Philip Meyer;423668 Wrote: > Having more options will always complicate the code, support, > documentation, maintainability, and ultimately make the software more > likely to fail. I also believe that the developer efforts can be more > wisely spent on other areas that need more work. If there were enough > users complaining about the state of their library and they weren't > explainable through currently available options or tagging, the > developers would have made changes by now.
like i said, thats a cannard. i see all this effort put into weird esoteric stuff all the time. not saying that stuff is bogus, but it was literally YEARS from when i first posted about TPE2/AA before it was eventually realized. that was such a BASIC and OBVIOUS need, and yet i had to fight tooth and nail to get it, and only now, after the fact, when the first camp saw it didn't upset their apple carts, is there now general acceptance that its a necessary and in fact widespread used option. Philip Meyer;423668 Wrote: > The scanning code has mainly been left untouched, and generally the vast > majority of users are content. define "content?" seems to me that i see a lot of posts, like in this very thread, where people are not content, or any semblenceof content. i would also posit that many more people simply make do wit less than an optimal experience b/c they don't want to get bogged down in arguments with people like you in the first camp who see nothing justified in the second camps views. Philip Meyer;423668 Wrote: > > >> How many of those people don't understand tagging in general; don't > >> understand how other applications treat their tags. How many other > >> applictions have good forums like this one? > >> What is the percentage - how many people do understand tagging and > >> think what we have is great? > > > >so only those that think SC is great understand tagging? seems kind > of > >chicken/eggish don't you think? not to mention elitist. > > > Twisting the meaning of my words. not at all! you very clearly implied that only people who understood tagging would then obviously think SC is great. there is only one conclusion to be drawn from that statement. Philip Meyer;423668 Wrote: > What's the ratio between content/unhappy customers? How many would > benefit from changes? How many with tagging issues have a perfect > library in another app? WinAmp doesn't support compilations; even > iTunes has that. So someone who has compilation issues in SC doesn't in > WinAmp, because it doesn't support them at all. That doesn't mean that > SC is wrong. WMP also doesn't support comps afaik, or to put it another way, WMP and winamp simply rely on the user being able to tell certain strings probably mean comp. i don't see why you want these apps to specifically classify comps as comps tho? b/c SC does that? is that a reason they should? u frame the question as content/unhappy. i frame it as two camps. one camp is already happy b/c they do everything they do based on how SC will react. the only way they could be made unhappy would be to force them to change their tags, something i do NOT think is necessary to satisfy the second camp. the other camp currently is unhappy, confused, and ultimately more often then not walks away, b/c the experience is unituitive, confusing, undocumented, and worst of all, often incompatible or too involved to easily gel with other apps (and users). Philip Meyer;423668 Wrote: > > >SC should be trying to get customers, not proselytize the word of > >phil. > > > SC ARE getting customers, and not because of the word of Mr Sinatra. yes, mostly from the first camp. Philip Meyer;423668 Wrote: > > >how many people try it, think its 'naff,' and never bother to post? > > > How many people try it, love it, and never bother to post? not as many. come on, is that really the point? shouldn't the BUSINESS point ATTEMPT TO BE to keep ANYONE from walking away unnecessarily? Philip Meyer;423668 Wrote: > > >what i think makes no sense at all is this attitude that 'IF you want > >to use SC/slim stuff, then frankly, do it our way or its the > highway.' > > > There are many supported ways, not one. not sure what that means. but i'd contend that FORCING VA comp detection on is only ONE way. Philip Meyer;423668 Wrote: > > >far better would be, 'we're flexible and in most cases can be made to > >work EASILY with your existing data.' > > > They are flexible, and probably do make that claim. but it isn't true. my guess is you would have said the same exact thing before 8001. Philip Meyer;423668 Wrote: > > >i do NOT want every artist mismatch WITHOUT an album artist tag to > end > >up as a comp, b/c in many cases it isn't a comp, (like the duets > >example). > > > But you keep reminding us that everything in the world always sets an > album artist tag, so surely all your albums do have an album artist tag, > and therefore you don't have a problem. AH... but i want SC to know whats a comp. however, if i set a comp tag, it'll sort (i think) to only ONE big category, which i DON'T want... and on and on... why not allow things to sort via AA even if it thinks its a comp? why not allow other ways to tell its a comp? Philip Meyer;423668 Wrote: > Again I ask you what you believe SC scanner should do if there's a duets > album without comp and album artist tags? You say you want to turn off > auto VA processing, but how would you want that album to be stored? > What artist would the album be listed under? Some people physically > store their music in a strict artist/album/songs folder structure, so > the album songs may not even be together. Just how do you expect it to > function? this gets back to the whole problem i have with the browsing exp, the entire paradigm is flawed... but i think what would happen is that each track would be listed as a separate artist is the artist listing. if browsing by album, then all the tracks and artists should be listed under that album name. why should SC force detection of duets as a comp and place it in the VA category IF you DON'T want that? Philip Meyer;423668 Wrote: > > >further, i don't want SC to blindly call all comps AA = "Various > >Artists" and stick them all in a category of the same name. > > > Then give them a different album artist name. you misunderstood; what i meant is i don't want SC to populate the SC DB AA field with "Various Artists" for everything it calls a comp, and stick it under a category of the same name. Philip Meyer;423668 Wrote: > > >i don't know if comp tags over-ride having an AA tag, as to where it > >sorts or what SC populates the AA field with. > If a comp tag is set, the album is always a compilation. > If an album artist tag is also set, that album would be listed under > that album artist name, and it would be indicated as a compilation. > > So you can have a compilation album by "Soundtrack" if you really want > it, no problem. Of course, compilation tag isn't really required, > because the album artist will keep the tracks together under one artist > name. but there are times its good for SC to know something is a comp. so this is very good, meaning that if you what u say is true, (and i don't doubt you), that it would sort by AA and still know something was a comp. my objection at this point, would only be that i want more optional ways to identify a comp, but thats a much more minor complaint then some of the other points i am trying to make. i did get winamp to add TCMP to the wishlist. Philip Meyer;423668 Wrote: > > >but i don't want to use comp tags anyway, if i can avoid it. > Why? b/c its an added manual step, just like using SORT tags would be if i had to do that. i know you disagree, but i think user defined string recognition or user defined directory/folder location would be preferable, and not unlike "guess tag format." i could simply rip and place, and have SC figure it out on its own, no extra tagging required. -- MrSinatra www.lion-radio.org using: sb2 & sbc (my home) / sbr (parent's home) - w/sc 7.3.3b - win xp pro sp3 ie8 - 3.2ghz / 2gig ram - 1tb wd usb2 raid1 - d-link dir-655 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ MrSinatra's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2336 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=57922 _______________________________________________ beta mailing list [email protected] http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/beta
