Go Back   Winamp & Shoutcast Forums > Winamp > Winamp Bug Reports

Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 25th November 2012, 17:23   #1
ryerman
Major Dude
 
ryerman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Canada
Posts: 670
Bug: Ratings read incorrectly from FLAC files

My experience is that Winamp rates FLAC files like this:

Selection in Winamp: Value of Vorbis Comment "Rating"
(no rating):Rating comment not written
1 star: 20
2 stars: 40
3 stars: 60
4 stars: 80
5 stars: 100

So it seems reasonable that Winamp should read and interpret the Rating comment like this:

Value of Vorbis Comment "Rating": rating shown in Winamp
0-19 or no rating comment: (no rating)
20-39: 1 star
40-59: 2 stars
60-79: 3 stars
80-99: 4 stars
100: 5 stars

Instead, the Vorbis Comment "Rating" seems to be misinterpreted for values 1 to 10, inclusive.

Value of Vorbis Comment "Rating": rating shown in Winamp
1: 1 star
2: 2 stars
3: 3 stars
4: 4 stars
5: 5 stars
6: 3 stars
7: 3 stars
8: 4 stars
9: 4 stars
10: 5 stars

Shouldn't there be no rating shown in Winamp for FLAC files with a Vorbis Comment rating less than 20?

Windows 10 Home, 64 bit, Winamp 5.666, Bento Skin
ryerman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26th November 2012, 09:32   #2
MrSinatra
Forum King
 
MrSinatra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: WKPS, State College
Posts: 5,623
Send a message via AIM to MrSinatra
my exp has been that most apps will treat ANY numerical value other than an explicit " 0 " or blank/null/no value/nonexistant field, as at least 1 star.

so, the scale would be:

null/0 = unrated, no stars
1-20 = 1 star

(i believe the intent in doing so is to visually indicate to the user that a value is actually present, otherwise they would not know without examining tags)

and at this point, apps seem to deviate a bit. some would then treat 21-40 as 2 stars, while others would treat 1-29 as one star, and 30 to 49 as 2 stars.

i am comfortable with how winamp writes it. it seems to match what MM and SBS/LMS do to interpret it.

keep in mind the need for granularity. if one has an app that does half stars, they need 10 to be half a star, that kind of thing.

i don't know how winamp reads it, but i would hope its something like this:

0 = 0 stars
1-20 = 1 star
21-40 = 2
41-60 = 3
61-80 = 4
81-100 = 5

that system basically allows for 20 points of granularity between star levels.

PENN STATE Radio or http://www.LION-Radio.org/
--
BUG #1 = Winamp skips short tracks
Wish #1 = Multiple Column Sorting
Wish #2 = Add TCMP/Compilation editing
MrSinatra is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26th November 2012, 11:41   #3
DrO
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 27,873
it does the following (which i believe is what was said to be done in the respective discussion thread):
  • if it's over 10 then it's assumed to be 0-100 so it'lll do value divided by 20.
  • if it's over 5 and less than 10 then it's assumed to be 0-10 so it'll do value divided by 2
  • anything else is done as is (i.e. 0-5 range)
so to my understanding it's working as expected.

the only issue i'm seeing is some of the lookups via the right-click menu in the playlist editor (though that's more likely from it not being in the library and not trying to look at the raw file).

[edit]
have changed the non-ML rating handling so it'll attempt to pull from the file where possible

-daz
DrO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26th November 2012, 19:40   #4
MrSinatra
Forum King
 
MrSinatra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: WKPS, State College
Posts: 5,623
Send a message via AIM to MrSinatra
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrO View Post
it does the following (which i believe is what was said to be done in the respective discussion thread):
  • if it's over 10 then it's assumed to be 0-100 so it'lll do value divided by 20.
  • if it's over 5 and less than 10 then it's assumed to be 0-10 so it'll do value divided by 2
  • anything else is done as is (i.e. 0-5 range)
so to my understanding it's working as expected.
i don't recall any discussion about this methodology of interpretation, but i do consider this to be intelligent handling, given that different apps write these values with differing scales.

winamp seems to write values using the 0,20,40,60,80,100 scale, which i think is basically the de facto standard. but i am sure some apps out there other than winamp write a scale of 0-5 or 0-10, so winamp reading them this way makes sense.

the only problem is lack of granularity if winamp ever choose to do half stars, and even then, the problem would only arise for values between 0-10, but something to be kept in mind.

what happens if the value is 11-19? i assume that still shows as one star, yes?

Quote:
Originally Posted by DrO View Post
the only issue i'm seeing is some of the lookups via the right-click menu in the playlist editor (though that's more likely from it not being in the library and not trying to look at the raw file).

[edit]
have changed the non-ML rating handling so it'll attempt to pull from the file where possible

-daz
this sounds like it might explain, and have fixed, a bug with ratings i previously reported. i'm a bit vague on the exact details, but it was something like this: if you have a file, rate it (via the top center file info pane), and then move it, then play it again from windows explorer, the rating would not show in that same pane.

i think attempting to pull ratings from files first, then the ML, might fix this issue, and more importantly, is the smart way to do it anyway, as the user wants to see the reality of the data in the files, not the more transient nature of whats in the DB.

this also exposed what might be another bug: i have winamp set to NOT add files to ML when played, however, simply rating a file being played seems to over-ride this setting. so thats why the rating would not display once the file was moved, b/c it was no longer where the ML thought it was, and the rating was being pulled from ML first.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MrSinatra View Post
some would then treat 21-40 as 2 stars, while others would treat 1-29 as one star, and 30 to 49 as 2 stars.
i just wanted to clarify why i don't favor this system... the basic issue is that 1-29 ends up being 1 star or various degrees of one star, and so 90-100 or 91-100 ends up being all the granularity you get at the top of the scale. its just not nearly as clean or intuitive, and its wasteful, as who needs 29 points of granularity for one star type material?

