Ideas for a compromise

twinkletoes

the site has a 5 star torrent rating system.
Though we have to face facts - it is dead, no-one, or very few and very seldom, rates torrents

Complete agreement here
But I'd say the same thing about the torrent "Comments" section too

@geographer:

no-one takes into account that rating when choosing a torrent to download.

How do you know?

@geographer:

Since I'm taking away the privilege to rate torrents from users

Hooray!
(but you're still a douchebag) >:D

pigtucket

@geographer:

To avoid subjective approach of the moderators when it comes to rating, there will be set up a clear and fixed guide with a list of criteria a torrent needs to follow to get the specific amount of stars. This remains subject to discussions.

This way, we have a proportional dependency between the quality of the torrent and the reward it generates to its uploader. Good uploaders will be rewarded according to their torrents, and thus be motivated to upload more, while the not so good uploaders will have a real motivation to improve the quality of their uploads.

Note: I still don't know whether the Auto Approval torrents would fit in this system or not… This also needs to be discussed.

@geographer:

Idea #4: Transferable seed bonus points

Once a user asked us if he can donate some SPB directly to another user, without waiting him to upload something. I suggest we make this thing happen. If we have users with a big bank of SPB and a good heart, willing to help others in need, I don't see why it shouldn't be possible. Although this can generate a mass wave of beggary for seed points…

MrMazda

With respect to the quality of the torrent, there is one thing that I see coming into play here. A lot of our users don't seem to necessarily understand the difference in the quality of the torrent (e.g. video compression, frame size, frame rate, sound quality, etc) versus whether or not the content of the torrent is appealing to them personally. This in and of itself creates the potential for a flawed rating system just for the simple fact that there are a number of users who will give a torrent a bad rating simply because the content of the torrent doesn't appeal to them, rather than rating it based on the actual quality and technical standards of the torrent.

Perhaps this point is something that also needs to be addressed when taking the whole rating system into account. For example, if I were to rate torrents based on their personal appeal to me, all torrents from censored for example would receive a rather low rating, whereas a torrent that for example may be a VHS rip (with obvious lower quality) may receive a higher rating based on its content. Where exactly does one draw the line with respect to the rating system?

As well, the other thing to take into account when rating a torrent is the file format. A flash video file (.flv) generally would tend to have a lower overall quality (especially if ripped from a tube site such as XTube) than a torrent that is either in DVD-R format (.iso or .vob) or was converted directly to a video file such as a less compressed AVI file or a better compressed MPEG video for example. Perhaps if this rating system is left to moderators, a definitive answer with respect to the technical standards needs to be set. If the rating system that is currently in place remains in effect, this is something for all users to take into account when rating a torrent for its quality.

Just my two cents on the topic of the rating system.

cumeaternc

I may not be into…let's say "spanking torrents" but based on the ideas here I would "rate" that torrent highly is it just had the following information in it:

Studio Name
Video\Book Name(or Actor name in the event of a picture post)
Year Produced
Director(if any)
Actors list
Film description(NOT "hot twinks f**cking" or "good latino sex video")
Video specs(codecs, resolution, etc…)
Lots of preview pics(at least one should be a contact sheet of the entire film)
Video catalog name(i.e. IGH7476 for an It's Gonna Hurt video)

The more of this I see in a torrent upload the more I am willing to reward the uploaders hard work. I approve many torrents that I am not "interested" in but my job is to verify they are not a duplicate and that they are relevant to this tracker(or banned). Of course any rating system all but excludes users with AA rights as their torrents go live right away.

geographer

@twinkletoes:

How do you know?

Because I'm a moderator, it's my job to know more ;D

@twinkletoes:

Hooray!
(but you're still a douchebag) >:D

Thank'ya sir, you are very kind

@pigtucket:

Just so I'm on the same page here…when you say "quality of the torrent", safe to assume you mean what's included in the original upload, ie: good narrative, number of pictures included in original upload, supplying a url (more info field), etc? Basically, quality to the extent it conforms to providing a downloader enough info to encourage a download?

