Talk:BitComet/Archive 1

Archive 1

Additions

Anyone think that we should add BitComet lite, the bitcomet tracker and the FLV player to the article? Darthnader37 23:26, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Well the article appears to be only about the bitcomet client only, but since it is kind of stub as is, I don't really see any harm in adding it. If there is enough information it could eventually be put into its own article. -Dr. WTF 21:17, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I guess I should do some reseacrch and find out how much info there really is. Any help would be appreciated. Darthnader37 07:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Controversy

While BitComet had previously throtttled the network, the problem has spupposedly been fixed in current releases. And the utorrent forum is not really a source, as it is a forum for a competing client, and thus not really reliable. If someone can find a list of old or curent client faults from a reputable source, then that would be better.Darthnader37 23:06, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

http://www.zeropaid.com/bitcomet/ contains info on bitcomet getting banned and its previously flawed DHT implementation --Dr. WTF 21:25, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

more proof of other flaws here: http://mullemeck.serveftp.org/jps_beta/forum/viewtopic.php?t=38585&sid=8af8951ad1299a8bce273a0101f514b5 http://www.azureuswiki.com/index.php/Super_Seeding http://isohunt.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=42726&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=15 http://www.torrentleech.org/faq.php http://forums.bitcomet.com/index.php?showtopic=3401&pid=16351&mode=threaded&show=&st=0?entry16351?entry16351 This last link on the BITCOMET forums! Its possible to find endless threads like this in Private Tracker forums, and the reasons for banning today is NOT dht, but the hammering(connect/disconnect), the favourishing of other BC users, and the cheating about possessed pieces and rates. Soon i´ll get a logfile from my university´s tracker... the hammering one BC peer does is equivalent to what ~6 non-BC peer does... Atriel 08:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for contributing the links, I added a few of them into the article. As for the logfile from your university's tracker, remember that original research isn't allowed. But it could probably be linked to as an example, just not as a citation. --Dr. WTF 02:57, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Someone has a really funny idea of "proof". Links to more unsupported allegations are not proof that the allegations are true. Can we try to keep this principle in mind here?

Right, as forum posts are not valid proof in any way, shape or form. If anyone can find more reputable sources, then contribute them. Darthnader37 06:05, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Adware versus Freeware

Recently someone changed the classification of Bitcomet from adware to freeware. This is wrong as Bitcomet does indeed contain ads. If you are downloading a video and use the 'Preview' functionality it will display an ad while it is buffering/loading. http://img86.imageshack.us/img86/391/bitcometqe9.png is a screenshot of the ads. --Dr. WTF 03:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

• Take it up with 67.181.82.100, he put the freeware label on it. |||||| E. Sn0 =31337= ^{Talk to me :D} 03:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Refer to Whoblitzell. He changed the link, and I made changes to coincide with that. Also, have you ever scaned bitcomet for adware? Have your scans returned anything? Also, are you using the latest version of bitcomet? And is the bitcomet from bitcomet.com? Third party's can add spyware/adware in their versions. 67.181.82.100 05:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I was indeed the person who changed the license type. I haven't been able to find any reputable articles on the Internet claiming BC contains adware other than a few forum postings, but these are generally not people with a NPOV or any actual facts on their side. I didn't change it based off the official product description, but rather as a default because it has yet to be demonstrated that there are any ads within BC as of the current version (0.79). Whoblitzell 16:17, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I personally think that it is freeware, due to my useage of it and as of version .79 I think this is accurate, but I strive for citable truth. The Chinese version has been said to have adware, but the English version is unknown. Please do not say it is one or the other unless you have a reputable source from which to cite for one way or the other. Just dont do original research about this. 67.181.82.100 05:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Update: after research, The license on the bitcomet home page [[1]] is freeware. quoted from site: "License:Freeware for non-commercial use (at home).Please refer to License for more details." Thus, I am changing it to freeware. Wikipedia is an encylopedia, with cited sources, not original research. Unless a different reliable source says otherwise, it is staying freeware, and I will revert any attempt to change it to adware, which it is not. Darthnader37 06:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Update2: After poking through the previous releases of Bitcomet (downloaded from the official website), I have found that all versions between the release of 0.62 and 0.70 contain advertisements when using the video preview functionality. I have not looked through any version earlier than 0.60 so ads may have been present in those. Perhaps it may not be classified as adware *now* but I think it is definatly noteworthy that somewhere in the article it states that at one time Bitcomet did indeed contain ads. I will wait for responses from others to see where it would be appropriate to add. --Dr. WTF 04:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