PENN STATE Radio or http://www.LION-Radio.org/
--
BUG #1 = Winamp skips short tracks
Wish #1 = Multiple Column Sorting
Wish #2 = Add TCMP/Compilation editing
MrSinatra is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26th November 2012, 20:04   #5
Aminifu
Forum King
 
Aminifu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 4,658
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrO View Post
if it's over 5 and less than 10 then it's assumed to be 0-10 so it'll do value divided by 5

-daz
Did you mean to write "if it's over 5 and less than 11 then it's assumed to be 0-10 so it'll do value divided by 2"?

Winamp Pro v5.666.3516 fully-patched - Komodo X Touchscreen v1.0 by Victhor skin
Windows 10 Home 64-bit v1809 desktop - Logitech Z906 5.1 speaker system
Aminifu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26th November 2012, 20:08   #6
DrO
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 27,873
Aminifu: yeah meant 2 not 5, have fixed the posts above.

-daz
DrO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26th November 2012, 20:17   #7
MrSinatra
Forum King
 
MrSinatra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: WKPS, State College
Posts: 5,623
Send a message via AIM to MrSinatra
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aminifu View Post
Did you mean to write "if it's over 5 and less than 11 then it's assumed to be 0-10 so it'll do value divided by 2"?
i hope so, but more important than what he intended to write, is what winamp does.

sounds like there are three handling situations, one for 0/1-5, one for 0/6-10, and one for everything else, (i.e. 0/1-100).

assuming that what you wrote is what he intended to say, and what winamp does, i think its sensible, it just has low end granularity caveats, but they don't concern me presently.

PENN STATE Radio or http://www.LION-Radio.org/
--
BUG #1 = Winamp skips short tracks
Wish #1 = Multiple Column Sorting
Wish #2 = Add TCMP/Compilation editing
MrSinatra is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26th November 2012, 20:18   #8
MrSinatra
Forum King
 
MrSinatra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: WKPS, State College
Posts: 5,623
Send a message via AIM to MrSinatra
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrO View Post
Aminifu: yeah meant 2 not 5, have fixed the posts above.

-daz
not to nitpik, but it should be "less than 11" not "less than 10"

more important, does winamp know this?

PENN STATE Radio or http://www.LION-Radio.org/
--
BUG #1 = Winamp skips short tracks
Wish #1 = Multiple Column Sorting
Wish #2 = Add TCMP/Compilation editing
MrSinatra is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26th November 2012, 20:19   #9
DrO
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 27,873
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrSinatra View Post
winamp seems to write values using the 0,20,40,60,80,100 scale, which i think is basically the de facto standard. but i am sure some apps out there other than winamp write a scale of 0-5 or 0-10, so winamp reading them this way makes sense.
all i remember is 0-100 was picked as the writing range based on what came up in whichever forum thread detailed things or what was found from elsewhere.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MrSinatra View Post
the only problem is lack of granularity if winamp ever choose to do half stars, and even then, the problem would only arise for values between 0-10, but something to be kept in mind.
thinking ahead is good and with how everything else seems to re-map things, if it was to happen (which i think is about as likely as me going to the moon), the scalings being used would allow it to happen without too much pain.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MrSinatra View Post
what happens if the value is 11-19? i assume that still shows as one star, yes?
in this case it is still treated as no stars and will only show a star when it's on or above 0,20,40,60,80,100.


Quote:
Originally Posted by MrSinatra View Post
this sounds like it might explain, and have fixed, a bug with ratings i previously reported. i'm a bit vague on the exact details, but it was something like this: if you have a file, rate it (via the top center file info pane), and then move it, then play it again from windows explorer, the rating would not show in that same pane.
it might help with that if the moved instance still isn't in the library. there is still a case where externally changing the metadata won't be noticed until Winamp is re-started or you play a different file of the same type, i.e. you play a different file due to how the input plug-ins try to cache things based on the last filename.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MrSinatra View Post
i think attempting to pull ratings from files first, then the ML, might fix this issue, and more importantly, is the smart way to do it anyway, as the user wants to see the reality of the data in the files, not the more transient nature of whats in the DB.
fair point but i'm not going to alter that behaviour as it then just nullifies the point of ratings being in the library - it's done that way so it's quicker than parsing out of the actual file. yes if you rate things externally then it'll get funky but this is why doing it via one consistent method needs to be done - trying to code something to cover anything and everything imposes increased disk activity when it's not needed and has the potential to slow Winamp down.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MrSinatra View Post
this also exposed what might be another bug: i have winamp set to NOT add files to ML when played, however, simply rating a file being played seems to over-ride this setting. so thats why the rating would not display once the file was moved, b/c it was no longer where the ML thought it was, and the rating was being pulled from ML first.
it's always done that in it'll add the rating to the library whenever the library is available since that is where the API calls made by parts of Winamp go first.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MrSinatra View Post
i just wanted to clarify why i don't favor this system... the basic issue is that 1-29 ends up being 1 star or various degrees of one star, and so 90-100 or 91-100 ends up being all the granularity you get at the top of the scale. its just not nearly as clean or intuitive, and its wasteful, as who needs 29 points of granularity for one star type material?
eh? 0,20,40,60,80,100 is the ranges so there's only 20 degrees between them, not 29 (not sure how you've gotten that). though this does re-inforce my view that ratings are evil and too subject (since no one can agree on how they're meant to be consistently handled, and yes Winamp hasn't helped with a 5* range).

-daz
DrO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26th November 2012, 20:21   #10
DrO
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 27,873
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrSinatra View Post
sounds like there are three handling situations, one for 0/1-5, one for 0/6-10, and one for everything else, (i.e. 0/1-100).
that is correct, but not in that order, how i listed them is how it's handling with 0-100, 0-10 and 0-5 as the order it drops down so what i said for the checks is correct with how the logic is coded.

-daz
DrO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26th November 2012, 20:29   #11
MrSinatra
Forum King
 
MrSinatra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: WKPS, State College
Posts: 5,623
Send a message via AIM to MrSinatra
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrO View Post
that is correct, but not in that order, how i listed them is how it's handling with 0-100, 0-10 and 0-5 as the order it drops down so what i said for the checks is correct with how the logic is coded.