Yep. cumeaternc described the idea very clearly. I just want to add to the list the torrent title: it has to be concise, precise, contain the studio name (if any). Also regarding this topic: for a better rating users will have to manually fix QTM's little problem of adding periods between words - that makes the title less attractive INMHO.

I would also include a passage about how the actual torrent file is formed. You will all agree with me that it's much better when the video file that is included in the torrent has a decent name, like "Staxus - Bareback Fucking.mp4" than "_bareback_db_fucking_demonoid(xvid).mp4", or what's even worse "wkoweigngnlwnoef.mp4".

Another thought regards the companion pictures to the video. I really hate when people include 500 image files along the main video in the same directory. Isn't it better to include them in an archive, or at least in a separate folder? The same ideas about collections.

The actual content of the video is definitely out of the question (if it's not something from the banned list or course). Moderators are here to watch over the rule compliance, not to discuss personal tastes. I, personally, don't like scat videos, it's repelling to me, but that didn't stop me from approving 2 or 3 torrents of this kind

MrMazda

So just to make sure that I'm understanding this correctly, the quality, resolution, etc of the video does not necessarily account for the rating of the torrent, rather the technical nature behind the way it is compiled, named, listed, etc., yes?

geographer

Exactly. Everybody likes good quality, but I wouldn't want to start a mass discrimination

Although… Not sure if it would be fair to rate equally a DVD and an xtube collection, assuming they both match the theoretical standards... Opinions?

ballard1

@geographer:

Exactly. Everybody likes good quality, but I wouldn't want to start a mass discrimination

Although… Not sure if it would be fair to rate equally a DVD and an xtube collection, assuming they both match the theoretical standards... Opinions?

Well, if the exclusivity and originality of the material outweigh the technical quality, then the upload should get either extra "points" for that to make up for the missing points in the technical quality department or don't rate the picture quality at all.
It's not the uploader's fault that the source material is bad. Except if he filmed it himself and made it into a crappy file;)
But we can't expect too much from webcam material and I guess everybody is aware of that. It might be lacking in the video department but it can be rare and very hot nonetheless.
Like most of the Maverickmen vids really have a shitty video quality . But it's fun stuff and I think it should be rewarded if somebody gets his dirty little fingers on some new vids.

NeoStrada

@MrMazda:

So just to make sure that I'm understanding this correctly, the quality, resolution, etc of the video does not necessarily account for the rating of the torrent, rather the technical nature behind the way it is compiled, named, listed, etc., yes?

If the rating is purely a staff job (which is how I understand this proposal), evaluating the audio/video quality of the rip and encode would require you to download the torrented media before assigning a rating.

Sure, I suppose you could do that, but making it part of your job description to download possibly copyrighted material is just asking for trouble (I think I've said so in another topic somewhere, sometime…)

Video resolution is not a guarantee for good quality, and neither is file size, or bitrate (though, that tends to be a reasonable indicator).
And... the video (or audio) being of poor quality isn't necessarily the uploader's fault; it could be this is merely the best rip/encode available to him, or at all.

Reward the uploader for his part of the upload: that means, the data made available on the torrent page.
If the audio or video quality stinks for no good reason, it'll be in the comments from a zillion annoyed members. That's what the comments are for, isn't it?

pigtucket

@NeoStrada:

Reward the uploader for his part of the upload: that means, the data made available on the torrent page.

Exactly! I was starting to wonder if we were over thinking the goal. If people think they're going to be judged on so many technicalities, even if the only negative is not gaining bonus points, it may tend to scare people off..especially newbies.

Popper

After following the exchange for some time, first thinking that a scheme of objective criteria is impossible, I am now convinced something can be worked out and will give it a trial.

Therefore, I'll work out a list of criteria for good uploads allowing to gain up to 10 Seed Bonus Points extra from me when I reviewed a torrent.

This list will be made available in the Forum and to each torrent granted (or not) Seed Bonus Points following it's scheme, the attribution will be added as a comment. This way, it will fully transparent to members and uploaders.

