Slashdot Mirror
Ten Most Used BitTorrent Sites Compared
An anonymous reader writes that "This study was just released that compares the ten most popular BitTorrent sites. A great read if you are torn between what site to use, it has benchmark graphs and anaylsis. I was rather suprised with the findings." I hadn't heard of several of the top sites they rate. But why is it that so many torrent sites are so ugly?
I've never taken a UI design course. And I'm probably the last person on earth to be able to make one. I'm an engineer developer and my web services often have no front end. If they do, it is one of ice cold ability to do what you want -- the perfect marriage of function and function.
So what about these sites displeases you? I just flipped through four of them and none of them made my eyes puke like an angry fruit salad (although BushTorrent did cause me to cringe at the site of my 'fearless leader')
Hell, I even visited Torrentz and, although the 90s called and asked for their 'z' back, the design was still pleasing to me. I went to isoHunt that was minimalist but still did the job. I went to MegaNova and even though it was busy as hell, it had the top torrents laid out by category. So what's the problem? There are a few flaws here and there but these sites serve the function they are there to perform. The only really ugly things on these sites are the ads. So far I've seen one flashing ad and one shaking ad. Those are offensive to my eye but I'm so use to ignoring them! I mean, the people who run these indexing sites probably don't get revenue from anything but ads so to make their pages load faster, they inundate us with banners and Ads By Google. So what? So does Slashdot and I'm here quite often. It's the 00s, most sites would put ads by Google on their own grandmother if she was digital.
I don't see any problems with these UIs. They're not award winning, but then again, should they be? I mean, the few times I've used bittorrent is because a site wants to host a large file illegally (like a WoW patch or whatever) and they instead offer a torrent file. I'm really interested in what everyone else is interested in and, if you are, then just go to these sites and peruse them. Don't make them your homepage.
If you really think they're that horrible, wander back to Geocities user pages and enjoy dancing Jesus and Flying Toasters with the blink marquee tag abused to high hell. Then you'd be overjoyed to see some of the gradient blends used on these pages.
My work here is dung.
No one really cares what the site looks like when they're trying to grab their 0-day moviez.
Fair enough, but why the quotation marks? Is that meant to be a dig at Brah's "supposed" claim to have created it? Be fair, the guy created something that revolutionised the internet as a medium for media. I don't think he deserves that kind of attitude for not doing as great a job at implementing the service as he did with the software.
Meta will eat itself
Which of these top 10 sites focus on non-copyrighted material? You know, the stuff that the torrent fans bring up as the reason they use bittorrent?
Honestly the best torrent sites are the semi-private ones. There are quite a few non-public bit torrent sites that are very easy to get into but are not directly available to anyone who goes to their web page.
I find that public BT sites are too slow becuase nobody cares to share much.
unzip; strip; touch; finger; mount; fsck; more; yes; unmount; sleep
Are the ones with the best warez, pr0n and movies. Who gives a crap about looks?
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
There are lots (quasi-)private trackers, which not only have as many torrents listed as the sites mentioned in the article, but also provide a lot more quality (in download speed) because of the involved ratio system (demon**** is a good example of this). And there are some very hot 0-day trackers which, even though they only track torrents for 1000 hours, are very popular among many people (such as the file* sites).
:)
Bittorrent-users aren't considered 1337 in general, but they can be 1337er than the ones who use the sites in this article
Meta will eat itself
Or, conventionally cited as "you can't judge a book by its cover."
What it means is that I've seen some very ugly things create or provide very beautiful things. Elliott Smith was ugly but his music was beautiful. Although the library I went to as a kid was ugly and looked like an old bomb shelter, it provided something very important to me. Although snakes and earth worms and spiders look ugly as hell, I still love what they do. And, as a kid, it made sense to me to kill rabbits and pocket gophers on a farm while making sure not to harm a garden snake as I mowed the lawn.
Like I'll still maintain, whether something is beautiful or ugly tells me nothing.
My work here is dung.
... btjunkie.org
However, I'm not sure I can trust anything this 'review' says. For example, by the numbers btjunkie.org seems incredibly more successful than any of its competition, which seems a bit odd given that it doesn't seem that well-known (53,000 hits on Google; compare to mininova, which has 3,000,000). TFA says:
"At first I thought BTJunkie's numbers must be fake, but I assure you it is real! I tested the number posted with the number in the actual directory for the day and they matched for a week straight!"
Yes, I am sure that you did, and I am also sure that you don't own btjunkie.org. 100% sure.
How much you wanna bet the MPAA and RIIA are also reading this article. Thanks guys. Not only do you independently show which sites engage in copyright enfringement but also how much each site does that (on a daily basis no less)
The war with islam is a war on the beast
The war on terror is a war for peace
It's one of those things you just get used to doing, and it's hard to move on to something else.
I actually started using Torrentz a while ago, but I couldn't get used to it's interface.
It's like when AltaVista was THE search engine and then came along Google. It took me some time until I really abandoned AltaVista.
-- You must be yay-high to rule the world.
Iam surprised they didnt write about the Big daddy torrent tracker site Demonoid.com
Wincopy
The sites are compared by number of torrents, new torrents per day and "site features". This does not reflect a site's usability at all! What is importent is the average seeder/leecher quota and the availability + quality of "fresh" material. Those are obviously much harder to measure.
For example, BTJunkie is "Editor's Choice" because it lists the most torrents, including "private" ones they find using a Google-likc web crawler. This means lots of available content, but can you guess how much junk/old/inactive torrents you will find there? I think you have to test the sites yourself to find what suits your requirements best. Still, good list of the "bigger" torrent sites there.
