fox88, on 05 July 2015 - 12:36 AM, said:
inman, on 02 July 2015 - 10:28 PM, said:
irrelevant points about how Kad is more popular etc.
The real point was not popularity, but that it is silly to suggest not to use KAD, especially when a few people connect to KAD only.
It is just as silly to use Kad only, given it indexes less files and more slowly.
I never said it was silly to use Kad "but using Kad to search is not recommended if you want to avoid fake files." You are putting words into my mouth. It is however, silly to search on Kad, rather than the servers.
Quote
Before discussing advanced topics, please try to understand simple written text first.
Just guess how smart you look when you do not get the meaning but readily jump to conclusions.
Again, conclusions I 'jumped to' based on
years of experience of downloading fakes. Actually it was you who jumped to conclusions by saying both Kad and servers provide fake results. This is not an accurate statement. Kad provides MORE fake results. You then back tracked on that statement and argued that sources in Kad can be spammed, resulting in more fakes? I don't filter out spam results? Yet another conclusion you jumped to.
Quote
You know what logic is about, don't you?
If your initial point has no proof, it can be assumed to be false.
And that is the end of discussion; no matter what other bright ideas you have in your head.
You ignore simple concepts: Files are named by humans & not my computers. Therefore, there is no guaranteed way to verify the file names, unless you know the hash of the file beforehand. Since this is impossible, without downloading illegal content from elsewhere & by chance finding a fake of that particular file, I am not going to do this. This method would also skew my results as I am limited to what I can compare based on these hash comparisons. Most hashes I can't find beforehand, and these are more likely to be the fake files. Screenshots are only partial verification and I am not taking screen shots of porn & other crap which fakes files turn out to be.
Now you see how difficult it is to "prove" anything?
Quote
Actually there were 3 (three) numbers taken into acccount: number [sic] of reported sources, number of publishers and the trust value.
The rest of your sentense [sic] shows the same level of understanding. Now who is clueless?
Why don't you help the OP instead of arguing like a 4 year old, and spelling "sentence" like a 4 year old for the 2nd consecutive time?
For the record, I meant:
97 is one, meaningless, number.
You should perform one than one test to ensure reliability and to ensure the outcome is not an exception. Or did basic science lessons not teach you anything?
You should also at least draw a meaningful conclusion from this result and confirm whether the file(s) are real or fake. You still haven't and this is what you are clueless about.
This post has been edited by inman: 05 July 2015 - 05:37 PM