This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
BitTorrent tracker article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Come on. Pyramid scheme? I think that whole paragraph should be completely removed, because I don't think it accurately reflects the situation of most private trackers. You may get added benefits for donating, in the same way you would on many other websites, but reputable private trackers rarely just hand out upload credit like that, and donating is by no means the only way to maintain a ratio.
I agree. Donations aren't mandatory to keep a 1:1 ratio. Whoever wrote the pyramid scheme part is either very misinformed and/or not experienced in private trackers or is a worthless leecher with a grudge against private trackers —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Thenutman69321 (
talk •
contribs) 21:31, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
I think it needs a software to establish a tracker of bittorrent, doesn't it?
what are the programs??
well...
i know except trackerless connect..we need to connect to certain trackers whose site addresses are provided in the torrent file before we can start to download.
well... i don't know how to establish a tracker.
any references or tutorials?
i suppose we need a program to set up a tracker don't we? anybody? Davince ( talk) 08:36, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
who wrote this crap?? needs a lot of cleanup 67.172.139.154 ( talk) 00:48, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
I'll start cleaning up this site now. One thing that the creators don't seem to understand is that BitTorrent trackers are totally different to BT indexes, although many sites perform both.
ISOhunt, for example, is NOT a tracker, although it is listed as such here. splintax (talk) 12:37, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
Any discussion of bittorrent/filesharing/etc. has to be quite careful about using the word "illegal." This paragraph:
... doesn't really make sense. it starts saying "Trackers illegally tracking copyrighted..." yet later says "these websites are located in countries that have lax laws"... thus what they are doing is not illegal (in the countries in which they operate). By opening with the word "illegal" it obscures the whole argument. It is, at present, very much debatable whether tracking copyrighted material is illegal or not. What is factual is that these websites have received cease and desist orders. The legality of what they are doing, however, is not so clear cut. I don't want to turn this into yet another filesharing-legality debate. However I believe the current wording is not valid. 24.202.31.227 05:57, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
@ YouWiki: Yep, although what you said made me laugh.
I restored the link to Ogg Frog just now, which had been deleted. Several others were deleted too, without comment. The only tracker link left was the Pirate Bay.
While Ogg Frog is not a large site, it is one of only a few offerring undoubtably legal, licensed content, which is otherwise hard to find. While I'm sure legal content can be had on some sites that also permit copyright infringement, the legality of a torrent is generally not made clear. I think that Wikipedia would do a service to the community by clarifying this distinction.
Again, while Ogg Frog isn't very big, it's important in that it's been MSN search's #1 hit for "music torrents" for almost two months now. This is likely due to the fact that many competing music sites get taken down when served with DMCA notices.
If one can make a rational argument for deleting Ogg Frog's link, I'm happy to debate it, but I think wholesale deletion of links, without comment, that favor just one prominent pirate site is Not Appropriate. MichaelCrawford 01:33, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
I removed the links without comments but with edit summary:remove private trackers and non notable links. [1] Ogg Frog falls under non notable. And it is a non fuctional work-in-progress site. -- Dodo bird 07:18, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
I took the liberty of removing the whole External links section. It consisted only of links to individual BitTorrent indexing sites. Wikipedia External links sections are for linking to external material delving deeper into a topic than what the Wikipedia article itself does, for those readers with a special interest. It is not to act as a kind of mini link directory; there are other sites for that. Feel free to add any links explaining in greater detail how BitTorrent trackers work, etc. Haakon 17:53, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
We should add a link to an external website with all those links to torrent trackers. It is a really good information and I use it a lot when I need to find a new tv episode, or something like that. 83.253.31.196 ( talk) 02:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Well if there is a need to have a link to a list of all the bittorrent trackers, instead of favoring a few in the article it self, it is possible to use torrentking.org, currently i do not know of any other site that categorize and list so many bittorrent trackers. - Chris 2:31AM, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Can someone explain in plain English why 'many torrent trackers have been the target of cease and desist lawsuits from copyright bodies'. No technical jargon - please!-- CharlieP 07:56, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
The page targets people who already know what a tracker is and know how to set one up for new torrents. Can someone kindly provide a HowTo? -- 202.70.157.9 07:45, 7 February 2007 (UTC)Hussain
If we will be calling trackers "trackers" (as everyone else does) then we should also be calling "indexes" "indexers", reflecting purpose and not function.f
Also, I have put in a list of Tracker scripts. This list took a while to put together, please don't delete it like the list of tracker sites got deleted.