Over the past few years, a GUI revolution has taken place, and it hasn't necessarily been beneficial. Surprisingly, it arose from what was once NeXTSTEP, which was often considered the most sane GUI out there. Mac OS X brought us a bubbly, colourful GUI with lots of shading. It was attractive to many people, but serious computer users who use their Macs for publishing, development, etc., found it to be wasteful. The large bubbly buttons took up more screen real estate than simple rectangles. The shading often added confusion, and removed clarity.
Many have begun to think that a similar paradigm should be applied to web sites. This has particularly been the case in the Web 2.0 area, where large images of buttons take up three or four times the screen space that a more traditional linked image or text link would have consumed. Many people have become mislead into thinking that if a GUI isn't colourful and doesn't have large gaps between components and data, then it's a "poor" GUI.
This revolution in GUI design moved on to Microsoft, a few years late, of course. The default theme of Windows Vista has attempted to copy the GUI of Mac OS X in many respects, and thus has copied many of the same problems. The taskbar is an excellent example. It has this white shading along the top that adds no functional benefit, and actually makes the taskbar more distracting and difficult to interpret quickly.
With the latest release of iTunes 7, we actually are seeing Apple backtrack to where they were in the past. There are hints that the bubbly GUI will be a way of the past. I know there are many professionals using Apple systems that would be very pleased for a simple, NeXTSTEP-like interface that allows them to focus on getting their work done. We realize that bubbly GUIs and flashy shading don't help us get work done, and so we'd rather see them gone. It will be intriguing to see who prevails: those who advocate flashy, distracting GUIs, or those who want clean, crisp interfaces that promote usability.
The only thing a torrent site really needs is a user comment section. If the quality is bad you'll read about it before you download like 1.4G of data and waste your time.
I think all these sites are pretty good in their way and to mark them down as 'ugly' doesn't make much sense.
If someone made one using Flash would it be any better? The answer is no (and I develop flash sites too).
spoonerize "magic trackpad"
I was surprised to find that legaltorrents.com is not even mentioned. Are they such a bit player? Is there a bigger, better site in that space (i.e. free/openn/cc culture)?
My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
You can write very beautiful code and yet have an interface as ugly as sin... likewise, you can have horrible spaghetti code lying behind a very pretty GUI.
Besides, isn't it good design to keep the interface of your program slightly ugly, whilst maintaining a logical and flowing design, as to avoid distracting the user from what they're trying to do? Flowers and curves and ponies are all well and good, but they don't necessarily make for an easy to use interface.
The beauty of the BT protocol is that greater popularity means faster downloads, due to more simultaneous sources of content. So I'd expect there to eventually result just the biggest BT network, attracting everyone from slower, smaller networks. Like eBay, or any other increasingly "perfect capital market".
And I'd expect the content available to eventually "diffuse" across these networks, equalizing in availability on all of them, especially the largest.
But BT is now several years old, with many global users, and there are still lots of little networks and very different content available. What's working against those basic borg trends?
--
make install -not war
Ten most used bittorrent
BTJunkie
BitTorrent.com
Bushtorrent & Torrentreactor
isoHunt
Meganova
Mininova
The Pirate Bay
Torrent Portal
TorrentSpy
Torrentz
I could be dead wrong here, but isn't popularity rated as in 'people that use it'? giving us raw numbers like what it looks like, how many torrents are hosted and how many more it can sponge of the web isn't telling me that... it just tells me how big they are.. relativly speaking He tells us why it could be popular, not if it is, he fails the headline..
Many of those are torrent AGGREGATORS. The difference is simply those don't host torrents, they just allow you to search through a catalog.
It's like calling Google Froogle (love the name) a store. It's not a store, it's a search engine FOR stores.
I love Torrentspy, but with out sites like the pirate bay Torrentspy would be dead, same thing for ISO hunt and many of the rest. The pirate bay is the only site on there that I know that is an actual Torrent site that hosts torrents. The rest that I know of just hosts links to torrents hosted on different servers. It's a completely different system and as such it shouldn't be compared.
Hell a posting like this is exactly what the anti-torrent community was looking for, now they can nail the top 10 torrent sites in a row (except pirate bay, I'm still doubting they will be able to take that down.)
Disclaimer: I'm developer of isoHunt.com and want to point out what's missing in your review.
1) Your reliance on claimed index size is flawed. BTJunkie's size claim looks to be non-unique torrents. To put it in perspective, isoHunt's non-unique master index is 1.7+ million torrents, while the searcheable index is the 300k+ count published (active and unique torrents).
2) A better methodology on review search engines is to sample search results, and rank by the relevance and scope of the results. You will see the search results counts to be more inline than the claimed index sizes you used for your review.
3) FYI, isoHunt indexes 7/9 other sites you reviewed, including BTJunkie.
4) It would be nice to be more specific in how you rated site features. Also, speed and relevance of search should be important factors for ranking all the sites.
5) Shameless plug: if you are talking about site features, an important one you've missed is cross-referenced trackers in all our indexed torrents. So each torrent we index is augmented by multiple trackers that would be tracking it, so you get the maximum number of peers in your torrent download. No site in your review has this ability, other than Torrentz.com (but they don't cache the torrents so you don't get any benefit for the actual download, as you get the original torrents from original sites).
Cheers,
IH
VIVA1023.com | Political Fashion.
Scrapetorrent [http://scrapetorrent.com/] provides both a web-based and a FireFox plugin search tool for scanning TorrentSpy, PirateBay, IsoHunt and MiniNova. I find it wickedly convenient.
Even if you're on the right track, you'll get run over if you just sit there. - Will Rogers