Does going No-Ratio really help peer activity?

M

metric bike man

New member
You beat me to this thread :P.
I like the way that you put it(pay it forward i.e)it gives more responsibility to us members without neccesarily the need to be baby sat on by ratio rules and of course the admins.This system while with its own cons I feel its much less of a gamble than the prevalent no ratio system(responsible for the death of nearly all the startups that chose to go the 'cool' way).Infact this traditional ratioless system is just bad and utterly unsustainable.I guarantee you if you got rid of the l33+ factor from those sites that still stand they'd probably be facing the same fate as their cousins..I'd go on forever but thats just another plus for TvT(i'll probably put up a thread about this soon).
Click to expand...
and so imo if a tracker wants to go ratioless it should make sure it has the proper license to do so first i.e be l33+ otherwise its bound to fail or struggle all through.Otherwise its high time sites try out the TvT system which imo is far more superior than any other system that be.word yo!
 
The_Martinator said:
Come to think of it, I wonder what would happen if the usergroups were removed alltogether at say FTN. I bet the peers number would drop. I mean FTN is great, but some people are still there for the epen and if being a Hero increases it, then so be it.
Click to expand...
I think this idea is definitely worth implementing! Honestly, members' e-penis conists of several things: ratio, upload amount, usergroups.

What FTN member has? GB uploaded and usegroup. But if usegroups will be removed there won't any point in having huge upload amount since only staff can view this number AFAIK.
 
I was just wondering, does going no ratio really work, not just in theory? Almost every site that I've seen that went no ratio seems to have been LOSING peers. Just look at SceneRace or the site Scene"live" (not the original ScL). They have both reverted back to ratio systems after "excessive hit'n'runs". Wait a second - weren't minimum seed times introduced to DECREASE hit'n'runs? :blink: On GFT, another popular tracker, although I have to agree that they have some great pretimes, and that the speeds on their 0day torrents definitely can max out connections with the numerous seedboxes on the site, even the staff have admitted that the tracker is more 0day oriented - and isn't as effective in archives or older content. PTM seems to have done something right - they have a decent amount of peers - but is it really a lot compared to how many total users they have? And even if it is - it isn't technically "no ratio" as you can seed to .6/.75 (forgot which one) and then just leave the torrent. This doesn't really "keep" in the spirit of using a no ratio system as an means of preventing hit'n'runs, as you can just leave the torrent soon after. I can't really comment on FTN, the original pioneer of the "ratio free system", as I don't have any experience with it, but from the screens I've seen there seemed to be many 1 seeder 0 leecher torrents as well. There's also the "curse" of no-ratio music sites as well. Almost every single no ratio music site (with the exception of SQN and CE, which are very new and could very well fail later) has managed to collapse. What.cd and waffles, two of the most successful music trackers, have flourished with activity even though it is one of the hardest sites to seed at.

Then there's the problem of limiting upload as well. Anyone can survive on these sites with little to no upload at all, as long as they seed. What's to stop someone from limiting all their torrents to 1kbps upload while they use their upload bandwidth at the ratio sites they have? How do you prevent this from putting a screeching halt on activity as torrents end up becoming slower and slower?

One possible explanation is lack of users. Most no ratio sites these days seem to lack the users necessary to really generate activity. Although some of the bigger name sites, such as GFT or FTN, seem to be lacking activity on older or unknown torrents as well, but in all respects still have small userbases as well.

Could a no ratio site with a larger userbase truly work, and hold its own against some of the more known ratio sites?
 
If users hitting and running on sites that have minimum seed times, then they're just bad users, ratio or no ratio.
I don't expect the smaller no ratio sites to have more of an archive of torrents. With no ratio, there's no real incentive to seed for longer than the minimum time required (unless you want to be seen as a good user by the staff). And with a smaller user base, there's not going to be many peers.
I thought the point of no-ratio was to help make it easier for the user, not necessarily increase peer activity. High peer activity just depends on how much the users love/use the site.
 
It really depends on the users and staff. Most new ratio-free trackers seem to close down or have minimal activity.

Already established no ratio trackers are doing fine I believe, you shouldn't have a problem finding seeds or maxing out your line with mainstream releases. Yes there may be those 1-2 seeds off the beaten path torrents...but compared to say ScT's 5-7, there's hardly a difference.
 
Well, I can't see holding users with bad connections hostage for donations as a positive attribute, but that's just me. I guess it all depends on the end goal for the owners themselves. IMHO, if money is the priority(not to diminish the need for basic running costs to be met) then that is energy which could be used to improve the management, effectiveness and usability of those sites.