-daz
something still seems off here. so what if the value IS ten? you said "less than ten" so that would only be 6-9, so that handling wouldn't apply.

should it not be "less than 11"? what am i missing?

PENN STATE Radio or http://www.LION-Radio.org/
--
BUG #1 = Winamp skips short tracks
Wish #1 = Multiple Column Sorting
Wish #2 = Add TCMP/Compilation editing
MrSinatra is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26th November 2012, 20:35   #12
DrO
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 27,873
psuedo-code of what is going on (maybe what i've said above is not being followed as to what i mean so here you go):
PHP Code:
if (rating 10) {
    
// handles 0-100
    
rating /= 20;
}
else if (
rating 5) {
    
// handles 0-10
    
rating /= 2;
}
else {
    
// use rating as-is

-daz
DrO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26th November 2012, 21:29   #13
MrSinatra
Forum King
 
MrSinatra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: WKPS, State College
Posts: 5,623
Send a message via AIM to MrSinatra
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrO View Post
psuedo-code of what is going on (maybe what i've said above is not being followed as to what i mean so here you go):

<snip>
ok, i'm going to drop this b/c i trust you know and understand this better than i do; and i'm comfortable you have the code right, even if you might have the plain english wrong, which i'm also not sure of, and is nitpicking regardless.

what matters is what winamp does, and i'll test it eventually as now i am curious, (but it doesn't really matter to me, b/c i use a 0-100 scale anyway! )

Quote:
Originally Posted by DrO View Post
all i remember is 0-100 was picked as the writing range based on what came up in whichever forum thread detailed things or what was found from elsewhere.
yes, that def was discussed. 0-100 is the most popular implementation afaict, and the de facto standard is the only standard since vorbis has very little documented spec.

it was the three handling cases i never heard of before, but i completely approve of them, (even with the low end granularity caveats).

Quote:
Originally Posted by DrO View Post
thinking ahead is good and with how everything else seems to re-map things, if it was to happen (which i think is about as likely as me going to the moon), the scalings being used would allow it to happen without too much pain.
it is important to note that WMP allows half stars R/W, and i think even smaller fractions of a star, at least for display. its one area where WMP beats winamp, but it only does so for id3 and wma i think, i don't believe it supports vorbis.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DrO View Post
in this case it is still treated as no stars and will only show a star when it's on or above 0,20,40,60,80,100.
i would quibble with winamps handling here. it is kind of nonsensical for null/0 AND 11-19 to show nothing, when all other positive values show something. as i said earlier in the thread, the user needs some kind of visual indication of data present, vs 0 or no data present.

how else are they to know?

11-19 divided by 20 is still a positive value, even if under "1"

Quote:
Originally Posted by DrO View Post
it might help with that if the moved instance still isn't in the library.
meaning what? if the file is moved, its now NOT in the ML DB, even if the file had been rated in its previous location by virtue of having the rating written there in that previous location. so the rating will now show with your change, right? that sounds better to me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DrO View Post
there is still a case where externally changing the metadata won't be noticed until Winamp is re-started or you play a different file of the same type, i.e. you play a different file due to how the input plug-ins try to cache things based on the last filename.
can you explain this more, or point to a thread on it? this isn't really what i was talking about however; in my example all the metadata handling was being done by winamp, and it was only being moved/double clicked on for play by windows explorer.

i found the thread where i documented pretty verbosely what was happening:

http://forums.winamp.com/showthread.php?t=327341

Quote:
Originally Posted by DrO View Post
fair point but i'm not going to alter that behaviour as it then just nullifies the point of ratings being in the library - it's done that way so it's quicker than parsing out of the actual file.
ah, ok, i didn't realize there was a significant performance difference. i understand the choice being made here if so.

but then, what is the change you are saying you did make? it sounds like all files that are unrated in the ML DB will now be parsed to be sure they have no rating; is that the case?

Quote:
Originally Posted by DrO View Post
yes if you rate things externally then it'll get funky but this is why doing it via one consistent method needs to be done - trying to code something to cover anything and everything imposes increased disk activity when it's not needed and has the potential to slow Winamp down.
but that is NOT what i did. i rated WITHIN winamp, just not via the ML, but rather the file info window, (to the right of the player controls in Bento). i never rate a file with something outside of winamp.

example:

DL a file. doubleclick it in windows explorer, it plays. its not in ML yet b/c winamp is set not to add played files to ML on purpose. while playing, rate the file using the file info area to the right of the player controls. rating is now in the tag, which is good, but the file is now in the ML DB even though the user does not want it to be. now, move the file on HD elsewhere. double click it again to play it, and even though the rating is in the tag, it does not show in the file info pane to the right of the player controls.

this seems to be because that pane only gets its info from the ML DB, and not the file itself.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DrO View Post
it's always done that in it'll add the rating to the library whenever the library is available since that is where the API calls made by parts of Winamp go first.
i don't really understand this. are you saying ANY metadata edits will add a played file to the ML DB? or just rating ones?

Quote:
Originally Posted by DrO View Post
eh? 0,20,40,60,80,100 is the ranges so there's only 20 degrees between them, not 29 (not sure how you've gotten that). though this does re-inforce my view that ratings are evil and too subject (since no one can agree on how they're meant to be consistently handled, and yes Winamp hasn't helped with a 5* range).

-daz
i think you missed the context there, i was talking about other apps, which have handling like that, so that a file with say a 27 value, ends up being 1 star. i was talking about those apps, (and i disapprove of them/their handling), not winamp! winamp seems to be very smart overall by comparison, (although i do think the user should be allowed to set the ranges they want for each tag standard, if not by pref then by ini exposure, but i'm not hardcore about it).

ratings are def not evil, they are incredibly useful. yes, each person, app, format, etc can all vary in how they see or use them, but thats hardly the point. if i create a smartview of a genre, or several genres, and just want to hear "the best" to whatever degree, for anything from a party, to programming a radio station, then ratings are indispensible.

