Talk:Comparison of BitTorrent sites

This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:

keep, 19 October 2015, see discussion.
keep, 23 August 2009 (UTC), see discussion.
delete, 15 September 2006 (UTC), see discussion.

Lists Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Websites: Computing Low‑importance

	This article is part of WikiProject Websites, an attempt to create and link together articles about the major websites on the web. To participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.WebsitesWikipedia:WikiProject WebsitesTemplate:WikiProject WebsitesWebsites articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Computing (assessed as Low-importance).

Skidrowgames.net

This should also be in the list — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.70.67.37 (talk) 14:21, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is that a BitTorrent only site? I recall it had a lot of Rapidshare links. --Frmorrison (talk) 15:25, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Updated AniRena

I (Power2All) updated it, as there was a questionmark for a option (multitrackers). There is no such option yet, although I am working out if I can affiliate with BakaBT for one, to fix on each side a API for searching. Nothing of this has been coded on yet, and will take a while before it actually works.

After finalizing article

After finalizing this article I realized that it already existed and was deleted. I believe the 2006 deletion decision was good as the old article was indeed no more than a list of links. I hope the new article will prove more useful and with greater substance. Please help make this article better by adding more content. One field that I didn't get to add is "login required". It'll be nice if someone can add this. I may add this later on. Thanks! Nokiki (talk) 11:38, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This is what one of the old articles looked like, http://internet.wikia.com/wiki/Comparison_of_BitTorrent_sites — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.168.13.84 (talk) 18:42, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it on-topic

There are lots of articles describing all aspects of BitTorrent as a technology and cultural phenomenon, including legal issues, I think. I think we should try to focus on the actual article topic, rather than posting general torrent information. Equazcion (talk) 07:09, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I guess this makes sense. Where do you think we should take this article? We can consider adding more columns. Any other ideas? I don't know how you provide references to most features in a comparison. This is an inherent issue with all "Comparison" type articles. Nokiki (talk) 08:47, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Next generation search

I have removed the following paragraph, as although possibly valid, it's not written very well. If anybody understands it - please rewrite and re-insert:

Next Generation Indexer
[edit]
Sites called "Next Generation Indexer" are similar to regular ones but they are very special. The only one online at the moment is TorrentFactory.org but a few others will probably also index in this new way in a few weeks. The new way those sites index content is that they crawl the ENTIRE internet... and then sort content and split internet content from torrents. So you directly download a torrent that is somewhere in the Internet, maybe in another regular indexer or in a private site... it doesn't matter, it's like a Google but dedicated for torrent files and they need huge ressources because they directly index all the sites to search for .torrents.

a_man_alone (talk) 17:50, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Isohunt and illegal content column

Isohunt is legally only content with isohunt lite as of 2010-04-05 after their court mandate to remove all infringing content. Isohunt no longer hosts torrents. http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/03/isohunt/ http://www.tomshardware.com/news/isohunt-bittorrent-torrent-pirate-bay-mpaa,10053.html

The Section of "illegal content" is unnecessary as copyright infringing material can be found on nearly all torrent sites. The one site that was labeled as not hosting illegal torrents reads as such when 'Terminator' was searched for: "Are you trying to download terminator? It can be dangerous and cause a copyright infringement notice, so you might be prosecuted (read our Lawsuits Cases section). We would recommend you to use a special program TorrentPrivacy to avoid that. It allows you to be anonymous in bittorrent networks." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Razarax (talk • contribs) 22:32, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, legality varies depending on jurisdiction. 212.85.92.225 (talk) 08:33, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rating

Can we find some other rating apart from the Alexa traffic rank? It totally does NOT qualify as a rating for how good (define good...) a torrent site is IMHO. As an example, Demonoid, Isohunt and even the Pirate Bay are often used and named in various torrent sites and articles however there Alexa rating is low, while most sites with a high Alexa rating I never even heard of. Maybe something like the number of torrents or downloads or google hits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.101.173.84 (talk) 20:48, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

-:- This just goes to show how important a traffic ranking is. You can't argue with numbers. :-) I've found quite a few sites that I never knew were popular till I examined their Alexa rankings. The Alexa traffic rankings are certainly not the best, but they should and for the most part do coincide with what one would see from google insight.

http://www.google.com/insights/search/#q=demonoid%2Cbtjunkie%2Cisohunt%2Ctorrentz%2Cpirate%20bay&cmpt=q

There has been some criticism of Alexa and I agree that it is not a determinate in selecting the "good" but is a good factor to take into consideration. I don't like that their information is collected in a spyware fashion, but their results are pretty close to what one would expect. I've been updating the Alexa rankings every once in a while and will have to say that they are pretty accurate in my opinion. The pirate bay is listed first, isohunt third and demonoid sixth. Since Isohunt's switch to legal content it's alexa rank has fallen while demonoid's has risen substantially.