This is true, previous versions of BitComet did contain advertisements (from third party webpages, not built-in from what I could tell). To my knowledge, these were not obtrusive and were not pop-ups. Whoblitzell 16:17, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I would put it the bitcomet history secion, if we develop one. It still in the rough content stage, but that would be a good thing to add under a history tag. In the adware part for the present part, however, we concern ourselves with the official license, despite of what your own research may point out. And as for the history part, if you are going to put it in, you need a reliable documented source to cite, as original research is not acceptable in wikipedia. Aside from that, please add anything citable that you can find out about BitComet, as more information is needed. Darthnader37 04:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't really feel that this would be considered original research since it is all very easily verifiable. All that would be needed for a reference is simply giving a link to the official download page and saying where the ad is found (and which versions), the reader would be able to see for themself. I'm not sure the history section would be appropriate because this implies that it no longer contains ads, which it does in the current stable release... --Dr. WTF 04:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

But the point is the text box contains the license type, which is freeware. If you have a verifiable source that says it has adware, then put it in. But the area in question is the license type, which is shown by the site to be a freeware license. I would ask around around about the adware, and then find a good section ehcih is veriable, and then post it in the article, just not at the license type. THe Chinese release is rumored ot have a lot of adware, so it may be just a part from the code base. Versions .75-.77 had some degree of adware, but this has since been removed. I think you should find out the whole story (maybe by asking the developers or other knowledgable people at the offical site), but in the meantime feel free to put in the article that there is adware, just make sure you cite it. And I think a publication is a cite, not the offical download page. I has to be intependently written proven by a reputable source, not just a link to the download site. So if you can find it written down and proven, then by all means put it in, probably under the criticisms section. Darthnader37 06:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I tend to agree. Usually if something contains adware, it's not terribly difficult to tell. There are usually plenty of annoying pop-ups or visible ads. Afterall, ads nobody can see aren't terribly useful to advertisers. It's the spyware that is usually silent and monitors your activity. However, I have never even heard the allegation that Bitcomet contains spyware. Whoblitzell 16:17, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

What the hell? Have you read any of the above? It isn't difficult to tell at all. Go to the official website right now and download version 0.70 (current stable release), open up a torrent then click the preview button (select a file and click 'ok' or whatever it says). While it is buffering you will be presented with an ad, without fail, everytime you use this feature. If that isn't adware then what is? Software doesn't have to be overly obnoxious or even obvious to be adware. As for an update on this, I am going to go ahead and post on their forums about this to see what kind of response I get, hopefully someone from the staff will respond. --Dr. WTF 21:14, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

http://forums.bitcomet.com/index.php?showtopic=5673 is the topic I created. I think the fact that the user 'bitdave' (a member of the 'Tech Staff') acknowledged the fact that the ads are present is enough to consider the current stable release as adware, in addition the advertisements are easily verifiable even without this forum post. Before I change the article to state that the current stable version is adware I'd like to hear the response of others to not piss anyone off. The beta releases are debatably not adware but I haven't yet looked into it, so when the changes are made the article should probably state that the current beta releases are freeware not adware. --Dr. WTF 23:39, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