PENN STATE Radio or http://www.LION-Radio.org/
--
BUG #1 = Winamp skips short tracks
Wish #1 = Multiple Column Sorting
Wish #2 = Add TCMP/Compilation editing
MrSinatra is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26th November 2012, 22:02   #14
Aminifu
Forum King
 
Aminifu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 4,658
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrSinatra View Post
11-19 divided by 20 is still a positive value, even if under "1"
I pretty sure Winamp is using integer math for this (no fractions), so the value would be zero.


Quote:
Originally Posted by MrSinatra View Post
meaning what? if the file is moved, its now NOT in the ML DB, ...
It would still be in the database unless the option to remove missing files has been enabled (which is not the default, if I remember correctly).

Winamp Pro v5.666.3516 fully-patched - Komodo X Touchscreen v1.0 by Victhor skin
Windows 10 Home 64-bit v1809 desktop - Logitech Z906 5.1 speaker system
Aminifu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26th November 2012, 22:35   #15
MrSinatra
Forum King
 
MrSinatra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: WKPS, State College
Posts: 5,623
Send a message via AIM to MrSinatra
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aminifu View Post
I pretty sure Winamp is using integer math for this (no fractions), so the value would be zero.
but my point is thats not the right method to use, b/c the means do not serve the ends, and it would have to change anyway if granularity was ever introduced.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aminifu View Post
...unless the option to remove missing files has been enabled (which is not the default, if I remember correctly).
second part first:

it IS the default, but this whole thing is besides the point. i am talking about the now moved file, so that is a NEW instance of the file to winamp, and its not in the ML DB in that case. winamp does not track files or have any awareness that a file in one place used to be a file [aka the same file] in another place.

and regardless, one would have to instigate a rescan / remove missing files and then refresh anyway, so thats all basically moot.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aminifu View Post
It would still be in the database...
yes, of course the original record of the file would still be in the database, but that [record] has nothing at all to do with a file once that file's moved. once moved, this file is a new file to winamp, and would create a new record (with no relationship whatsoever to the original record) if "rerated" or whatnot.

PENN STATE Radio or http://www.LION-Radio.org/
--
BUG #1 = Winamp skips short tracks
Wish #1 = Multiple Column Sorting
Wish #2 = Add TCMP/Compilation editing
MrSinatra is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26th November 2012, 22:58   #16
DrO
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 27,873
there's just too much in the posts above to answer everything so here's a skim-read reply...


when a file is rated, if the library is present then it gets added to it as the library is the primary storage for ratings. no other metadata actions add it to the library in that manner (playcounts for history are a different thing).


0-19 is treated as no star since as Aminfu correctly notes, integer maths is being used and yes 19/20 is 0.95 but that's not 1 so it's treated as zero. the same applies when going up the scale so only 100 can be 5 star with the logic mentioned (which is the same as applied to the other formats when trying to figure out the rating from everyone being consistent in being inconsistent).


with things not being updated, etc, making it use the non-ML lookups if nothing comes back from the library is likely to resolve the issue you've mentioned in that thread. i cannot guarantee it 100% but it's fairly likely.

what my point is that if it's the file being (re-)rated was also rated outside of Winamp and you've not looked at the metadata of another file of the same type (i.e. another flac file) then there's a chance that it won't reflect the external change unless a full refresh of the metadata is made and in cases can require a Winamp restart so the caching will be dropped and so the input plug-in can then see what's happened (as it's having to assume that only modifications are being made in Winamp and not externally - yes it's crude but in most cases it's good for how it benefits the way Winamp works).

that's something which probably needs to be changed in the library handling to ensure that at least refresh metadata action will do it no matter what the prior state of caching (and i think that may have come up in some old bug reports over the years).


and you'll be getting a pm related to what is being talked about in this thread shortly.

-daz
DrO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26th November 2012, 23:02   #17
Aminifu
Forum King
 
Aminifu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 4,658
Hi MrSinatra,

I agree with you about my second point. I did not think it through.

As to the integer math, reading between the lines of what DrO wrote about rating handling in Winamp in general. I think this is what was done, whether it was the right method to use or not is another thing.

EDIT:
I was writing my response, so did not see DrO's post #16 first.

Winamp Pro v5.666.3516 fully-patched - Komodo X Touchscreen v1.0 by Victhor skin
Windows 10 Home 64-bit v1809 desktop - Logitech Z906 5.1 speaker system
Aminifu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26th November 2012, 23:17   #18
Aminifu
Forum King
 
Aminifu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 4,658
The fact that Winamp and some plug-ins only pick up some changes during a restart is reasonable in terms of limiting impact on runtime performance and keeping overall code size down.

Winamp Pro v5.666.3516 fully-patched - Komodo X Touchscreen v1.0 by Victhor skin
Windows 10 Home 64-bit v1809 desktop - Logitech Z906 5.1 speaker system
Aminifu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27th November 2012, 05:42   #19
ryerman
Major Dude
 
ryerman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Canada
Posts: 670
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrO View Post
psuedo-code of what is going on (maybe what i've said above is not being followed as to what i mean so here you go):
PHP Code:
if (rating 10) {
    
// handles 0-100
    
rating /= 20;
}
else if (
rating 5) {
    
// handles 0-10
    
rating /= 2;
}
else {
    
// use rating as-is

-daz
The code seems to assume that the value of the rating determines which scale was used when the file was rated. But that is not true. For example; 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 are legitimate ratings in any scale with an upper limit greater than 4.

If files have been rated using the 0-10 scale, then a 4 rating would receive 2 stars. But the code assumes it must have been rated using the 0-5 scale and assigns 4 stars. This is inconsistent when assigning 3 stars to a file with a 6 rating, if both files were rated on the 0-10 scale.

How can Winamp ever know which rating scale was used for any particular file?
What happens when a user imports files that have been rated on differing scales?