--expert01 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.18.53.172 ( talk • contribs) 00:42, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
I realize now that you are adding the titles of software trackers, but at first I thought you were going to list public tracker sites. That was my misunderstanding, but it's really a better idea to initialize a section with content, not placeholder messages. At any rate, as I said in my edit comment, I was only going to revert your edit once and then step back.
Trackers contains list of peers for each torrent they tracks. Does tracker must have a .torrent file, which it tracks? (Is it 100% necessary?). What information is exchanged between client and a tracker (there obviously is data about other peers, amount of transferred data since last update), but is there data about which pieces (of a given torrent) were transferred ? - Yyy 08:33, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Why does it redirect here? -- Jamie 23:33, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
This page is completely incomprehensible. I can't tell what they are talking about. Using links to help define basic ideas every five words is not the answer to having to come up with clear definitions. Can someone who can actually write please adopt this page now that a link to it is on the Main Page today? 72.209.11.245 ( talk) 13:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
The article still needs work. In particular, what is a tracker? If it is too hard to define it in the lead section, a section called "Definition" would be nice.-- greenrd ( talk) 12:59, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
I think this article would be greatly improved if it included a list of bittorrent trackers. It could be divided up by language or region, or topic, or however we think that trackers are best categorized (my vote is for language). Thoughts?
I've removed the citation needed tag on the legal use of trackers section since the use of "private" trackers for some content is relatively public knowledge. 173.66.39.100 ( talk) 07:00, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
Following link does not work, I guess it should be removed http://www.trackon.org/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by The100rabh ( talk • contribs) 06:23, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
I think that sentence needs to be removed as 1) there's no reference to that statement and 2) two of them have been down since last year. I'm going to leave it for a second opinion though. -- 98.24.99.70 ( talk) 23:27, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
BitTorrent tracker article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Come on. Pyramid scheme? I think that whole paragraph should be completely removed, because I don't think it accurately reflects the situation of most private trackers. You may get added benefits for donating, in the same way you would on many other websites, but reputable private trackers rarely just hand out upload credit like that, and donating is by no means the only way to maintain a ratio.
I agree. Donations aren't mandatory to keep a 1:1 ratio. Whoever wrote the pyramid scheme part is either very misinformed and/or not experienced in private trackers or is a worthless leecher with a grudge against private trackers —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Thenutman69321 (
talk •
contribs) 21:31, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
I think it needs a software to establish a tracker of bittorrent, doesn't it?
what are the programs??
well...
i know except trackerless connect..we need to connect to certain trackers whose site addresses are provided in the torrent file before we can start to download.
well... i don't know how to establish a tracker.
any references or tutorials?
i suppose we need a program to set up a tracker don't we? anybody? Davince ( talk) 08:36, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
who wrote this crap?? needs a lot of cleanup 67.172.139.154 ( talk) 00:48, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
I'll start cleaning up this site now. One thing that the creators don't seem to understand is that BitTorrent trackers are totally different to BT indexes, although many sites perform both.
ISOhunt, for example, is NOT a tracker, although it is listed as such here. splintax (talk) 12:37, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
Any discussion of bittorrent/filesharing/etc. has to be quite careful about using the word "illegal." This paragraph:
... doesn't really make sense. it starts saying "Trackers illegally tracking copyrighted..." yet later says "these websites are located in countries that have lax laws"... thus what they are doing is not illegal (in the countries in which they operate). By opening with the word "illegal" it obscures the whole argument. It is, at present, very much debatable whether tracking copyrighted material is illegal or not. What is factual is that these websites have received cease and desist orders. The legality of what they are doing, however, is not so clear cut. I don't want to turn this into yet another filesharing-legality debate. However I believe the current wording is not valid. 24.202.31.227 05:57, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
@ YouWiki: Yep, although what you said made me laugh.
I restored the link to Ogg Frog just now, which had been deleted. Several others were deleted too, without comment. The only tracker link left was the Pirate Bay.
