Topics created by kco

@ianfontinell Thats what the client reports. Just to be clear, there is no way to know if its "dead" ok "killed" (by takedown) from the client side right? Because in that case, I simply will delete the torrents as you suggest.

@kco that's another misconception, we're lead to think every time we finish downloading a torrent and start seeding it it'll show up in the seeding list on the site. That's true for cases where you have selected all the files without skipping evem and a single one.

When you select all files from a torrent and don't keep seeding them, they'll show you on "completed torrents" list. But in any scenario where you only select a few files from a given torrent, as long as they are active (downloading or seeding) they will always show up on the "leeching torrents" list.

If your client says they are seeding and the status says working, you can rest assured they are seeding. Also bear in mind that there is a limit for maximum active concurrent downloads, torrents that you haven't downloaded fully will forever occupy a slot as long as they are active. So this eventually might end up in you adding a torrent to download and it refusing to start, the tracker will report a ratio issue but it's actually a lack of available download slots.

@john32123666 thank you very much! Now seems to work.

@eobox91103

Also not an official for the site, but IMHO, if you had a torrent that was removed (unregistered torrent error), I would avoid attempting to re-publish the exact same torrent again. As you don't know why it was removed, submitting the exact same torrent might raise alarm bells...

Instead, I would recommend creating a "collection" of 2 or more similar files and re-uploading them TOGETHER. That makes for a new torrent, if not new files.

Also, in case it was removed for being a duplicate, so long as your collection isn't a duplicate of someone else's collection, you don't get removed for THAT cause. (If it has something else wrong with it - like it's kiddie porn, or something banned like that - don't submit it at all, naturally!)

@john32123666 Thank you very much.
It was a firewall rule.

I feel it would be better if all posters did a search for duplicates BEFORE they posted.

And do we really need so many similar but not identical posts. I did a search yesterday which turned up three recent posts of the same thing but varying only in size but not much.

Did you then change back to http://… ?

Actually I wanted you just to change and change back the announce URL to get it newly resolved.

To make https working, you'd needed to remove the ":2710" from the tracker announce URL and use the ".ru" top level domain (.tw wont work with https).

@kco:

The entire post was about rephrasing the rules…

That post represents the current thinking about the rules and as such, is much more instructive about what the rules mean as opposed to what the rules say. This is important because in the end enforcement of them is performed by people who are given wide latitude to interpret them according to their understanding of the context, and not necessarily the text, of the rules.