You can state that it has adware in the article, but the license in the article is freeware. And it also looks as though it is really easy to remove, so i dont know about the whole thing. By all means put it in the article and tear apart the license, cite it, but make sure you put it only in the article, as the license is said to be freeware on the site. We repot information, not create our own. Darthnader37 01:24, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Technically the license could be considered freeware, but this is also the same for all adware programs and the licenses they are released with. But with other articles they clearly state that it is adware and not freeware, even though the license would have you believe otherwise. If anything, I think the official website would be the last thing to be considered verifiable in this issue, since it has an obvious bias. If we can not come to a conclusion as to whether or not to classify this as 'adware' or 'freeware' as the license I would support changing it to simply saying 'Proprietary' for the license type, and then going into detail about it in the article. --Dr. WTF 02:50, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd keep the license as is, but go into detail in the article. Even if the website is not exaclty reliable, we should keep the "official" license, and i dont think its really proprietary either. So keep the "official" license as reported on official site, but go into detail via othe article, citing all the other sources. So while we personally may not think its accurate, it shpuld be kept eith the official site, since it usually is a firsthand source. But feel free to put everything concering the adware in the article, just keep the license as reported, even if it is fradulent (another thing that can be addressed in the article). Also refer to Whoblitzell, as he put his reasoning for changing it at the top of this section.Darthnader37 03:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Refer to the article on Proprietary software, freeware is considered proprietary software and is a more neutral term than 'adware' or 'freeware'. Also, the 'official' license does not explicitly state that it is 'freeware', it is the main page that does, which isn't legally binding. As for Whoblitzell's reasoning, he/she apparently changed it for the purpose of being a default due to lack of it being demonstratedd that it has ads (which it now has). If anything 'proprietary' would be a more generic/default term if we are going to go on that route, which is how many other questionable programs are classified. But I will add the bit about adware in the article when I get some time, within the next few days or so. --Dr. WTF 03:54, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

How about closed source? Darthnader37 04:33, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me. --Dr. WTF 05:05, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

It doesnt really fit it, but ill just keep it as closed source until we find a reputable source stating one way or the other. I'll keep my ears open, and if I find anything stating what BitComet license is, I'll post it here before putting it in the article. Darthnader37 07:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

If you have time, you should extend your search to utorrent. It seems the same thing happened over there. Just check the talk page. And the license still seems freeware. I'll leave the license at closed source, but this is a new devlopment. I am going to check hte other torent clients and see what they have. Darthnader37 07:20, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I think this comment, "The difference is that it's not shown in the client, it's shown on the search website." sums up the debate about ads in uTorrent, this is different from we are talking about because the ads are actually IN the client itself not in an embeded browser displaying 3rd party websites. So I think the classification for uTorrent is correct in that sense. --Dr. WTF 20:40, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I think the DAEMON tools approach with the license would be best, since the two are very much alike pertaining to freeware-adware. Darthnader37 01:36, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

That seems logical, although the difference is that with DAEMON tools the installation of the adware software is optional, as with BitComet it isn't. Although with BitComet not all versions contain the ads so I think this fits regardless. I'm going to go ahead and change it, if anyone feels this is a bad move then feel free to revert it and discuss it here. --Dr. WTF 02:30, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't consider this software to be adware under Wikipedia's given definition in Adware because I do not consider the displayed Flash to be an advertisement. It's just a link to their homepage, no different than one included in the Help-> about section of any application. They aren't trying to sell anything or promote you to take any specific action. It isn't even really an ad for the client itself, because anyone viewing it has already in theory downloaded the client. As such, I've removed the Adware license classification yet again and updated the release information.

Have you not looked at the screenshots or read any of the above? The displayed Flash is an advertisement and it is definatly not the same as the Help -> About section of any application. If you do Help -> About on Firefox or MS Word do you see a Flash video trying to get you to download some other third party software? Also note that the ads are located in the directory c:\program files\bitcomet\fav\AD notice the "AD" part. Also from my understanding 0.70 is still the stable release, that is what everything on the OFFICIAL BitComet forums says. --Dr. WTF 21:01, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I dont think you two are talking about the same thing. THe preview function as of 0.80 now has the FLV player, which may or may not be a replacement for the adware screen of the past. I will try and verify it one way or the other ASAP, but the preivew with any .flv has no adware, just the bitcomet logo in the corner, which is waht the guy is talking about. So you two might want to check that you are talking about the same thing before you correct each other. Darthnader37 21:38, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Would have been nice if that was specified... --Dr. WTF 23:59, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I does indeed appear that BitComet 0.80 does not have any adware, as I just checked it myself. Same player, but now it has a bitcomet background instead of an adware background. http://vodashare.com/show.php/5836_BitCometPreviewin0.80.JPG Also, after inspection of the ads folder (version 0.80), it contains only BitComet banners. If anyone needs any more screnshots, just say so. Darthnader37 18:03, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I also do not see ads in version 0.80. --Dr. WTF 21:10, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

So do we go back to just freeware, with the adware part of the article can become part of a history section? Darthnader37 22:22, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