Sorry, Auto Approval privilege uploads aren't reviewed and therefore can't get these few extra points. Please understand this not as a punishment, but as a teaching programme to become good uploader and get the Auto Approval privilege.

This trial, not requiring a system change, will start as of 1st of July 2011 and limited to 3 months. More will be published in an own topic. Where feedback will be welcome.

trukr

Why not 2 rating systems? Keep the current one and have a staff rating system. This way each rating system can be used for their intended purpose, and Auto Approval users can benefit from the new rating system too. Staff can rate a torrent on it's download page rather than the approval list.

@geographer:

Also, the reputation points can be an answer to the Auto Approval problem. Once users earn points for uploads, the "10 clean uploads" uncertainty becomes obsolete: now the reputation points will show exactly if the user is "ready" for AA or not. For example, a 5* torrent is worth 50 reputation points, following the "10 clean uploads" rule gives us 500 points - this can be a starting criteria to grant AA rights. Granting, of course, will still be done by the staff and will require other factors, but at least this will give the user a sort of aim to reach if they want to become Auto Approval users. The concrete numbers, as well, need to be discussed.

I don't think that would be a reliable indicator. While we can subtract points when we have to send out a message asking the user to fix something, stop seeding/leeching too many torrents, start seeding, etc, a user would be able to easily reach 500 via the other avenues rep points can be gained. Maybe I'm wrong about this, but it seems users can even easily surpass 500 without uploading 10 clean torrents. ???

@NeoStrada:

Reward the uploader for his part of the upload: that means, the data made available on the torrent page.
If the audio or video quality stinks for no good reason, it'll be in the comments from a zillion annoyed members. That's what the comments are for, isn't it?

Yes.

ballard1

@trukr:

Why not 2 rating systems? Keep the current one and have a staff rating system. This way each rating system can be used for their intended purpose, and Auto Approval users can benefit from the new rating system too. Staff can rate a torrent on it's download page rather than the approval list.

I don't think two rating systems is a good idea. The current one is broken. Too many people give bad ratings without even having seen the video or based on personal taste.
On the other hand: maybe it's possible that only people who actually have downloaded a video can rate? That would make a lot of sense. That would minimize the abuse of the rating system.

Uwe, don't you think that many members with Auto Approval need some "training" too?;-) :police: There are way to many uploads with picture sheets so small that it's impossible to see anything, with no information about the video whatsoever, with file names which do not make any sense and make it impossible to identify a file once its on the hard drive, etc.
I applaud your teaching program. I think it will create a new generation of uploaders with better "upload ethics".

Brandon, just one more idea: maybe it's possible to "punish" people who are caught jumping on uploading torrents. Sure, there is no way to police this fairly but I think it might deter jumpers if they know that they will get a deduction if they are caught. It annoys me when I can seed only 80Mb of a 400MB file because somebody jumped on my upload. They easily could wait until the file is uploaded.

Popper

For sure, some Auto Approval privilege members got room to improve their uploads. However, this trial will be limited to torrents (I) reviewed from 1st of July onwards, just because of not creating too much extra work. Torrents to be approved are reviewed anyway. I don' want to inspect Auto Approval members uploads in addition. Our 'free" time here is not endlessly extensible.

At the moment the only technical way we got as moderators to punish and avoid jump-on during initial upload seeding would be to reset the passkey. That will stop the seeding after one hour latest, but as well all other seeding and downloading. I feel that being a little disproportional. There is the possibility to give a system warning if a moderator PM request is ignored (that fits to our set of rules), but such action is rather symbolic.

cumeaternc

[off-topic]
If you are the victim of someone overseeding(jumping on) let us know. I personally note a users profile when they do this. Enough times of doing it without the uploaders consent and I "deal with it".
[/off-topic]

NeoStrada

@cumeaternc:

[off-topic]
If you are the victim of someone overseeding(jumping on) let us know. I personally note a users profile when they do this. Enough times of doing it without the uploaders consent and I "deal with it".
[/off-topic]

Once more bringing us back the core problem behind this discussion. Meaning: not off topic at such.