While Ogg Frog is not a large site, it is one of only a few offerring undoubtably legal, licensed content, which is otherwise hard to find. While I'm sure legal content can be had on some sites that also permit copyright infringement, the legality of a torrent is generally not made clear. I think that Wikipedia would do a service to the community by clarifying this distinction.
Again, while Ogg Frog isn't very big, it's important in that it's been MSN search's #1 hit for "music torrents" for almost two months now. This is likely due to the fact that many competing music sites get taken down when served with DMCA notices.
If one can make a rational argument for deleting Ogg Frog's link, I'm happy to debate it, but I think wholesale deletion of links, without comment, that favor just one prominent pirate site is Not Appropriate. MichaelCrawford 01:33, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
I removed the links without comments but with edit summary:remove private trackers and non notable links. [1] Ogg Frog falls under non notable. And it is a non fuctional work-in-progress site. -- Dodo bird 07:18, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
I took the liberty of removing the whole External links section. It consisted only of links to individual BitTorrent indexing sites. Wikipedia External links sections are for linking to external material delving deeper into a topic than what the Wikipedia article itself does, for those readers with a special interest. It is not to act as a kind of mini link directory; there are other sites for that. Feel free to add any links explaining in greater detail how BitTorrent trackers work, etc. Haakon 17:53, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
We should add a link to an external website with all those links to torrent trackers. It is a really good information and I use it a lot when I need to find a new tv episode, or something like that. 83.253.31.196 ( talk) 02:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Well if there is a need to have a link to a list of all the bittorrent trackers, instead of favoring a few in the article it self, it is possible to use torrentking.org, currently i do not know of any other site that categorize and list so many bittorrent trackers. - Chris 2:31AM, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Can someone explain in plain English why 'many torrent trackers have been the target of cease and desist lawsuits from copyright bodies'. No technical jargon - please!-- CharlieP 07:56, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
The page targets people who already know what a tracker is and know how to set one up for new torrents. Can someone kindly provide a HowTo? -- 202.70.157.9 07:45, 7 February 2007 (UTC)Hussain
If we will be calling trackers "trackers" (as everyone else does) then we should also be calling "indexes" "indexers", reflecting purpose and not function.f
Also, I have put in a list of Tracker scripts. This list took a while to put together, please don't delete it like the list of tracker sites got deleted.
--expert01 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.18.53.172 ( talk • contribs) 00:42, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
I realize now that you are adding the titles of software trackers, but at first I thought you were going to list public tracker sites. That was my misunderstanding, but it's really a better idea to initialize a section with content, not placeholder messages. At any rate, as I said in my edit comment, I was only going to revert your edit once and then step back.
Trackers contains list of peers for each torrent they tracks. Does tracker must have a .torrent file, which it tracks? (Is it 100% necessary?). What information is exchanged between client and a tracker (there obviously is data about other peers, amount of transferred data since last update), but is there data about which pieces (of a given torrent) were transferred ? - Yyy 08:33, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Why does it redirect here? -- Jamie 23:33, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
This page is completely incomprehensible. I can't tell what they are talking about. Using links to help define basic ideas every five words is not the answer to having to come up with clear definitions. Can someone who can actually write please adopt this page now that a link to it is on the Main Page today? 72.209.11.245 ( talk) 13:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
The article still needs work. In particular, what is a tracker? If it is too hard to define it in the lead section, a section called "Definition" would be nice.-- greenrd ( talk) 12:59, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
I think this article would be greatly improved if it included a list of bittorrent trackers. It could be divided up by language or region, or topic, or however we think that trackers are best categorized (my vote is for language). Thoughts?
I've removed the citation needed tag on the legal use of trackers section since the use of "private" trackers for some content is relatively public knowledge. 173.66.39.100 ( talk) 07:00, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
Following link does not work, I guess it should be removed http://www.trackon.org/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by The100rabh ( talk • contribs) 06:23, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
I think that sentence needs to be removed as 1) there's no reference to that statement and 2) two of them have been down since last year. I'm going to leave it for a second opinion though. -- 98.24.99.70 ( talk) 23:27, 28 June 2015 (UTC)