See the bottom of the talk page. From the response of the Main Admin I think it is safe to assume that 0.70 is still the stable release. When they stop recommending 0.70 as the more stable release then I think it would be best to change it to just Freware and move the Adware section to a history section. --Dr. WTF 23:11, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

And after careful inspection of all units up to .70, there does not appear to be a banner ad in any of them except .70. This is in the zip version for all of the from 0.60 to 0.70. Darthnader37 21:47, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

After reading the replies on the forum post, it is still obvious there is an ad in the client. The ad for lyricsday.com is not related to the previewer or the client so can't be used as an excuse for a "splash screen". This basically undermines everything they posted about Bitcomet not being adware. Thus, I feel that the claim of adware is just as valid as it was before. --Dr. WTF 02:15, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Also check out the forum posting and read the last response for more information http://forums.bitcomet.com/index.php?showtopic=5673&st=0&gopid=21582&#entry21582 --Dr. WTF 02:17, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

But isn't adware integrated or installed (as a bundle) with the software? If the add doesn't even have a registry signature, I don't know how it fits the description of adware. You should also wait to see what the admins say after now, since they know now what they are talking about. Darthnader37 02:33, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

The adware is integrated and installed (as a bundle) with the software. When you unzip version 0.70 the ad is there and automatically displayed so is definatly adware. Having a registry signature (you mean registry key/entry?) is irrelevant because the registry doesn't even involve this, it is designed and used for configuration data, which many applications don't use anyways. But I am curious to see what the admins say, although I most certainly expect them to claim the opposite and they will probably come up with some other outlandish claim to try and refute the truth, we'll see. --Dr. WTF 02:41, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, we will see. And I meant integrated in the sense that it was part of the exe, not an easily modifiable .htm file. And don't most of the large adware programs (180 solutions, etc.) install themselves as a program, complete with registry entry? Darthnader37 02:45, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

>>And don't most of the large adware programs (180 solutions, etc.) install themselves as a program, complete with registry entry? I guess this varies. Sometimes the more 'legit' programs add registry keys and register themselves as a program so you can remove it from 'add/remove programs', but others don't. --Dr. WTF 03:05, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Adware is an ad that is used by the programmer to make money, or recoup costs (in adware article). If BitComet used to show these screens, but since they wern't of a commercial nature, then it is freeware and they are just banners. Ads have to be commercial for them to be so, as ads are used for the developers profit (and even so they have been fixed). Let's just put to rest the issue of ads, since the BitComet team has removed them to show their good intent. Thus whar was int the player was not even a true add, since it was a free site. This is no different from the torrent site window, or being in a banner exchange with another site. I hope you will see eye to eye eith me and end this pointless discussion that has been blown way out of proportion (and throughly explained and resolved at the forum). Darthnader37 06:14, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I think we do see eye to eye. I see the good intent and how the ad is now automatically removed. Although I would like the article to reflect that the ad was still there at one time. I have now updated the article to explain this a bit more, and as a result I feel it is now completly neutral. As was stated in the forum post, the ad was put there by the 3rd party flash player that was bundled with bitcomet. Since this was part of the flash player I highly doubt that the bitcomet team was payed for it being included (although it is a possibility), but it is senseless to assume that the makers of the flash player were not payed for adding it in (no one just adds in an advertisement in their product without incentive), which still makes it an advertisement. If you don't like the way I worded the article please rephrase it. I although don't like the idea of it being reverted entirely just because it is no longer present. There is no need to revert or alter history. --Dr. WTF 21:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

It still seems a little murky, but it is better. I also think we should clarify that it was from a 3rd party, and the lead in to the section doesn't seem that neutral. I am also considering archiving this talk page after this side discussion is finished, now that the major issue has been resolved. Darthnader37 00:29, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Give me a bit of time and I'll reword the first section a bit and add some more information on the specifics of it. Glad this is finally comming to a resolution. --Dr. WTF 00:45, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

spyware/tracking?

I find it strange that bitcomet installs a BHO (BitComet Helper - look at Manage Addons in IE) since such has nothing to do with torrents. It's easy to disable but since there is no explanation of its purpose I assume it is for spying or tracking purposes (privacy).

My guess is it 'snatches' downloads much like a download manager, except for .torrent files. This is a setup option in .79. Then again it could be adware. Whoblitzell 19:35, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

snatches? It is a setup feature...I guess this is just a bug that needs to be worked out. It could alwawys be asked on the bicomet forum. 67.181.82.100 19:59, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

DHT?

