So here’s the thing: does it even make sense to keep years of a single database when the links obviously die after a few months? Wouldn’t it be more logical to keep a database of like 6 months to a year max, with links that are updated and actually working?
Site Feedback
- Thread starter Scnlog
- Start date
- Joined
- 30 Apr 2023
- Messages
- 11,483
- Appreciation score
- 18,358
I think the owner keeps the old pages up as they are indexed by Google and attract people to the site.
Updating links? Insane ... that would require hundreds of TB of storage.
The bot(s) can't even keep up posting new stuff, not sure how re-uploading old stuff is going to make it any better.
I guess that's why the forum is here, if it's down or missing, you ask for it here ...
Yes, files get uploaded on the day they're released but most are dead by the time they're publicly posted on site because of the 2 weeks delay right now.
2 weeks delay means 2 weeks of inactivity, and with inactivity files gets deleted after a few days.
We're back to this winter situation, it took 6 months to fill the delay gap.
Since, as I understand, nothing can be done, the delay will be minimal again around February 2027.
Luckily, I can find the new stuff from other sources (though I’d love to find it here).
So, for me, it’s not really important to catch up on the “old” releases.
Why not just reset things, stop digging up old stuff, and start fresh with the daily-synched updates?
I know it sucks, but as it's now, the site’s pretty much unusable—at least for anyone looking for fresh stuff.
So, for me, it’s not really important to catch up on the “old” releases.
Why not just reset things, stop digging up old stuff, and start fresh with the daily-synched updates?
I know it sucks, but as it's now, the site’s pretty much unusable—at least for anyone looking for fresh stuff.
Last edited: