Talk:YIFY

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

YTS.AG/AM/MX/LT clone

I've been spectating the edit dispute over the past couple of days. When I wrote the article originally I only had the original YIFY administration in mind. But I've been thinking, maybe this one particular clone site does deserve a brief mention, at least a few sentences. It is currently ranked in the top 300 sites in the world (in terms of viewership) and has got a bit of media coverage on it's own. I didn't want to add it without a bit of opinion first, do you all think it deserves a new section, few sentences, maybe it's own article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tisafa (talk • contribs)

References

It might qualify for its own article, though I still find the sourcing to be iffy. In any case, since there are many YIFY imitators, we should not be promoting one over the others, certainly not on the basis of web traffic, which comes and goes over time. - MrOllie (talk) 16:56, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

YTS.AG/AM/MX/LT has had the same amount of traffic over the last 5 years, so MrOllie your statement regarding "web traffic, which comes and goes over time" is not valid here! The unofficial succesor even surpassed the original YTS in terms of traffic in the last years.

Also, the brand names YTS and YIFY would have been dead since 2015 and no one would have searched it nowadays, if not for YTS.AG/AM/MX/LT who actually continued their work for real by offering a platform for users to share their encodes. So it is not simply another imitator, like MrOllie claims, since YTS.AG/AM/MX/LT is actually the only one providing content and all others are imitators and copycats of YTS.AG/AM/MX/LT. Just visit any other imitator/clone and you will notice that absolutely all of them are scraping original content from YTS.AG/AM/MX/LT

Due to the fact that YTS.AG/AM/MX/LT is offering real content (not copied), the brand YTS/YIFY still stands, 5 years after the original YTS demise and it is even more popular than before. Just look at the pageview stats of the "YIFY" article, it receives more than 100,000 pageviews monthly due to content offered by YTS.AG/AM/MX/LT: https://tools.wmflabs.org/pageviews/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&start=2015-07&end=2020-01&pages=YIFY

Let's be honest and do not fool ourselves: if YTS.AG/AM/MX/LT would not have offered actual content and only be another imitator, copycat amongst others just scraping external links like MrOllie wrongly states, then it would have quickly died along the brand name and this article definitely would not get this huge amount of monthly pageviews.

Since people searching for YIFY or YTS on Google are actually looking for the current content offered by YTS.AG/AM/MX/LT site, reaching this "YIFY" article, since it is ranking good so I think the current URL of YTS.AG/AM/MX/LT should be included in the article as the current approved successor by millions of users. --Donranase (talk) 08:28, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Who's to say that they will receive the same kind of traffic a decade from now, or two? Web traffic is not a criterion for notability on Wikipedia, only sources are, and YTS has largely not been written about by anything but enthusiast blogs. - with the exception of inclusion on a few listacles. - MrOllie (talk) 11:57, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

In this case, why should there be an YIFY article anymore? I propose then to actually delete the current article entirely. Almost 90% of the sources for the current article are from TorrentFreak articles. So if you consider TorrentFreak to be just enthusiast blogs, then let's remove all content from current article referenced by those TorrentFreak's articles and let's leave only the content not referenced by TorrentFreak. That way, there won't be an YIFY article anymore. For YTS.AG/AM/MX/LT there are lots of articles from TorrentFreak, even lately. So I consider it is best to include all new reference to YTS/YIFY from TorrentFreak articles at least. So, MrOllie, how is it fair: delete the entire article or include all relevant details? --Donranase (talk) 08:05, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, TorrentFreak is a bad source. Fortunately, for a topic that is plainly notable like the originial YIFY, plenty of other sourcing is available, so I just switched out most of the TorrentFreak cites for better sources. I left a couple in - they were interviews so are acceptable on this article per WP:ABOUTSELF. - MrOllie (talk) 17:05, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

