Why do users try and seed so many torrents that they are useless?
what is up with users who have like dozens and dozens of "seeding" torrents? basically, it makes potential downloaders think they can get the torrent when in actuality it takes a week/s to download a movie when these are the only people seeding them still, and stops the downloader from being able to do much else, less the minute bits of seed be overwhelmed by other normal speed activity. if the torrent is basically dead then it is better that it doesnt appear to be seeding like normal. if people would only seed the torrents they actually have some upload speed on, it would make for more accurate downloading and not waste leecher's time.
ungrateful brat who wants his porn yesterday
alas, you are right. this situation could be easily helped if our users bothered to read their BT clients manuals. if you (= all) properly set your queue settings, this situation would be much easier. another problem related to this has the technical background: "inactive scrape" support is disabled that makes BT clients start all torrents in a row regardless their usefulness, and which in combination with inproper minimal speed per slot and queue settings results in poor transfer speeds in general. this problem was already discussed on the forum and hopefully will be solved soon.
'ALL THAT SMELLS NASTY IS NOT SHIT' :)
I agree with you guys about numerous seeding when people don't have the bandwidth to accommodate this.
But it might not always be as it seems.
At this instant I appear to seed around 40 torrents and with my upload bandwidth of around 40KB/sec that will give 1kb/sec if all seeding torrents became active. That would be PATHETIC.
However I have configured my BT client (utorrent) so that it uploads/seeds 2 torrents at a time. So in the case that 10 seeding torrents become active 2 only will actually seed and the rest will be in a queue. I have adopted this approach as it saves time from my part having to monitor which of the torrents i should seed or not. The BT client is dealing with the issue without me having to be around. More importantantly it gives a decent upload rate to the seeders. So although I might seem to be over-seeding, i don't. I hope that other people that over-seed have thought this through and adopted a similar approach.
Any feedback or thoughts on this tactic?
Well, my thought would be that if I were one of the people wanting one of the 8 torrents you are not actively seeding and you are the only seeder the tracker lists for them (or all others adopt the same tactic), you prevent the DL'er from using the reseed request to try to get an active uploader.
I have run across cases where there are over 200 "active" torrents "uploading" for a user, but nobody can use the reseed request option on many of those. Instead, they must manually go through the list of the most recent completers and ask for help.
In fairness to other users, either allow active uploading or stop the torrent and get off the tracker list so users can get to use the reseed request feature. Remember, you'll get a request also if it's needed, so you'll know what seeding is actually wanted.
please, see the answer of ziamond. what he does, is exactly what all users should do. keeping torrents offline will actually not help to rectify this situation. i'm not sure if also Vuze but uTorrent is capable of such settings that only a few active transfers are allowed (due to capacity of your uplink) and the rest is still "active" (= online) but as soon as someone would try to leech such a torrent, it will be stopped and put in a queue. alas, this is how BT clients work. i think, we could suggest to implement this behavior to uTorrent programmers, it's a good idea, thanks.
as for the reseed button, we already have such a suggestion given in our internal forum, to recode the reseed button behavior due to different conditions, in concrete due to amount of traffic in a certain time frame, that would be surely more useful. sometimes even 10 seeders present will not help, if they don't set their clients properly as should be.
I can confirm that vuze has that function too since i use it exclusively.