Should explain in the article wtf that is.

Do we still need that? There is an article, and it is not needed. Unless someone else disagrees, i'll remove it. 67.181.82.100 22:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

BCTP?

Bitcomet now has BCTP linking. I believe this is for passing torrents to friends or some kind of one click torrent, not sure. Please add this to article.--x1987x 02:38, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Good idea for someone not lazy! Especially this info: http://wiki.bitcomet.com/help/BCTP_Link_Format 68.114.109.68 06:49, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

"Bad data reporting"

Does this have any basis?

"BitComet doesn't play nice"

BitComet misbehaviour is not just limited to the DHT issue about private trackers, there is another problem in my opinion much more important. I was SuperSeeding with Azureus and noticed a serious ineffeciency problem, went to investigate and found this:

BitComet clients disconnect and reconnect as soon as they have a piece downloaded from the Azureus superseed. Thus, Azureuse never gets a chance to determine whether the client is a big uploader. To make matters worse, for some reason Azureus will upload to the "new" peers before uploading to known big uploaders. It appears to me this has a pretty bad effect on the effectiveness of superseeding.

I get much better performance if I regularly kick and ban all BitComets manually.

According to this, an initial seeding benefits if the seeder bans all BitComets (they can still get the packets from the other peers). The problem is that many are using BitComet with spoofed ids, such as Azureus 2.3.0.6 or µTorrent 1.3.0. The first is easy to tell because BitComet does not support advanced messaging. Artemis3 04:30, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Azureus and BitComet seem to clash. Azureus should fix it's uploading in superseed mode to "new" peers. And bitcomet needs to fix DHT and add Super-seed. Super-seed mode isnt even part of BitTorrent's protocol, it in itself is just a cheep hack. And those patches like "bitcomet accelerator" are just mods to have bitcomet update to the tracker every 5 seconds, a simple patch that could be done for every bt client, besides every modern bt prog has a manual update button, the trackers should just not give clients an update, simple as that, and you fix it. --x1987x 00:49, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

---

That plug for uTorrent is hardly NPOV

While I do use uTorrent, and love it, I don't think that uTorrent should be plugged in as a "good alternative" because that is an opinion, and it gives unfair promotion to uTorrent. Maybe it should be, "Alternatives to BitComet can be found at the list of BitTorrent clients page" or something like that -Copysan

It's a wiki you could edit it! I replaced with that little promo for utorrent with a factual "blurb." Worthless promotion. "Try Acme Cheeze!" --x1987x 00:32, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

1000 MB / GB

I always thought that 1GB was 1024 MB not 1000MB (similarly 1024 bytes in a kilobyte)...

See the box at the top of our Megabyte article. SI units are in powers of 10. --GraemeL ^(talk) 20:50, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

"Ads in recent versions?"

I've heard there's ads in recent version of BitComet if your language is set to Chinese. Can anyone verify (and add to main article if true)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.45.49.169 (talk • contribs) 10:39 9 June 2006 (UTC)

No, that's false. I just changed the language to both versions of Chinese and back with no difference. — Nathan ^(talk) 21:26, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, there was always ads in the Chinese version, just look at the corresponding Chinese wikipedia page for the screenshot. The ad is in place of the PayPal donate button. Gwwfps 08:17, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

That's odd. — Nathan ^(talk) 19:16, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

It's now in the English version as well. — Nathan ^(talk) 23:36, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

It's in the Chinese version only, but not in English. If you download the BitComet from the official website, it should be free of adware. — Tan pang^(talk) 23:36, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality

Seems as though that the criticism is too much of the article, and needs to have more information to counteract it. Any ideas/suggestions? 67.181.82.100 00:32, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I hate to agree with just the criticisms, but from what I've read on the net most of it seems true. Since version .70, it has become quite bloated with stuff such as "Bit Comet Passport". I used this program since its early days and I can say that at one time it was much more stable, efficient, and less bloated than it has been in recent releases. I'm not sure how version .79 is, but .76 and .78 crashed within minutes of installation. I have since stopped using BC and I cannot say I'd recommend it to anyone these days. Whoblitzell 19:30, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

According to the admins at the site, .71 and above are more experimental, and not intended to be stable releases. The best version, according to the site's tech support, is still 0.70. According to the admins, no one knows what these new features do, as they look to be just tests in the new releases. Darthnader37 18:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Screenshots

Should we keep the screenshots up to date with the version? It would probably make it look better, and we could probably make the previous versions a separate article under history of bitcomet or list of bitcomet versions. The former would probably be better, but I am just throwing this out. Any suggestions?