YTS.ag is the only platform continuing the work under YTS/YIFY brand and offers improvements to the original YIFY. It is not just another clone. All current clones are actually cloning YTS.ag, who has become the actual current YTS/YIFY. Also, sources from current article are already mentioning and directly relating YTS.ag to the defunct YIFY, as being the successor. So any reference to successor should be included in article.Donranase (talk) 13:51, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

There are lots of imitators (which are already mentioned as a group), and there is no good reason to promote one above the others. - MrOllie (talk) 14:10, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

You are simply resisting facts: there are none other imitators and there is no such group of imitators, it is only the unofficial successor yts.ag; Please name me at least 1 other website, beside YTS.ag mentioned in the sources from the Legacy section or from the other referenced sources. All of them refer to YTS.ag. This is the actual fact: only YTS.ag continued the work of former YIFY, bringing new fresh content. Nowadays there are some clones of YTS.ag actually (which can be found using Google, but no article written about them), scraping / cloning YTS.ag content.

You keep insisting on this "promote one above the others", which is not accurate, since there are no other websites with real content except YTS.ag;

P.S.: If you read the most articles referenced in this article, you will find that they mention as content source TorrentFreak.

P.S. 2: TorrentFreak is actually one of the most reliable sources regarding Bitorrent news, not just enthusiastic blog as you call them.

P.S. 3: For example, you replaced TorrentFreak with alternative ("more reliable sources", you said) and used techworm.net as source (please see your revision here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=YIFY&oldid=941951272). When I have added additional info regarding new YTS, exactly from techworm.net, you deleted it and said it is unreliable blog.

So, before making any other inaccurate claims and edits, please name me the other copycats you are mentioning all the time in the edit reasons. Also, you said that the only difference between YTS.ag and the others is the traffic, which definitely is not true, because YTS.ag has the content and the copycats are actually copying YTS.ag with its content and not the old YIFY.

And please ask any other editor and you will also reach the conclusion that Torrentfreak is actually reliable and its the main source of information for Bittorrent news. All articles from the Wikipedia Bittorrent category are based on Torrentfreak articles and the other external referenced articles are also written and based on original Torrentfreak articles.

How can you actually dismiss all the work of Torrentfreak, by saying it is an unreliable source? You can read its own Wikipedia page here: TorrentFreak | According to Canadian law scholar Michael Geist, TorrentFreak "is widely used as a source of original reporting on digital issues". Examples are The Guardian, CNN, The Wall Street Journal, and the Flemish newspaper De Standaard.

Please report accurate facts! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donranase (talk • contribs) 14:18, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

1)You already admitted earlier in the discussion that there are other copycat sites. 2) I did not add techworm. Once I noticed it, I removed it, as it is just a group blog with no editorial staff or fact checkers. 3) The 'actual fact' is that YTS.ag copied YIFY's branding without permission (Not surprising for a pirate site, I'll grant) and then lied about it with misleading blog posts. 4) Consensus is required. Your edits have no agreement and so must remain out of the article until we reach some sort of compromise, I can't see how that will happen if you keep making patently false and self-contradictory claims. - MrOllie (talk) 14:28, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

1) You did not actually named any other copycats of old YIFY, that are competing with YTS.ag. The only copycats alive are copying content from current YTS known in the past 5 years, which is YTS.ag. Also all the cites mentions YTS.ag as being the copycat so I do not see what is your issue mentioning about it since there are none other YTS sites providing their own content, but only scraping from YTS.ag. 2) You did not replace it, being busy with removing Torrentfreak cites then. 3) This is what I was reporting based on articles, that fact that YTS.ag continued the same work the old YIFY did, but using their name. 4) The fact that you do not agree with TorrentFreak articles, this does not mean that your edits are good. Torrentfreak is a reputable source and you blatantly ignore it, simply because they call YTS.ag by name, that's your only problem with that. Regarding self-contradictory claims accusation: please read thoroughly my replies in here: I already stated there are copycats/imitators of current YTS (YTS.ag), not of old YIFY. Donranase (talk) 17:29, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

