New "refreshed" torrent policy?
-
This torrent: http://tracker.gaytorrent.ru/details.php?id=131323 was originally uploaded by myself on April 3, 2010. Someone has copied my description and re-uploaded it and deleted the original torrent that was not DEAD on 2/19/2012. Can someone explain this NEW "refreshed" torrent policy?
-
Your torrent is dead, no seeders or leachers. These promoted torrents are when we moderators find that a user has uploaded a duplicate torrent of the torrent that is already active here. The original torrent is "promoted" with the original uploaded date in the description, the offending duplicate torrent is not approved or deleted. You can see when the torrent was organically uploaded and then when it was promoted.
-
It was my understanding that torrents have to be dead for 7 days before deletion. It was active as recent as 4 days ago. Also, it wasn't deleted when that user uploaded the new torrent because he copied the description from my torrent. He had a moderator delete my torrent so that he could upload his instead of having the torrent refreshed. Check the log.
And if it was not supposed to be a refreshed torrent, then why does it say "** added: 2010-04-03 **" in the description? In fact, if my original torrent had been deleted before this one was uploaded, how would they even know the date of the original torrent?
-
I've checked the Log:
2012-02-22 05:59:31 Torrent 131323 (Studio 2000 - BedTime Stories #1) was edited by ****
Likely just before approval
2012-02-22 05:59:04 Torrent 69014 ([Studio 2000] Bedtime Stories I) was deleted by **** (Dead: 0 seeders, 0 leechers = 0 peers total)
2012-02-22 05:56:43 Torrent 61928 (Bedtime Stories) was deleted by **** (Dead: 0 seeders, 0 leechers = 0 peers total)If our last activity indicator shows 7 days or more of last activity, an original is deleted, else we try to revive it by promoting and re-seed request combination and wait a day if there is a response.
So the Moderator having deleted the 2 torrents must have seen more than 7 days of no activity. He has as well indicated the upload date of the "original" in the approved torrent description.
That Moderator is the current most experienced in torrent approval (no, no, not me), i.e. I assume he has done it with the necessary care and it not being a mistake of our new less experienced Moderators.Such think happened to my own uploads already at different occasions, it seems our last activity indicator is bogus (a reason why I use 33 days of non-activity for dead torrent housekeeping).
2012-02-22 03:10:25 Torrent 131323 (Studio.2000.-.Bedtime.Stories.I) was uploaded by ****
-
@Uwe:
I
If our last activity indicator shows 7 days or more of last activity, an original is deleted, else we try to revive it by promoting and re-seed request combination and wait a day if there is a response.This is my point. I know for a fact that it was active on 2/19/2012 which was only 3 days before the torrent was deleted. I know this because I uploaded a new torrent that day and stopped all of my old ones. After I seeded the new one, I then restarted all of my old torrents to keep them active. This specific torrent had at least one other seeder at that time, so I stopped my seed, so that the other seeder(s) would receive the upload credit if anyone wanted the torrent.
Honestly, my biggest gripe is that the new uploader was aware of the other torrent, since he COPIED my description. I know this for a fact because I include information that most people do not and it also matches the format I use.
I guess from now on, I will just keep all of my old torrents seeding, even if others are seeding them as well, so that a moderator doesn't come along and delete them. Also, are you aware that re-seed requests are never sent to the original uploader?
Oh, and thanks, Uwe, for doing the research before you post. Other moderators would do well to follow your example.
-
… Honestly, my biggest gripe is that the new uploader was aware of the other torrent, since he COPIED my description. I know this for a fact because I include information that most people do not and it also matches the format I use. ...
That isn't sure. If the uploader's description was bad, it might be that the approving has edited your's better in. When I make this, I leave usually the uploader description and add the edited in after "–---", but that is my personal way ...
To repeat, our activity indicator isn't reliable :cry2:, but it is the only tool together with the snatch list we got.
Personally, I am aware that re-seed requests are not send to the original uploader. If not already done, you could request that as a site feature
-
@Uwe:
Personally, I am aware that re-seed requests are not send to the original uploader.
Well, that's certainly news for me. I wonder if that's intentionally or just a small lag.
-
@Uwe:
I
If our last activity indicator shows 7 days or more of last activity, an original is deleted, else we try to revive it by promoting and re-seed request combination and wait a day if there is a response.Oh, and thanks, Uwe, for doing the research before you post. Other moderators would do well to follow your example.
Uwe does a good job on researching, I did research as well but not to the length that he did, but still answered your first question.
-
@Uwe:
Personally, I am aware that re-seed requests are not send to the original uploader.
Well, that's certainly news for me. I wonder if that's intentionally or just a small lag.
Sorry if this is too off topic.
I've often wondered about the logic of PM's sent in a reseed request. Recently, I sent reseed requests for three vids that each had ">1000 downloads". One sent approximately 125 PM's, one sent around 60, and the last one, I think only sent abut 25. Is there a certain time frame involved in that process, ie: only sending to downloaders who completed in the last X months?
–---
2012-02-24 Uwe: I insert my answer in your post, because it is going off topic.All depends on the number of members having completed the download in the now invisible snatch list:
- Re-seed requests are sent to the up-to 120 members having completed the download most recently
- This means if the snatch list is shorter, less are send
- Members having a torrent client programme reporting wrongly "have completed" instead "have all files" listed multiple times, will get multiple re-seed requests (a source of re-seed spamming reports)
- similar can happen for members having earlier re-loaded the torrent and re-start seeding
- Due to server load or data base size, the snatch lists are (were) cleaned for old snatches.
-
After I seeded the new one, I then restarted all of my old torrents to keep them active. This specific torrent had at least one other seeder at that time, so I stopped my seed, so that the other seeder(s) would receive the upload credit if anyone wanted the torrent.
It appears that this is exactly what later occurred ― namely that another user, perhaps even that last lone seeder you mentioned leaving when you stopped your seed, continued to "share" that very same file, albeit in "promoted" form. Owing to a haphazard handling of the file's death and eventual resurrection―coupled with the growing sense of detachment you experienced as your file continued to "live-on" without you―it was at this point that your altruism turned to indignation.
The zero-sum game of file sharing can create feelings of personal betrayal. But what you intended at first (for another to benefit) and what then later occured (others did benefit) are differences of circumstance, not substance. Sensing and accepting the idea of fairplay inherent in all file-sharing communities is essential for maintaining the more positive feelings of altruism that you already show in abundance.