I agree with MrSinatra's suggestion for reading ratings, mainly because it is very close to being the inverse of what Winamp writes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrSinatra View Post

i don't know how winamp reads it, but i would hope its something like this:

0 = 0 stars
1-20 = 1 star
21-40 = 2
41-60 = 3
61-80 = 4
81-100 = 5

that system basically allows for 20 points of granularity between star levels.
Users that wanted to import files with ratings based on a different scale would have to re-tag the files to attain the desired number of rating stars in Winamp.

Here's a screenshot that shows Winamp's interpretation of the Rating comment in FLAC files.
The results seem illogical.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	Flac ratings in Winamp.GIF
Views:	111
Size:	55.5 KB
ID:	50080  

Windows 10 Home, 64 bit, Winamp 5.666, Bento Skin
ryerman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27th November 2012, 06:01   #20
MrSinatra
Forum King
 
MrSinatra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: WKPS, State College
Posts: 5,623
Send a message via AIM to MrSinatra
Ryerman,

good work, i hadn't gotten around to testing things.

i think you found a bug, mainly with winamps 0-10 scale handling. this is because if someone uses the 0-10 scale, and a file has 1-5, it is interpreted as being part of the 0-5 scale.

do we agree on that? would a pref that allows a user to pick or specify the scale they use (for vorbis only) solve it? (0-100 should be the default for winamps R/W obviously, but the scale picked should then affect the R/W).

do we also agree that values 11-19 should not display 0 stars?

do we agree that 21-40 should be two stars?

are there any other points you made, that i have missed?

(in the meantime, wouldn't the easiest thing for you be to just convert to the 0-100 scale using mp3tag and manual sorting? you do SBS/LMS right? thats how it wants it)

PENN STATE Radio or http://www.LION-Radio.org/
--
BUG #1 = Winamp skips short tracks
Wish #1 = Multiple Column Sorting
Wish #2 = Add TCMP/Compilation editing
MrSinatra is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27th November 2012, 09:59   #21
Aminifu
Forum King
 
Aminifu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 4,658
I think the obvious thing missing in this discussion is the need for a tag specifying the rating scale that should be used for judging a rating value. We all agree that 0 is 0. So the only things that are known is a rating value > 19 had to have used a 1-100 scale, a rating value > 10 did not use a 1-10 scale, and a rating value > 5 did not use a 1-5 scale.

The Winamp designers choice is arbitrary, but they needed to assume something when the rating scale used is an unknown. While I agree that MrSinatra's suggestion is a better way of handling a scale of 1-100, what is the compelling reason for the designers to have decided to only use a 1-100 scale?

Since a scale specifying tag is not available, I suggest the following logic be used instead of what is currently being used.

if (rating value > 19) {
// 1-100 case
rating stars = rating value / 20;
}
else if (rating value > 10) and (rating value < 20) {
// assumes special case
rating stars = 1;
}
else if (rating value > 5) and (rating value < 11) {
// assumes 1-10 case
rating stars = rating value / 2;
}
else {
// assumes 0-5 case
rating stars = rating value.
}

This scheme is also arbitrary, but it allows for all 3 scales and incorporates part of MrSinatra's suggestion. The flaw with this scheme is that a rating value < 11 could have been using the 1-100 scale and a rating value < 6 could have been using the 1-10 scale, but there is no way of knowing.

Edit: Changed values of last case from 1-5 to 0-5 for clarity. A rating value of 0 would fall through to the last case.

Winamp Pro v5.666.3516 fully-patched - Komodo X Touchscreen v1.0 by Victhor skin
Windows 10 Home 64-bit v1809 desktop - Logitech Z906 5.1 speaker system

Last edited by Aminifu; 27th November 2012 at 12:54.
Aminifu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27th November 2012, 11:42   #22
DrO
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 27,873
did i ever mention how i dislike ratings *shrugs* will look through and see how the proposed changes work in reality.

0-100 was used since that seems to be the most common used by other players.

-daz
DrO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27th November 2012, 12:13   #23
Aminifu
Forum King
 
Aminifu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 4,658
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrO View Post
0-100 was used since that seems to be the most common used by other players.

-daz
You misunderstood me. The others seem to be saying that the 0-100 scale should be the only one used. Winamp currently tries to incorporate all 3 scales. My question was meant to ask why is that wrong. I should have stated it better.

I'm not deep into ratings either. But if the 0-100 scale is most common, then maybe it should be the only one used.

Winamp Pro v5.666.3516 fully-patched - Komodo X Touchscreen v1.0 by Victhor skin
Windows 10 Home 64-bit v1809 desktop - Logitech Z906 5.1 speaker system
Aminifu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27th November 2012, 12:31   #24
DrO
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 27,873
because other scales are used, when the code went into in_flac from what i remember, what is used in the other input plug-ins was basically copied across and made to fit what seemed to be required for flac (so i'll need to look at the other plug-ins after this) and 0-5, 0-10, 0-100 seemed to be the common ranges coming up for flac.

yes 0-100 seems to be the norm (and is what Winamp writes out) but with so much inconsistency, it's better to just try to cover all bases when importing the ratings.

attached image is what is produced with the changes in place.


looking back at the earlier points from when the first screenshot was provided, the output now is more consistent and is how i would expect it to be.

mapping 21-40 as 2* isn't right imho and the 0-5 vs 0-10 overlap is always going to be a mess and adding a config option is not a solution - if someone hits the issue then they would need to re-tag the files in a correct range (there's a limit to dealing with things and then promoting junk in the tags and adding options to work around it promotes junk tagging).

-daz
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	ratings.png
Views:	112
Size:	5.8 KB
ID:	50082  
DrO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27th November 2012, 14:12   #25
Aminifu
Forum King
 
Aminifu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 4,658
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrSinatra View Post
do we also agree that values 11-19 should not display 0 stars?
The logic I proposed in post #21 picked up on this part of your suggestion. It adds 1 more case to the current scheme. DrO's test code shows the results in post # 24 (using integer math). Logic for what you suggested in post #2 would eliminate the 0-5 and 0-10 scaling cases.