And Dr. WTF, what version of windows is that screenshot on? Also wondering if an XP skin should be on screenshot instead. Darthnader37 04:47, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

It's on XP SP2. If you feel it should have the XP theme on I can make and upload another one, or you or anyone else can if you want to. --Dr. WTF 22:15, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good. I just feel it should fit with the most "recent skin" of the OS. If I get around to putting the shot up I probably will, but it may be a while. In the meantime, if you or any else wants to do it, feel free to do so. Anyone who wants to do that should have a torrent downloading and uploading, and might want a web surfing shot for the article too, as it looks completely different. Any thoughts on what version? (0.70 stable or 0.79 preview) Darthnader37 01:36, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

You also may want to put up a screenshot of the adware. Just a thought. 67.181.82.100 03:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

The screenshot of the lyric ad looks to be from a (1) older verison of BC and (2) possibly modded verison because of the black skin. I don't believe it can be taken too seriously.

The screenshot is of version 0.70 (latest stable release) and has not been modified in anyway. If you doubt it then verify it yourself by downloading that version. The screenshot isn't meant to be solid proof anyways, please see the citation used in the article for more solid evidence. The 'black skin' is just a modified version of the windows xp classic theme, and has nothing to do with bitcomet. It is really tiresome for me to have to repeat myself for people who can't read and refuse to read the above discussion --Dr. WTF 22:22, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Uploaded a new screenshot for both the client (version 0.80) and the FLV player. If anyone thinks I should add a tracker screenshot or replace the client shot with ine for version 0.70, just state so here. Darthnader37 02:47, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I think having version 0.80 displayed is fine, since it is the most recent and there aren't really that many changes cosmetically from older versions anyways. I'm going to go ahead and upload a picture of the ads from version 0.70 and place it in the adware section. If anyone feels it is to much, it can be removed but I think it might be a good touch --Dr. WTF 04:20, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

License type

I changed the license type from Adware to Freeware. I haven't found any articles stating there is adware within Bit Comet. I'll be the first person to say Bit Comet sucks, but my own adware and spyware scans haven't found anything. Whoblitzell 19:37, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Negative aspects only about BC

I think the article has only got the negative aspects of the program shown. It does not tell it's easy to use, and to learn to use... But I leave someone with more wikipedia experience to do it... G3n3tiX 19:45, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, and also how it functions as more then just a bittorent client.Anyone interested in helping fix this might also want to check out wikiproject:bittorrent on the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals page. It needs support so it start rolling and work on such problems as bias. If your intersted in helping, just list your name.67.181.82.100 19:51, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

= Extremely biased, and corrections removed

The claimed "fact" citations in the article are utterly unproven, and not generally accepted as true by any neutral parties. Edits to the article to point this out are routinely erased. The entry clearly violates policy and should be deleted or locked down after proper revision under careful supervision. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.88.232.157 (talk • contribs) 08:21, 3 December 2006 (UTC).

Features & History

Good idea, but need to put in a more encylopedic way, and not say "as advertised". It needs to be determined what is and is not in the client, and present htem in a better way. Also, help on version history and story behind BitComet through knowledgable members or admins would be apprectiated. 67.181.82.100 22:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Unsupported allegations taken as proof

Citation for most of the alleged flaws refers only to a forum discussion containing more unsupported allegations offered without evidence. These are not suitable documentation and constitute nothing more than opinion by parties arguably in interest. The entry should be finally purged of all such allegations if substantiating evidence is not forthcoming. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.88.232.157 (talk) 04:32, 14 December 2006 (UTC).

