Fact - Mirror: I have an extremely limited download capacity; however feel that if I access or utilize a site [in my case two] there is a certain obligation to contribute in some small capacity, when possible. In this case it consisted of a 15 book series that in line with the forum rules I split into two separate links. A mobi link was inserted followed by a Mirror link of the same books in epub format. However, this was not acceptable. This forum requested a mirror to the original mobi only, sort of cutting off your nose to spite your face or taking things to the extreme.
We have implemented a mirror rule to make the downloading of files from certain hosts easier for users like you. There can't be a double standard when applying the rule.
Fact - Poor quality releases: How many times do you see a brilliantly formatted post with terribly formatted releases? For example, it is common to find a series of releases that are in such poor shape that deletion is the best option, however the poster received their 30 wrz and I assume is quite content with that. Now lets say I had the same series in v5.0 or spent 100 hours correcting all of the scan and formatting issues. I cannot start a new thread [double posting], and for all that work or money spent I would receive exactly 3wrz for adding a mirror!. Further on this issue many many people download these poorly formatted/transcribed editions and miss out on those that were not listed due to the aforementioned. Therefore, as I see it, the promoting and upholding of the single release rule, that this forum seems adamant in protecting in entirety, without exception or without discretion, works effectively against the whole.
If you have the best interest of the site and its users at heart, you post a mirror and state your claim about the quality of the files quite clearly in your reply. Maybe we'll get posters to start being more concious about this fact, since not all seem to be.
But not protecting the double post rule 'in entirety, without exception or without discretion
' would open the door to more and bigger problems than we already have with some posters.
Fact - Links to previous listings: If I post a series of say 15 books (grinz), and discover that three of the books in that series have been individually listed. However, I find two of these links are dead and the others formatting does not compare. As a lister and adhering to the RULES, I must waste your time and frustrate you by refraining to make available to you the entire series. I must list only the new releases and provide links to the deleted and sub standard.
Yes, you do. See my reply to this issue here: viewtopic.php?f=1147&t=237518
Just a little trivia concerning this post: viewtopic.php?f=19&t=237557
I received an email outlining some of the above that included an entire paragraph on the use of an additional line with the “Download Link”
My pm outlined more than that, the additional line was just one of the things to correct in that post. We have posting rules that we must follow, just like posters do in other sites. We ask for Name of book by Name of author + formats to be included in the Subject line, while other sites ask for Name of author dash
Name of book dash
size of file dash
File Host. Your post is kicked out if it doesn't comply.
We ask for you to add information into the spaces given by default, already bolded and underlined, including the Download Instructions where you simply add a link. In other sites you do it all, including the BOLD and the COLOUR of the whole text and the uploading of a 'Download' button, apart from the link, of course. Your post is either edited by a mod or kicked out if it doesn't comply. How different is that?
The only issue that really worries me is the bad quality of the files uploaded, so if you find a way to correct that without stepping on somebody else's rights, please feel free to share! I, for one, will be eternally grateful.
Thanks a lot,