Ideas for a compromise
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
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. ???
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
[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] -
[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://forum.gaytorrent.ru/index.php?topic=12710.0I 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 seedingIf 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. -
Wow, so many good ideas have arisen
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.
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.
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.
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.
-
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…
-
…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.
-
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.
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.
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?
![😕](https://community.gaytorrent.ru/assets/plugins/nodebb-plugin-emoji/emoji/apple/1f615.png?v=hvqg2qn0nb4 ":-\")
Or how many for an upload?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] -
[off-topic]@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.Actually that statement is technically wrong. Seeding will continue to leecher known by the torrent client. Only no upload credit to the statistics on the tracker will be given after a complete tracker cycle passed.
As this concerns only a very particular case of seeding and ratio controlled tracker, and even not always, the best will be that the effected uploader gives a PM to the jumping on member explaining why currently his seeding is doing a harm to him.
I am convinced that the majority will understand (perhaps too late for this occasion, but for future) and didn't had ever a bad intention[/off-topic]
-
[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]I have to agree with trukr. I've seen this happen with torrents I've uploaded on here and other trackers, and I've been nothing more than thankful for the help. I don't know…call me crazy, but when I'm downloading, it seems the more seeds the quicker I'll get my 100% and be able to watch it and jump on the seed bandwagon.
-
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.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.
If ballard1's idea can be fulfilled - OK, we keep the current rating system. And making visible staff rating on the torrent's page does make sense, since it shows the rating of the torrent, not of the video inside. A good rated torrent may serve as a live example for potential uploaders on how to make their torrents more attractive. At least that's how I see it
[off-topic]Guys, please, let's not emphasize the "jumping-on" topic here
[/off-topic] -
If ballard1's idea can be fulfilled - OK, we keep the current rating system. And making visible staff rating on the torrent's page does make sense, since it shows the rating of the torrent, not of the video inside. A good rated torrent may serve as a live example for potential uploaders on how to make their torrents more attractive. At least that's how I see it
[off-topic]Guys, please, let's not emphasize the "jumping-on" topic here
[/off-topic]I like the current rating system. Lets keep it and think of a way to get people to use it more often, whether we make use ballard1's idea or not.
I was thinking that the difference between a good download page and a bad one is pretty darn obvious, and the majority of users here know the difference. My guess is that in most cases a poor torrent page just comes down to laziness, I bet that's the case more often than not. A simple 2 pic guide can work too if people really don't get it and need us to instruct them (lol).
Adding incentive to build more attractive torrent pages is a good idea though and I'm all for it.
What do you think about adding a simple line "Download Page Reputation Points" (or something like that) and of course show the points earned. The words "Reputation Points" can link to the FAQ or forum thread we develop later explaining it all. As with the Seed Bonus points being visible on the torrent search page, "Rep Points" can be visible too. Just a suggestion. This way there wouldn't be 2 sets of stars anywhere in the torrent section. I don't know if that would confuse anyone or not…wait, after working the helpdesk for so long, it doesn't seem so far fetched.
:)...[off-topic]Well…umm...OK.
Since you said "please".I am protected by a rectangular force field.
Even lasers can't stop me! I can do whatever I want in my little play box. 
No one can penetrate my box!2 topics at once can become annoying.
[/off-topic] -
…
What do you think about adding a simple line "Download Page Reputation Points" (or something like that) and of course show the points earned. The words "Reputation Points" can link to the FAQ or forum thread we develop later explaining it all. As with the Seed Bonus points being visible on the torrent search page, "Rep Points" can be visible too. Just a suggestion. ...There was a comment made by a member not liking the Well Prepared Torrent Upload Reward Check Lists made as a comment, making me start to think in a similar direction for that trial .
On the other side, I like to make the points given under that trail transparent and therefore thought to a link in the description to a unique topic where the lists are stored (at least for a starting period)
-
i dont like this list.
what people want are accurate descriptions and good large photos, the size of the frame- although the size of the file can tell people alot if theyre savvy.
this is just too much work for the moderators and for us to compile. and especially when i went to all the trouble to do this stuff and it wasnt good enough for the moderators anyway.
it may sound like i am whining, but it really is just frustration with the moderators' subjectivity and lack of objectivity that has made the idea of what site members wanted in the first place- not more stuff the moderators want.
i was told the whole reason a bonus for uploads wasnt going to happen was it was too much work for the moderators and i was fine with that because i was told that was the real reason.
apparently the moderators want more work, not less.
-
What you wanted needs programming on the site. As said upon, that can be done only by the one Administrator working part of his free time on that. Moderators can not change anything on that part of the system.
The Well Prepared Torrent Upload Reward http://forum.gaytorrent.ru/index.php?topic=15622.0 is classified a trial and feedback on how it is perceived is important to adapt if necessary. In that topic I've mentioned that the "Pictures" points need an adjustment, before this bitter complaint.
The points and the requirements there have been set-up in a way to make it objectively verifiable. If a point is not checked OK, it means it simply objectively does not meet the requirement formulated.
Nobody is forced to follow these requirements, every body is free to do it as he likes, as long as the site Rules (not the Well Prepared Torrent Upload Reward list) are respected. In the same way, there is no obligation Moderators are giving their SBP !
-
I think this is starting to become personal…
-
I made my reply less personal …