Another flaw with the current logic and what I proposed in post #21 is that a rating value of 100 is needed to reach 5 stars. What I proposed only fills in the blanks near the low end, but like the current logic, it has no range at the high end.

Another scheme that would incorporate more of your suggestion in post #2 and leave room for the 0-5 and 0-10 scaling cases would add 2 more cases to the current scheme (1 more case to DrO's test code). It follows:

if (rating value > 99) {
// assumes special case 1
rating stars = 5;
}
else if (rating value > 19) and (rating value < 100) {
// 1-100 case
rating stars = (rating value / 20) + 1;
}
else if (rating value > 10) and (rating value < 20) {
// assumes special case 2
rating stars = 1;
}
else if (rating value > 5) and (rating value < 11) {
// assumes 1-10 case
rating stars = rating value / 2;
}
else {
// assumes 0-5 case
rating stars = rating value.
}

This would have the following result (using integer math):

0 = 0 stars

01-05 = 1 to 5 stars

06-10 = 3 to 5 stars

11-19 = 1 star
20-39 = 2 stars
40-59 = 3 stars
60-79 = 4 stars
over 79 = 5 stars

This still has the mess for rating values from 1 to 10 and the 0-10 case would still need a 10 to get 5 stars, but this scheme is more consistent in providing ranges after that.

Winamp Pro v5.666.3516 fully-patched - Komodo X Touchscreen v1.0 by Victhor skin
Windows 10 Home 64-bit v1809 desktop - Logitech Z906 5.1 speaker system
Aminifu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27th November 2012, 15:45   #26
DrO
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 27,873
attached image shows things with the extra additions (really not sure about adjusting the mid-range of the 0-100 scale but is over to you lot what gets committed...).

-daz
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	ratings_2.png
Views:	117
Size:	5.3 KB
ID:	50083  
DrO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27th November 2012, 16:06   #27
MrSinatra
Forum King
 
MrSinatra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: WKPS, State College
Posts: 5,623
Send a message via AIM to MrSinatra
ok, this is, imho, getting out of hand... i think we all need to step back and take a deep breath, and approach this fresh!

DrO, i know you aren't a fan of ratings, but you ARE a fan of K.I.S.S. and so i think any solution should not be half assed in determing handling of the scales, nor complex in its handling without achieving a worthy end. so far, i have not seen a solution suggested that competently handles users of the 0-10 scale, (unless i have misunderstood). instead, the solution should be straightforward and simple. here is my suggestion:

0-100 is clearly the most popular scale used in the marketplace, and has been for some time, thats why it should be the default for R/W ratings. we all need to agree on that first to make any progress.

however, i think if a user wants to use either the 0-5 or 0-10 scale that should be allowed, but the onus should be on the user to make it happen. therefore the scale used itself, for Vorbis, should be exposed in either the prefs, or an ini file. something like:

Scale=0-100

and they change it to:

Scale=1-5

and now winamp will R/W, in all instances, the data as per that scale.

lets not try to mystically divine what scale we think the user is using. lets instead give the user a way to say "this is the scale i will use" and force them to conform all their data to that scale. i think thats a more reasonable approach then trying to make winamp smart enough to know what scale a given file is trying to use, but it does mean DrO that winamp will have to buy into that idea.

another benefit of having winamp work with only one scale at a time, is the elimination of any calculations, divisions, or consideration of integer math. you can simply hardcode that "this number means this star"

i hope i have made sense and not offended anyone. but ratings ARE important to me, and i would like to see the issues here handled gracefully for both the users and the devs benefit and sanity.

PENN STATE Radio or http://www.LION-Radio.org/
--
BUG #1 = Winamp skips short tracks
Wish #1 = Multiple Column Sorting
Wish #2 = Add TCMP/Compilation editing
MrSinatra is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27th November 2012, 16:32   #28
DrO
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 27,873
firstly, i am just saying it as it is, i'm not offended, etc - i just think too much time has been wasted on this already.

easy option, we remove everything () so it's just assumed to be 0-100 and that's it. the same for all of the other input formats and we just have one scale and that's it... but that won't work as we're trying to be as compatible as possible (with in reason) to get data into Winamp, and so we have to consider weird / non-standard scalings.


the issue i see is what the boundaries on things need to be and that's it. 0-100 is the main scale but 0-5 and 0-10 is also known and will be handled as best as is allowed to do. adding config options is not a solution as that then assumes that 'bob' knows what the range is (so is no different from how Winamp does things) and with people passing crappy tagged files around, how is anyone going to go "oh yes for this file i need scale 1, for this scale 2, etc" and then have to import files in different manners. that is not feasible.


the whole point is that this is about getting data into Winamp and that once in there then they should just be using that for handling things (i know people swap and change but adding in extra code / config options for what are seemingly not the norm is just a waste of everyone's time).

if things don't import right because we've not auto-magically guessed that rating=6 is meant to be in the 0-100 scale instead of 0-10 scale is just something that will have to be lived with. as adding some config option still leaves it open to being incorrectly done, it just shifts it more to the user than on Winamp, but it'd still be Winamp that is blamed if things aren't right (can never win).

and no matter what is done it requires some form of integer math being done (even if it's just hard-coding values in for ranges - that's how a lot of coding works) and adding in specific scales means more code, not less.


so someone needs to pick which of the two options from Aminfu will be used or it gets left as is (i know this is blunt but too much time has been wasted for everyone on such a minor thing). as really no one else gives a monkey about this stuff -why else do you never see anyone on the dev team posting in these sort of threads.