You can split hairs and claim they're imitating YTS.ag rather than the original, but the fact is they have all stolen the branding from YIFY. We should not mislead Wikipedia's readers about this. - MrOllie (talk) 17:40, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

If you are so sure about your claims, name just one copycat who is producing its own content. YTS/YIFY is not just about some logos and a design. People are actually searching for the YTS/YIFY content, caring less about the branding. When they reach this article, make no mistake, they are looking for current YTS content, not wanting to find only the old branding's history, but also what is the current YTS all about. So, if you do not want to mislead Wikipedia's readers, I say it's best to rename this article to "YIFY by Yiftach Swery" or "Old YIFY" or similar and write a proper article about current YTS and not confuse readers. So we either rename this article and have a new one for current YTS or we include all the content on the same page.Donranase (talk) 17:49, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm not interested in indulging you attempt to move the goalposts. Who is or isn't producing content is immaterial. The issue here is that some unrelated group(s) came along, stole branding, and have been and are lying about this to mislead people. We should not contribute to that on Wikipedia. If you want to write some other article, do that, but don't use the lack of such article and an excuse to pollute this one. - MrOllie (talk) 17:51, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

So you are simply avoiding naming at least one other copycat that contributed in keeping alive all these years the YTS/YIFY brand from the the big group, because you can't, since there is none other. Also, saying that it does not matter who is actually producing content, it is simply mind-blowing. We would not have talked here anymore if it weren't for these guys. Regarding your misleading claims about them: from what I have read on their website, they were pretty straightforward from the beginning (read here: https://yts.ag/blog/yts-ag-is-the-real-yts-domain-for-a-new-yify-group) so I do not know where you got your information. If you actually have any personal interest or know any guys of the old YIFY group, it is not good for the public not knowing the entire information about YIFY till today. You are editing to tell only half of it, up until 2015 and stripped any relevant content afterwards. People need to be correctly informed about all the facts, not only chunks of data.--Donranase (talk) 13:08, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Your attempt to continue this 'content' tangent is noted. As to 'pretty straightforward from the beginning', read https://heavy.com/tech/2015/11/is-yts-ag-real-scam-fake-bait-new-domain-yify-is-back-down-eztv-torrent-alternatives-mpaa-settlement/ - and note that despite what that author says, some of those blog posts with a false signature are still up. The 'entire information about YIFY' is that it ended in 2015, and then someone completely unrelated started a different site. Again, if you want to write about that site -separately- do so, but do not confuse the facts about the original group. - MrOllie (talk) 13:47, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Yiftach Swery

Just wondering why there is so little information here about the owner, with a classic traditional New Zealand name like Yiftach Swery I can't help but wonder where is he from? What's his story? Is he in prison? 121.210.33.50 (talk) 02:40, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Apparently he was able to quickly settle it out of court, minimizing damage to himself. The page for his (now defunct) shell company based in the UK claims that he was born in Israel, actually some guy tried to state that in the article a while ago but included no sources (at the time) so it needed to be removed. Actually, here's something else interesting I wanted to share, but obviously couldn't due to WP policies. His identity was being revealed as early as in 2012 on 4chan /tv/ board although was quickly forgotten about. Then again in 2013, where his name and (defunct) Facebook profile was shared. Then in 2014 someone posted about it again but this time with a photo. Obviously it wasn't until 2015 his identity was shared more widely. I'd love to be able to have put that in the article but quite obviously it wouldn't be allowed on the wiki due to the sourcing policies. Also he is apparently very good at archery. I've found some interesting stuff researching this guy. Tisafa (talk) 09:17, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

References

Why were TorrentFreak sources removed?

Specifically this message is to MrOllie; I don't think it was necessary to remove sources simply for being from TorrentFreak. It's not a bad source, in fact Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources says, and I quote, "Most editors consider TorrentFreak generally reliable on topics involving file sharing. Editors note references to the website in mainstream media". And considering YIFY is based around file sharing it was more than a decent source, especially considering how extensively they cover the topic. Tisafa (talk) 09:05, 3 March 2020 (UTC)