Yes, but exactly the same citations can be seen in the several links in the controversy section of this talk page, as well as in most private tracker forums. Atriel 18:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Disputed Neutrality

This article quite clearly emphasizes negative allegations against BitComet and does little to weigh them out with anything positive. When I preview a file in 0.80, I don't see any advertisements. I'm willing to bet most people don't preview files period, either. I only see a flash animation that links to the bitcomet homepage. This to me isn't really an ad, because it isn't selling anything or moving them to action it's just a link to the homepage. The screenshot for the lyric site is a very old version of BC. Regardless of whether previous versions of BC contained ads, the latest version 0.80 does not appear to have it. In addition to this, regardless of whether you call it a 'stable' release or not, verison 0.80 is currently the latest version that is available for download on CNET and the main BC homepage. The 0.70 is available only under the archive section of the download page. I'm not editing this article any more, because it's clear it has been taken over by a few overly-vocal users that are obsessed with clinging on to semantics for purposes of hijacking the article for their own rather biased POV against BC

I am not disagreeing with you, we are just stating that bitcomet has ads in the preview section as of .60, which is the latest "stable" version. (All the admins of the site recommend that everyone use the lastest "stable") I persaonally have never verified this, and if you want to prove the screenshot wrong in version .70 and .80, then feel free to. I strive for relibility, and I am going to try and independently verify this myself using both versions. Fell free to display and finding on the talk page. 67.181.82.100 19:31, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I personally don't think the article is biased, and feel that the NPOV tag is unwarrented. All criticisms are cited and the article specifies that most only apply to previous versions and have been fixed. If you have any verifiable "positive" things to add about bitcomet please do so. Also about the ads, the version (0.70) is the latest stable release and thus I feel it is appropriate to keep the license "Freeware/Adware" since it does infact contain ads. Once another stable version is released which doesn't contain ads then obviously the "/Adware" part of the license will be removed. Please refer to the forums, specifically http://forums.bitcomet.com/index.php?showtopic=740 which clearly states, "Just a quick reminder, before submitting bugs, you may wish to download the latest version of client, which is currently BitComet 0.70. This download is available at our main site: www.bitcomet.com". Does anyone else feel that the NPOV tag should be removed? --Dr. WTF 22:31, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, unless 0.80 doesnt have adware, in which case we will change the license type to fit the preview release. It doesnt seem biased right now, however. We should try to get away from using forums as sources, though. Darthnader37 22:38, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

For the time being I will remove the NPOV tag, unless someone else feels otherwise then feel free to add it back. --Dr. WTF 22:46, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Well of course you're removing the NPOV tag, you are the one with the negative POV. By the way your forum source is a 6 month old post (from June). Their download page at bitcomet.com shows very clearly that the 0.70 is only currently officially available under the 'archive' section. Again for anyone paying attention, Dr. WTF has more or less taken over this article.

But 0.80 is not a stable release. All of the admins on the site recommend that people use the last stable release, 0.70 http://forums.bitcomet.com/index.php?showtopic=5985. I again ask you for any verification of these claims, and freely edit the article if you have anything to back up what you say. Darthnader37 03:53, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

If you can find any verifiable evidence that 0.80 is the current stable release then please update the article and cite your sources. But I see nothing that would indicate this and everything to indicate the contrary. Also I don't feel that I have a negative POV, as a daily user of BitComet I wouldn't use any other client. But I would hate to see this article butchered by misrepresenting (or not even representing) well established information. --Dr. WTF 04:16, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

If you goto Help->About it states "BitComet 0.80 Stable Release for Windows 2000/XP". Again this is the (only) version on their download page besides the archives. A forum posting is (to me) nowhere nearly as credible as the released EXE itself. Clearly, you guys have your point of view and aren't going to change it regardless of what I say. Furthermore, many people here seem to be cherrypicking their sources as to what agrees with them. I think the article as it currently stands has a blatant bias against BitComet on the basis of the quantity of negative vs. positive content alone and then even more so because of shady citations and what might even amount to weasel wording. This allegation of bias is mainly to do with the article and not any specific user. Although a handful of users seem to have more or less taken over this article and that should be worrisome to readers. My current suggestions for the aricle (1) update version/screenshots (2) qualify the statement of adware beyond what exists (say that the reason you're claiming adware is because of a single flash animation linking to THEIR homepage on a single screen). (3) add less negative commentary and cherrypicked sources (4) more independent-minded sources than an open forum where people can edit their comments. It's like citing any other article people can just edit. For all the people reading this article know, the citer is simply one of the forum users replying to himself. 68.58.28.162

I find it very amusing that darth nader here talks about the need to reduce citations to forum posts and then turns right around and cherrypicks a forum post to back up his opinion. That's some real hypocrisy right there. Also amusing is the bastardized logic of Dr. WTF which appears to be something has to be taken as the gospel if the developers say it (i.e. the forum postings cited to allegedly prove adware's presence in the program).

Well guess what? The developers also state on their homepage that BitComet is clean and free of adware on their homepage. They also state in the About section of the 0.80 version that it is a stable release. These facts all come from the same source, yet you cherrypick specifically what agrees with your own point of view. This is not only exceedingly narrow-minded, but also outright illogical and silly.

But as stated before, I'm done with this article and Wikipedia. It's clear this place is ran by social networks and that if you make subtle changes to a slightly obscure article you can more or less dress up the facts however you please. 68.58.28.162

I'd have to disagree with you with the use of forum postings as citations. While I think they are not suitable for citations in general, I feel that if a staff member/moderator/developer responds proving the point that is trying to be made then I feel it is worthy for use as a citation. As for 0.70/0.80 being the stable release I have posted here: http://forums.bitcomet.com/index.php?showtopic=6024 to see if we can get someone of authority to respond to clarify this. I do see where it says 0.80 is current stable release in Help > About, but I also see numerous postings on the offical forums by staff members and the developers recommending 0.70 as the stable release and not 0.80. --Dr. WTF 21:09, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

"The UnUsual Suspect" (Main Admin) responded saying that they are still recommending those who have problems to move back to version 0.70. He/She also stated "I guess it is a matter of opinion". Although from my understanding if you are still recommending a previous version over the most recent then it can be considered "stable", and the recent can be considered a "preview"/beta/unstable release. He/She also stated that all versions contain the "BitComet X.XX Stable Release for Windows 2000/XP" in Help > About. So it appears that the classification of 0.70/0.80 is correct in the article, unless you interpret the words "stable" and "preview" release differently. --Dr. WTF 21:46, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Health % column

Does anyone know exactly what the Health column means? I've googled, but haven't found an answer I like. Sometimes it's less than % that I've completed. It also seems like sometimes it's lower than the highest peers %, when there are no seeds. - Peregrine Fisher 05:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Its how many complete copies of the file there are in the swarm. ex: if the percentage is 5000% then there are 50 complete copies among the entire swarm. Darthnader37 06:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Then how can it be lower than the percentage I have? - Peregrine Fisher 07:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Either a) you have a badly seeded torrent with few or no peers/seeders and tieces of the torrent are missing b) bitcomet detects only connected peers to you, and those contribute to the percentage Darthnader37 08:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Controversy and Criticisms

Could these two sections be merged? I think it would make more sense. Mlscdi 11:38, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Comments

If anyone wants to comment on the article, please do so here, or change facts around with supporting evidence as you see fit. The article space is no place for comments, just verifiable information. Darthnader37 02:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Then I think the article space needs to have its unverified information removed. But any attempt to do so is changed back. It appears that only further negative information is allowed. Until that changes, I doubt that BitComet can obtain a fair hearing in Wikipedia. 68.90.234.71 02:21, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

An example of said things or just removing it would be good. And you can tell why you remved it in either the edit summary or here on the talk page. I only want to have fact, and if you or anyone else wants to contribute constructively, then feel free to do so. Darthnader37 06:02, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

A fact that should be added to the BitTornado ban discussion is that John Hoffman never reported his issue as a bug on BitComet's defects forum, and never posted any change request in the BitComet requests forum. This is generally true of nearly all the criticisms: they've never been reported to BC, never been documented, never been the subject of bug reports or change requests. Anyone who has a good-faith belief that BitComet is doing something wrong should at least try to get it on record and get it fixed or changed, but that has not happened. So there is a question about whether the complaints are being made in good faith or not. 68.90.234.71 22:13, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Did it to an extent, but it is weak at best, as a source is still needed. Once the BitComet staff gives some offical statements I will have more to work with, since this is close to original research. Darthnader37 22:33, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it is origional research, so not much can be done unless someone finds sources for rebuttals against Hoffman (which can't be forum posts). Darthnader37 22:52, 15 January 2007 (UTC)