-daz
DrO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27th November 2012, 16:48   #29
MrSinatra
Forum King
 
MrSinatra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: WKPS, State College
Posts: 5,623
Send a message via AIM to MrSinatra
i guess i don't understand, and/or we just disagree. i don't understand how calculations are still needed if you use only one scale at a time and hardcode the values to amt of stars, and we seem to disagree that its ok and appropriate to make the user choose one scale at a time, and conform to it.

my opinion is that that would be a better way of handling things then making 0-10 users have a completely broken system, but i also respect that the devs have limited time and resources, and don't value 0-10 users needs. (i'm not saying that in any kind of tone or sarcasm, i'm just speaking plainly as to what seems to be the case afaict)

EDIT, (sorry i got them reversed in my mind):

if i have to vote on one of your two screenshots, i don't even understand the point of #24 so i'd have to go with #26 as the lesser of two evils.

PENN STATE Radio or http://www.LION-Radio.org/
--
BUG #1 = Winamp skips short tracks
Wish #1 = Multiple Column Sorting
Wish #2 = Add TCMP/Compilation editing
MrSinatra is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27th November 2012, 17:01   #30
MrSinatra
Forum King
 
MrSinatra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: WKPS, State College
Posts: 5,623
Send a message via AIM to MrSinatra
ok, i take it back, NEITHER screen shot makes sense!

for the 0-100 scale, the 20 must be ONE star, the 40 TWO stars, so the screenshot in post 26 is no good.

the screenshot in post 24 has that right, but has the values around those numbers valued wrong.

and as a separate matter, i wrote this out:

Quote:
0=0 stars
1=1
2=1
3=2
4=2
5=3
6=3
7=4
8=4
9=5
10=5 stars
so i do not have any exp with apps that use a 0-10 scale for vorbis, but if it is like the above, winamp is getting the upper range (6-10) handling wrong anyway.

PENN STATE Radio or http://www.LION-Radio.org/
--
BUG #1 = Winamp skips short tracks
Wish #1 = Multiple Column Sorting
Wish #2 = Add TCMP/Compilation editing
MrSinatra is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27th November 2012, 18:16   #31
ryerman
Major Dude
 
ryerman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Canada
Posts: 670
Hi MrSinatra,
Apparently I'm too slow to keep up with this thread but I'll reply to your earlier post anyway.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrSinatra View Post
...i think you found a bug, mainly with winamps 0-10 scale handling. this is because if someone uses the 0-10 scale, and a file has 1-5, it is interpreted as being part of the 0-5 scale.

do we agree on that?...
Yes, we agree. And 6-10 is interpreted as being part of the 0-10 scale even if a 0-100 scale was used; or a 0-20; or a 0-50.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrSinatra View Post
...would a pref that allows a user to pick or specify the scale they use (for vorbis only) solve it? (0-100 should be the default for winamps R/W obviously, but the scale picked should then affect the R/W).....
Using a preference implies that one and only one scale is used. But, if someone used various scales (0-5 from one app A, 0-10 from app B, 0-7 from app C, 0-50 from app D etc., etc), how would Winamp know the scale used for any particular file? I suppose there could be some switch available when importing media but I don't suggest or want that. DrO implies that creating a new preference is not an option and I'm OK with that.

Aminiflu points out that a tag specifying the rating scale is needed and I agree. That is an elegant solution, but where is the application that writes such a tag to FLAC files? I'm not holding my breath.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrSinatra View Post
...do we also agree that values 11-19 should not display 0 stars?...
Yes. But I go further and say that values 1-20 should display 1 star (assuming a 0-100 scale) because I think it is unwise to use more than one scale.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrSinatra View Post
....do we agree that 21-40 should be two stars?...
Yes, we agree. And therefore 41-60 should have 3, 61-80 should have 4, and 81-100 should have 5, which is not the case now. DrO's proposal in post #26 comes close, but he uses ranges like 40-59 which I don't like. Because each range should have 20 values, the last range should be 81-100 and this dictates all lower ranges. And I hope "rating is 101" is a typo in the screenshot.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrSinatra View Post
...are there any other points you made, that i have missed?...
My main point is that I suggest Winamp do less, not more. Pick one scale and require users to adapt by re-tagging.
I'm fine with a 0-100 scale, although 0-255 may be better because that matches what ID3v2 uses for the POPM frame.

But don't try and please everybody by reading ratings in a way that produces illogical results. I think it is ridiculous to show 3 stars for a file with a 6 rating while at the same time showing 1 star for a file with a 19 rating. That is possible now and will still be possible using DrO's proposal in post #26.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrSinatra View Post
....(in the meantime, wouldn't the easiest thing for you be to just convert to the 0-100 scale using mp3tag and manual sorting? you do SBS/LMS right? thats how it wants it)
Other than Winamp and VLC (which I only use sporadically for testing things), I have little or no experience with other media players. So I won't be importing files that have been rated by another application. I have used only Winamp to apply ratings. I stumbled on this situation by accident and my sense of logic was offended.

My problem is that I copied tags from MP3 files to FLAC files when upgrading my album collection but forgot to modify the rating tags to comply with the different scale used for FLAC. I started looking for FLAC files with ratings lower than 6 and was surprised to see they still displayed rating stars. I had assumed that because Winamp wrote a 0-100 scale it would accurately read it as well. I was wrong.

Windows 10 Home, 64 bit, Winamp 5.666, Bento Skin
ryerman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27th November 2012, 18:26   #32
DrO
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 27,873
i never said either made sense, was just based on the code suggestions made. and had said that i didn't think the mapping on #26 was right.

as such the attached version only accepts the 0-100 range, so it's now doing:
Quote:
0 = 0
1 - 20 = 1
21-40 = 2
41-60 = 3
61-80 = 4
81-100 = 5
-daz
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	ratings_3.png
Views:	94
Size:	5.2 KB
ID:	50084  
DrO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27th November 2012, 19:08   #33
MrSinatra
Forum King
 
MrSinatra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: WKPS, State College
Posts: 5,623
Send a message via AIM to MrSinatra
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrO View Post
i never said either made sense, was just based on the code suggestions made. and had said that i didn't think the mapping on #26 was right.