Unless a site is doing magnificently, which some quite definitely are, then all the staff are volunteers, and to find well motivated(and capable) volunteers for ANY cause, be it altruistic or social, is a struggle. Leaving the capable part out, time is still precious, and requires sacrifice. But if those sacrifices are made, the members will appreciate it when done right.
 
I personally love no ratio. I download far more then my upstream can handle. I rent a seedbox most of the time but not all the time. So I can download whatever I want with seedbox or my home connection. I think no ratio trackers need good pretimes to attract seedboxes for overall speed.
 
Although one thing that I have noticed that's different between "1 seeder" torrents on no ratio sites and "5-7" seeder torrents on say ScT or any other 0 day site, is that on no ratio sites the seedboxes seem to drop off in a matter of days. No one wants to waste precious seedbox bandwidth on sites that don't have ratio, while on ScT more seedbox users would be likely to stay on the torrent. So after a couple of days, no ratio torrents turn into beaten path torrents with 1-2 home seeders, while ScT's torrents turn into beaten path torrents with 5-7 seedboxes.
 
Intr4ns1t said:
Well, I can't see holding users with bad connections hostage for donations as a positive attribute, but that's just me. I guess it all depends on the end goal for the owners themselves. IMHO, if money is the priority(not to diminish the need for basic running costs to be met) then that is energy which could be used to improve the management, effectiveness and usability of those sites.

Unless a site is doing magnificently, which some quite definitely are, then all the staff are volunteers, and to find well motivated(and capable) volunteers for ANY cause, be it altruistic or social, is a struggle. Leaving the capable part out, time is still precious, and requires sacrifice. But if those sacrifices are made, the members will appreciate it when done right.
Click to expand...

Could not have been put any better :)
Donations are for the site, we believe torrent sites should belong to the members and staff of any level are there to make the site the best they can for the sort of members it was set up for :)
Yes all sites will have good and bad members so staff are there to protect it for the good members :)

Hope that all makes sense, I am having a bad news day :(
 
It seems there are 2 kinds of users who look for ratio-free sites.

1) Adults who appreciate being trusted and treated like adults. These members like to give back (and probably then some)and like being part of a thriving, prospering community.

2) Immature kids. They act like kids, need to be treated like kids, and don't have a clue what community means. When the site goes to shit, they say, "lame" and keep moving on...

I don't think that there is an inherent failing in the ratio-less site philosophy. The problem(s) occur when too many "kids" are allowed to play in the "adult" world.

Damn. I sound like a grouchy old bastard this morning. :lol:
Now, stay off my lawn!!!
 
FTN almost doubled the number of peers when it went ratio-free. Today the peer count is even higher.

I can't comment on the other non ratio sites you mentioned in your OP because I'm not a member.
 
HAve to say that on the few ratio free sites I'm on teh activity is poor - the content is great on some fo them and you can find some rare uploads, but after a week it is down to 1-3 seeds. I don't mind myself as long as they are not the type of users who limit bw jsut for seed bonus - if the file is good i will wait, but 1 KB/s is ridiculous! It definitely is about the membership adn waht they think they can get from the site.
 
Wow! That's interesting to hear :blink:

I guess another point maybe I should make is how is retention? Not just peer activity on recent torrents. Can FTN claim to manage a steady stream of seeders (instead of one seeder ghost towns) on older torrents?

I have heard that recently they switched to no required seedtime at all. Has that hurt/benefited peer activity at all?

Off topic: Why is it "benefited" and not "benefitted"?
 
megabyteme said:
It seems there are 2 kinds of users who look for ratio-free sites.

1) Adults who appreciate being trusted and treated like adults. These members like to give back (and probably then some)and like being part of a thriving, prospering community.

2) Immature kids. They act like kids, need to be treated like kids, and don't have a clue what community means. When the site goes to shit, they say, "lame" and keep moving on...

I don't think that there is an inherent failing in the ratio-less site philosophy. The problem(s) occur when too many "kids" are allowed to play in the "adult" world.

Damn. I sound like a grouchy old bastard this morning. :lol:
Now, stay off my lawn!!!
Click to expand...

Can I have me ball back please sir??

Like mentioned and I have to agree it all depends on the user/member base and there attitudes.
I think an established tracker that has had no new members in a while and provides and does well does not really need a ratio system or seed time.
Another thing that does make a difference to how long people seed for on a seed box is if that seed box is used mainly for uploading to other sites as they will want a good turn around of torrents for that site.
I have done this several yrs in the past but on stuff I got for myself as well once seed box had finished and it was on me home pc would then seed from there for a long time on top of origional seed amount.
 
Back
Top