This is dicussed at length (and at times in unfriendly vocabulary) here:
http://community.gaytor.rent/index.php?topic=12710.0

I made my opinion on this issue crystal clear in that topic, but it appears it needs re-iterating:
A torrent site must never, ever, penalize its members for seeding

If members seeding too much (or at all, in whatever way at whatever time) is a problem, it means there's a fundamental unbalance in the seeder/leecher ratio. This should be handled in the back-end (I made a handful of suggestions in that other topic) out of view and with no ill consequences to the members.

Sorry, cumeaternc.
I don't take offence easily, but this comment did have me in 'unfriendly vocabular' state for a moment.

Replies to this post not related to 'the compromise' please in the above-mentioned topic to not clutter up an otherwise constructive discussion. (or feel free to bitch at me in PM)
I just couldn't let this one stand unchallenged.

geographer

Wow, so many good ideas have arisen

@NeoStrada:

Reward the uploader for his part of the upload: that means, the data made available on the torrent page.
If the audio or video quality stinks for no good reason, it'll be in the comments from a zillion annoyed members.

Now I fully agree with this approach. The rating system will take into consideration only the structure of the torrent file (the tree file structure included in the torrent) and the appearance of the torrent on its details page (title, pictures, description). The quality of the video itself will remain on the uploader's discretion. If he wants to earn an extra star, he should get the tech details and provide them in the description.

@trukr:

Why not 2 rating systems? Keep the current one and have a staff rating system. This way each rating system can be used for their intended purpose, and Auto Approval users can benefit from the new rating system too. Staff can rate a torrent on it's download page rather than the approval list.

I agree with ballard1 on this topic: the current rating is either not used, or abused; either way it doesn't bring any good. But I like the idea of rating the torrent directly on the details page rather in the approval queue, and Auto Approval torrents should also be rated.

@trukr:

I don't think that would be a reliable indicator. While we can subtract points when we have to send out a message asking the user to fix something, stop seeding/leeching too many torrents, start seeding, etc, a user would be able to easily reach 500 via the other avenues rep points can be gained. Maybe I'm wrong about this, but it seems users can even easily surpass 500 without uploading 10 clean torrents. ???

Well, I can't imagine how else would a user acquire that many points, unless he uploads a torrent and waits for 500 Thank You's ;D

I had a new idea about granting some reputation points for each seeded gigabyte, that way we show that seeding is also important and give an incentive to our users to seed more. But even in this case, if they manage to get 500 points without uploading new torrents, AA won't be given by the system, and granting this privilege will still require other factors, like I initially stated. Possessing 500 reputation points will be one of the criteria.

Hm… In this case I guess "10 clean uploads" is still in force.

@ballard1:

Brandon, just one more idea: maybe it's possible to "punish" people who are caught jumping on uploading torrents. Sure, there is no way to police this fairly but I think it might deter jumpers if they know that they will get a deduction if they are caught. It annoys me when I can seed only 80Mb of a 400MB file because somebody jumped on my upload. They easily could wait until the file is uploaded.

Maybe we can take away a certain amount of reputation points in such cases? This has more influence than just a polite PM and a system warning, but still not as harsh as resetting the passkey, which (and I agree with Uwe) is indeed a disproportional measure. Besides, taken points can be eventually regained.

geographer

Uwe, I fully support your project :cheers:

I wish other moderators who do torrent approval and who have an impressive amount of SPB will join this experiment.

And, a new thought came to my mind: it would be very nice if staff had some SPB "from the office" just for these cases…

cumeaternc

@NeoStrada:

…Sorry, cumeaternc.
I don't take offence easily, but this comment did have me in 'unfriendly vocabular' state for a moment....

Don't be sorry bro.! Just know that if another user makes an upload and an overseeder "STEALS" his traffic by just seeding the same content without doing anything else before he/she completes a total upload, I will come for them if the user complains.