as such the attached version only accepts the 0-100 range, so it's now doing:-daz
if i were to be a selfish bastard, i'd be thrilled with the above, b/c its exactly what i use. and not only is it what i use, its also exactly the right ranges for the 0-100 scale, and conforms with the most popular de facto standard in the marketplace, imo.

however, i do "care" about users who use other scales. this isn't like id3/POPM, b/c that scale (the range at least, 0-255) is in the spec, and winamp complies with what windows/WMP does; but Vorbis is much more open ended.

you don't necessarily need a new tag (that no others would support) to specify range, you could just add the range to the existing tag, eg. " 4/10 " but that also would be totally new to the marketplace, and potentially could break some other apps existing handling.

the only other two scales i have ever seen another app or user use (for Vorbis), are 0-5 and 0-10. the question then becomes, should winamp support them at all?

i don't mean to beat a dead horse, but if you can hardcode in 0-100 as the default handling, and hardcode that this value means this star, i don't understand why then you couldn't expose in an ini file the ability for a user to pick a different method? ie. replace the R/W scale with another than the 0-100 default?

Vorbis Rating Scale=A
//rem A=0-100 (default), B=0-10, C=0-5

but again, i am not a programmer, so i understand there may be something i am not seeing.

in any case, i like the scale DrO has proposed in post 32 and could easily live with that as the only implementation if thats what he chooses to do, esp since it jives with what winamp has been doing for some time now.

PENN STATE Radio or http://www.LION-Radio.org/
--
BUG #1 = Winamp skips short tracks
Wish #1 = Multiple Column Sorting
Wish #2 = Add TCMP/Compilation editing
MrSinatra is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27th November 2012, 19:53   #34
DrO
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 27,873
sod 0-5 and 0-10 is my view and if people complain then so be it (i've taken enough shit from trying to please people and annoying everyone else that i don't mind now).

if 0-100 seems to be the generally adopted scheme then that's what needs to be used and based on things already, anything in those lesser scales was being incorrectly processed anyway (if anyone was using properly anyway).

adding a 'scaling' field to the tag is just not a viable solution either as that's then something else that you need to get people to adopt to use - the whole mess of this thread is just because of people not following a standard (however enforced it is or isn't).

you're saying you want things hard-coded but a config option goes against that. as such it's 0-100 or how it was - that's all i'll do towards this. if people don't like that then please lodge a formal complaint with the powers that be.

-daz
DrO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28th November 2012, 01:07   #35
Aminifu
Forum King
 
Aminifu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 4,658
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrO View Post
sod 0-5 and 0-10 is my view and if people complain then so be it (i've taken enough shit from trying to please people and annoying everyone else that i don't mind now).

if 0-100 seems to be the generally adopted scheme then that's what needs to be used and based on things already, anything in those lesser scales was being incorrectly processed anyway (if anyone was using properly anyway).

adding a 'scaling' field to the tag is just not a viable solution either as that's then something else that you need to get people to adopt to use - the whole mess of this thread is just because of people not following a standard (however enforced it is or isn't).

you're saying you want things hard-coded but a config option goes against that. as such it's 0-100 or how it was ...
I agree and if you're looking for a vote, you have mine for changing to what is shown in post #32. Thank you for taking the time to write test code, run it, and provide the results for us to see.

I only offered the schemes I did (in posts #21 and #25) as attempts to fill in the hole (from 11 to 19) in the current scheme. It is impossible to elegantly incorporate the 3 different scales in 1 scheme.

If one scale is used, I had stated that I agreed with MrSinatra's suggestion for the 0-100 scale.

Winamp Pro v5.666.3516 fully-patched - Komodo X Touchscreen v1.0 by Victhor skin
Windows 10 Home 64-bit v1809 desktop - Logitech Z906 5.1 speaker system
Aminifu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28th November 2012, 01:12   #36
DrO
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 27,873
committed just 0-100 scale handling using 1-20 = 1*, 21-40 = 2*, 41-60 = 3*, 61-80 = 4*, 81-100 = 5*

-daz
DrO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28th November 2012, 01:26   #37
MrSinatra
Forum King
 
MrSinatra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: WKPS, State College
Posts: 5,623
Send a message via AIM to MrSinatra
MrSinatra is happy for DrO!

he can now go on to important matters.


PENN STATE Radio or http://www.LION-Radio.org/
--
BUG #1 = Winamp skips short tracks
Wish #1 = Multiple Column Sorting
Wish #2 = Add TCMP/Compilation editing
MrSinatra is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28th November 2012, 01:28   #38
DrO
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 27,873
you mean like doing my actual job and trying to resolve random networking failures with the v2 DNAS when trying to obtain json statistic responses from it and just optimising things where possible to see if it will indirectly help out the issue.

-daz
DrO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28th November 2012, 01:31   #39
ryerman
Major Dude
 
ryerman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Canada
Posts: 670
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrO View Post
committed just 0-100 scale handling using 1-20 = 1*, 21-40 = 2*, 41-60 = 3*, 61-80 = 4*, 81-100 = 5*

-daz
Bravo. You are a beautiful human being!

Windows 10 Home, 64 bit, Winamp 5.666, Bento Skin
ryerman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28th November 2012, 01:36   #40
MrSinatra
Forum King
 
MrSinatra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: WKPS, State College
Posts: 5,623
Send a message via AIM to MrSinatra
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrO View Post
you mean like doing my actual job and trying to resolve random networking failures with the v2 DNAS when trying to obtain json statistic responses from it and just optimising things where possible to see if it will indirectly help out the issue.

-daz
yes! just to be clear, i do consider that more important!

i do wish other devs hung out in the forum tho. even Egg rarely visits now.

PENN STATE Radio or http://www.LION-Radio.org/
--
BUG #1 = Winamp skips short tracks
Wish #1 = Multiple Column Sorting
Wish #2 = Add TCMP/Compilation editing
MrSinatra is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply
Go Back   Winamp & Shoutcast Forums > Winamp > Winamp Bug Reports

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump