Threads: 56
Joined: Nov 2002
Reputation:
0
Question, why are my upload and download numbers so low? It is showing about 9gigs for both, but I know I have done way more than that. I know someone else asked this in another thread (the first tracker thread that is many many pages in length now) but don't have time to search through that thread. (bring on the slagging Medic)
Regarding the share ratio, it isn't anything I'm worried about. You don't have to try very hard to achieve .50. One thing to keep in mind though, not everybody can actually keep their computers running as long as some of you other guys can. For instance, when I'm downloading, I try to leave my computer running all night. During the day though, my wife always shuts it off because she doesn't like to hear the fan and processor noise, plus she thinks it's an unnecessary energy waste. But, it seems to me that you should be able to achieve that share ratio simply via what you are uploading at the same time your downloading. Clear like mud.
Posts: 690
Threads: 16
Joined: Aug 2003
Reputation:
0
There's absolutely no acceptable reason for torrents to move slower with a greater number of users. That's just wrong! Obviously a minimum needed to be established and it is indeed common practice on many trackers.
1995-04-07 Toledo | 1996-06-29 Toledo | 1996-11-23 Detroit | 1998-08-22 Toledo | 1999-02-12 Auburn Hills |
1999-05-05 Grand Rapids | 1999-07-31 Clarkston | 1999-12-31 Toronto | 2000-01-01 Toronto |
2000-06-14 Pontiac | 2000-07-15 Clarkston | 2000-12-02 Detroit | 2002-08-31 Clarkston |
2004-09-18 Detroit | 2007-04-12 Detroit | 2009-05-29 Detroit | 2012-11-28 Detroit | 2016-08-08 London | 2016-08-16 Hamilton