I would say that something that needs to be done, is that the alexa rankings need to be coded so that they automatically update themselves, instead of relying on users to do that. (Razarax (talk) 12:34, 17 May 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Good points. I have to pull back my earlier comment (IP:80.101.173.84). When I look at it now the figures much more match my experience. Maybe the figures where weird at that time or wrongly updated or my eyesight was poor. Something like a google ranking would also be good though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.101.173.84 (talk) 19:14, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Alexa ratings are misinterpreted, e.g. rating for http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/imtdb.kicks-ass.org is not actually for that site, but for dyndns.org in general (see http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/dyndns.org) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.225.243.116 (talk) 18:39, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Differentiating Search Engines

Since sites like torrentz are actually search engines, rather than sites actually hosting torrents, shouldn't we differentiate such sites? However, I don't know if there are other search engines in the list. A new column could be created if there are many such sites in the list. Otherwise they could be referred as search engines in the Specialization column.Anachor (talk) 19:56, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I changed torrentz to show it is a search engine. Frmorrison (talk) 21:00, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redlinks

I removed several entries that were redlinked, which was reverted by Frmorrison. Generally, redlinked entries are to be avoided in list articles and I would like to gain consensus for that approach on this article.

Failing that, several of these entries are only (trivially) sourced to Alexa, which means that the feature are not sourced. As such, I'm announcing my intention to remove any entries that do have either a Wikipedia article or a reliable sources that describes the website's features, per WP:BURDEN.- Mr X 17:34, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced content

I object to the addition of this content which amounts to unverifiable original research. Adding a cn tag does not solve the problem. WP:BURDEN applies.- Mr X 18:58, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alexa rank limit

I would propose a limit on this list given by the sites Alexa rank. My proposition is that if the rank of the site is currently over 500,000 it will be removed from the list. What do you guys think? --rayukk | talk 10:33, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would normally think stopping at rank 500,000 is fine, but I think the Legit Torrents link is nice to see (not all BitTorrent sites are 'bad'), even though it is below 500k. --Frmorrison (talk) 14:19, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Privacy

Should add a column about existence of a privacy policy and compliance with EU privacy laws. Nemo 12:14, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Private trackers

Private trackers would be interesting to cover, but there are so many and information on them is so scattered (even on https://www.reddit.com/r/trackers) that it's going to be hard. Surely there must be some published overview? Nemo 12:22, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Readthesidebar.me

Yes, it would be interesting to cover, but they are pain in ass to document. Do we only include English sites? or also foreign sites? Do we seperate them to make more comprehensible table or what? How about dead sites?

There are way too many private trackers. In my knowledge there are least at two Danish , three German, one Norwegian, four or five Chinese (Depends on the status of ROC), one Korean, one Vietnamese, two Thai, one Malaysian, one Indonesian, two Brazillian, one Argentinan, one Chilean, one French, one Spanish, two Bulgarian and one Greek

I can already see the problem, if we don't seperate the English one with foreign one. And you know what? we don't have any references... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.247.16.219 (talk) 02:27, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

EZTV Hijacked

Maybe since EZTV was hijacked last year we should remove it, or list it as such. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.0.21.103 (talk) 12:36, 23 January 2016‎

Done: Removed YTS for being defunct as well. -- dsprc ^[talk] 21:23, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

kat

Why isn't kick-ass torrent in the list?86.195.70.22 (talk) 13:18, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

KAT is offline and its owner was arrested. The site may not come back. --Frmorrison (talk) 14:04, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This removal seems hasty to me, considering all of the other sites are listed according to sources that predate the KAT takedown. That "the site may not come back" is neither here nor there - do we remove TPB from this list every time they get taken down? Since KAT was inarguably the biggest bittorrent site until last week (and likely will be again if does come back, however unlikely that may be), I suggest that we reverse this change, per WP:WAIT. <> Alt lys er svunnet hen (talk) 21:03, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

IsoHunt

IsoHunt redirects to wheretowatch.com (a tv/film industry site) as of 22/09/16. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.0.162.198 (talk) 23:55, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are you using the correct address, which is Isohunt.to? This has been the current address for the past few years. --Frmorrison (talk) 13:13, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

YTS.AG is actually YIFY, just a change of name

Lots of blogs on [yts.ag] noted that it is actually YIFY, so why not link it YTS.AG to YIFY? --Chdkfd (talk) 13:45, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I added a link to it. --Frmorrison (talk) 20:50, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MVGroup is missing

Hi. Could someone please add the MVGroup site to this article since it's missing? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.191.98.206 (talk) 15:29, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Knaben Database (a TPB clone) is missing

see www.knaben.ru--So9q (talk) 19:38, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Missing BitTorrent sites

Hi everyone! I have a request for you. There's several missing BitTorrent sites on this article which I have already added but it appears that someone deleted them. These are: Library Genesis, Sound Park World, Games Torrents, Academic Torrents and 32pag.es. Please reply! Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.1.220.13 (talk) 16:54, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Requests

Hello there. I have several requests for this article: 1. Could someone please complete with the required information the blanks of the sites that I recently added here? (Academic Torrents, Game Torrents, Sound Park World...) 2. Why are there many sites at the defunct section? The only site that is defunct, IIRC, is 32pag.es. At least, YIFY is still functioning Please reply! Thanks! 186.124.138.115 (talk) 15:22, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

YIFY is indeed defunct, but there are a few copycats still up. MrOllie (talk) 15:46, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

yts.mx is missing

Epic site for movies, Cyclone26 (talk) 01:50, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Adding more sites and the YIFY topic

There's missing Library Genesis and many more BitTorrent sites and YIFY is still working today, I don't know why it's marked as defunct 186.153.199.59 (talk) 20:38, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

YIFY has been offline for years, any current site you might see with their branding is a copycat. As to the rest, this isn't a complete list, it is a list of BitTorrent sites that have Wikipedia articles. MrOllie (talk) 21:44, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]