Why reward some lazy member who can't create his own uploads. That is what I take offence to….VERY EASILY!

If a user is too f**king dense to upload a torrent themselves then you better believe I will side with an uploader EVERY TIME! Seeding is great but when it is at the expense of an uploader who cannot even get complete credit for HIS UPLOAD then I have a real problem with that.

trukr

@ballard1:

I don't think two rating systems is a good idea. The current one is broken. Too many people give bad ratings without even having seen the video or based on personal taste.
On the other hand: maybe it's possible that only people who actually have downloaded a video can rate? That would make a lot of sense. That would minimize the abuse of the rating system.

Maybe I'm wrong, but my understanding is that the "staff rating" wouldn't be visible and is only used to award/rate the uploaders download page.

I like the idea of only allowing people who've downloaded the torrent to rate it. I agree, of course that would make more sense.

@Uwe:

At the moment the only technical way we got as moderators to punish and avoid jump-on during initial upload seeding would be to reset the passkey. That will stop the seeding after one hour latest, but as well all other seeding and downloading. I feel that being a little disproportional. There is the possibility to give a system warning if a moderator PM request is ignored (that fits to our set of rules), but such action is rather symbolic.

Some people might not login in time to respond to the PM request but would be happy to comply if they did (e.g. on vacation, at work, illness, etc).

Personally I wouldn't, and will not, punish anyone for seeding.

@NeoStrada:

A torrent site must never, ever, penalize its members for seeding

I agree. Didn't check if I posted in that particular thread. I remember making some posts on this topic somewhere tho. Some slowliners who know how to manage their torrents get by just fine and are even Power Users, it's all about torrent management.

@geographer:

I agree with ballard1 on this topic: the current rating is either not used, or abused; either way it doesn't bring any good. But I like the idea of rating the torrent directly on the details page rather in the approval queue, and Auto Approval torrents should also be rated.

It seems the rating system would be better if we incorporate ballard1's idea (only people who've completed the torrent can rate it). Maybe, to add to it, the rating button would log the user out if they haven't completed the torrent yet, or something like that (lol). I like the rating system and wish more people would use it. It still does come in handy.

Maybe I don't get it :), but it wouldn't make sense to me if the staff rating was visible to users since we don't know anything about the actual video or whatever file. All we know is what's on the download page.

Well, I can't imagine how else would a user acquire that many points, unless he uploads a torrent and waits for 500 Thank You's

Oh, I see now (hehe, posting at bedtime doesn't always work out :)), I think… ONLY 5 star torrents get 50 rep points and all the other rep points are earned 1 point at a time? $:-\$ Or how many for an upload?

@geographer:

And, a new thought came to my mind: it would be very nice if staff had some SPB "from the office" just for these cases…

Agreed

[off-topic]@cumeaternc:

Why reward some lazy member who can't create his own uploads. That is what I take offence to….VERY EASILY!

If a user is too f**king dense to upload a torrent themselves then you better believe I will side with an uploader EVERY TIME! Seeding is great but when it is at the expense of an uploader who cannot even get complete credit for HIS UPLOAD then I have a real problem with that.

In the "thieves" mind he might just be thinking about helping get the torrent out faster so everyone doesn't get blue balls downloading at 2kB for example. Me, I like those people. Lazy, maybe some, but there's also people who are trying to help. Of course they can upload if they can reseed. Whenever I uploaded it was only because I wanted to put a torrent here, and I appreciated everyone who jumped on my torrent to help out. Why should everyone suffer a slow download just because someone doesn't know how to manage their ratio and wants all he can get out of his upload, or is a ratio whore and only wants more more more to inflate their ratio? It's about sharing files, not how high you can inflate your ratio. I care more about receiving Thank You's or some nice torrent comments and knowing people enjoyed my upload. Ratio? I'll earn it by seeding some torrents and not being download happy. Everyone who has a slow connection needs to know how to manage their torrents and ratio a little better than fastliners. Uploaders should get some SBP just for uploading. Maybe 50 SBP (?). That'll help ease this. [/off-topic]