yeah I'm not sure if its the original releasers that do it or not, but the rar's that are passed around look like that.
However, they are in violation of the TDX guidelines, which means technically, they are nukes if your that trollish
| Code: |
│ Directory Naming: │
│ - Directory names shall NOT exceed 64 characters. │
│ - All releases are to include production year. │
│ - DO NOT indicate Ripping method (MM4/VM2/VBR/SBC and so on), │
│ WS (widescreen), DVD/DivX release DATE, GENRE or anything else │
│ in the directory name (ONLY within the NFO). │
│ - Acceptable characters in naming a directory include (NO spaces or │
│ double dots - single dots or underscores ONLY): │
│ │
│ ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ │
│ abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz │
│ 0123456789 . -_ │
│ │
│ - All Release directories, regardless of year, shall be named according │
│ to Movie.Name.Year.Source.Codec-Group, suggested naming for the movie │
│ itself shall follow the same procedure │
│ (i.e. Movie.Name.Year.Source.Codec-Group.avi, │
│ Movie.Name.CD1.Year.Source.Codec-Group.avi). │
│ │
│ - Releases that are more than 1 CD will follow these specs: │
│ - MUST be named CD1, CD2, CD3 and so on. ('disc1', etc will NOT │
│ be allowed). │
│ - There MUST be a SFV included for each CD. │
│ - Rars MUST be broken into 2 or more CD volumes. (78 rars of a 2 │
│ disc title will NOT be tolerated) │ |
I *always* rename them to what they should be because its unfair on people who are searching (plus its pretty retarded for archiving). It also prevents their filenames being mutilated down the line, I think this naming function they've gotten themselves into is a reason why you see hundreds of varying filenames
If the release groups followed TDX it should be:
ed2k:
Dracula.Pages.From.A.Virgins.Diary.2002.DVDrip.Xvid-Twist.avi [701.13 Mb] [
Stats]
although this looks better imo:
ed2k:
Dracula.Pages.From.A.Virgins.Diary.2002.Xvid-DVDrip.Twist.avi [701.13 Mb] [
Stats]
Which is why I wonder if someone is doing it along the line or not, and the group themselves did it...
However the original filename in this case warrants a retagging based on a) the absence of a movie name b) the absense of a release year c) the absence of a source... it is totally inadequet for being released imo. In addition details on cut status would be another reason to warrant a rejubbling of info.
[ Add all 2 links to your ed2k client ]
