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

Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 28th November 2012, 04:14   #41
Aminifu
Forum King
 
Aminifu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 4,658
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrSinatra View Post
... so i think any solution should not be half assed in determing handling of the scales, ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrSinatra View Post
... i don't even understand the point of #24 ...
I could take offense at your statements. But I wont. I don't even use ratings. Even so, I don't believe my efforts were unclear or half assed.

Glad you will get a change that you can be happy with.

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, 04:16   #42
MrSinatra
Forum King
 
MrSinatra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: WKPS, State College
Posts: 5,622
Send a message via AIM to MrSinatra


u want to see things that aren't there? be my guest.

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, 22:57   #43
DJ Egg
Techorator
Winamp & SHOUTcast Team
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 35,821
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrSinatra View Post
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.
I'm always lurking....


We've now decided to keep the 1-5 system, just in case people were using it before.
1-10 system is still gone (I doubt if anyone ever used it).
The default system will be the 1-100 one.

So 1=1, 2=2, 3=3, 4=4, 5=5, 6-20=1, 21-40=2, 41-60=3, 61-80=4, 81-100=5

Anything above 100 = 5

We will write as 20,40,60,80,100

The end :-)

_______________
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	ratings_4.png
Views:	77
Size:	5.8 KB
ID:	50087  
DJ Egg is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 28th November 2012, 23:15   #44
MrSinatra
Forum King
 
MrSinatra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: WKPS, State College
Posts: 5,622
Send a message via AIM to MrSinatra
i think thats smart, and i was going to suggest it but i was afraid to rub DrO the wrong way, he seemed to have reached the end of his rope on this thread.

i miss you egg, post more.

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, 23:17   #45
DrO
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 27,873
i've got a solar system of rope left to go, i'm just starting to warm up on being a grumpy ol' git

-daz
DrO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29th November 2012, 01:35   #46
ryerman
Major Dude
 
ryerman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Canada
Posts: 669
Quote:
Originally Posted by DJ Egg View Post
We've now decided to keep the 1-5 system, just in case people were using it before.
1-10 system is still gone (I doubt if anyone ever used it).
The default system will be the 1-100 one.

So 1=1, 2=2, 3=3, 4=4, 5=5, 6-20=1, 21-40=2, 41-60=3, 61-80=4, 81-100=5

Anything above 100 = 5

We will write as 20,40,60,80,100

The end :-)
Now I'll be a grumpy ol' git.

This latest rating system is still illogical and causes Winamp to show incorrect ratings for anyone using the 0-100 scale.
When Winamp tries to accommodate the 2 scales, a rating of 1-5 is meaningless because the scale is not shown.

What about users who import media that have been rated on different scales?
Why cater to those who use a 0-5 scale at the expense of others?

Sometimes, you can't please everybody; when that happens, I think it's better to choose the option that is internally consistent, accurate, and logical. Your compromise is not.

This time I'm one of the ones that are displeased. But I'll get over it.

Windows 10 Home, 64 bit, Winamp 5.666, Bento Skin
ryerman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29th November 2012, 04:00   #47
DJ Egg
Techorator
Winamp & SHOUTcast Team
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 35,821
@ryerman

I don't understand your beef.
What "different scales" are you referring to exactly?

The default scale is 1-100, as explained in my first reply.

Anyone using the 1-100 scale is unlikely to manually rate their songs by typing Rating = 2,3,4 or 5 into the Advanced tab of the File Info dialog, right?

We've also kept the 1-5 scale for backwards compatibility.
It didn't seem right to just remove it.
What about people who used this simple 1-5 scale (which we've supported for a few years now)?
We remove it, and suddenly all their songs which were rated 2,3,4 & 5 are now all rated as 1.
They won't be too happy....

For everyone else who just uses the default system, ie. right-click item(s) > Rate Item(s) > (checkmark 1 to 5 stars), it will use 0, 20, 40, 60, 80, 100 for 0-5 ratings, ie. the same as before.

If you use a custom rating (either in an external program, or via Winamp > File Info > Advanced tab), then it will still show the correct rating:
0 = No rating
1 / 6-20 = 1
21-40 = 2
41-60 = 3
61-80 = 4
81-100+ = 5

Or were you referring to something else?

We've got rid of the (pointless?) 1-10 scale.
Compromising via a happy medium is surely the solution :-)
DJ Egg is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 29th November 2012, 04:26   #48
MrSinatra
Forum King
 
MrSinatra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: WKPS, State College
Posts: 5,622
Send a message via AIM to MrSinatra
i think it offends his sense of logic, in that if you do have someone who uses the 0-100 scale AND granularly rates items, they will get bogus results IF they have any items value = to 2,3,4, or 5. plus, why support two different systems mashed up like this simultaneously for reading, if you only write to one?

i think thats an entirely defensible view, (Ryerman should correct me if i incorrectly presume to illustrate his objections properly), but personally i side with what you, Egg, have elected to do, as its just more pragmatic imo. there are people [and apps] who use the 0-5 scale, and this will accommodate them, (for reading values, not writing them), most likely without affecting any 0-100 users at all, or at least, in a serious way. how granular of a sub-1-system do they really need? it would be a very small affected population, if it even exists.

what did have to happen tho, was 0-10 had to be eliminated, b/c the overlap with 0-5 was just too heavy/nonsensical. the only other option, imo, would have been to let the user pick the scale via pref or ini file. that way, only one scale at a time would be used, for both R/W. but i understand that that kind of change would take up too much dev time/resources.

one thing i am curious about though... given that now the tags number value will exactly = a given amount of stars, i was calling that "hardcoded" which i see as a benefit, b/c it means winamp can eliminate making any kind of calculation, division, or integer math, and just reference a one for one style chart. "this value = this star" period. this would seemingly save processing time.

is that not an accurate portrayal of the reality?

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 29th November 2012, 08:32   #49
ryerman
Major Dude
 
ryerman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Canada
Posts: 669
@ DJ Egg

The issue isn't about what Winamp writes. I suppose we could say that Winamp writes a 1-100 scale, but it could be argued that it is really only the 1-5 scale with different labels. When is 73, 22, 34, etc.,etc. ever written? Never by Winamp.

When I say 1-5 scale or 1-100 scale, I'm referring to the values stored in the Vorbis Comment called "Rating", not the number of stars shown in Winamp. If a 1-5 scale is used, the values are never anything but 1-5. Similarly, a 1-100 scale uses the values 1-100.

The problem is that after reading the Rating comment, Winamp sometimes assigns rating stars incorrectly for users who have used a true 1-100 scale. For example, Winamp will assign 2 stars to a file that the user rated as 2/100 and 1 star to a file rated 19/100. It seems likely that a user would be surprised at such behaviour! It is inconsistent with writing 20 for a file with 1 star and 40 for a file with 2 stars. If the numerical rating in the vorbis comment of file A is higher than in file B, file B should not be assigned more stars than file A.

My beef is that Winamp makes that incorrect assignation.

While Winamp never writes rating values like 23, 45, 2, etc., the user may write such numbers, using some other application or the Advanced tab of the Winamp's File Info dialog. On the 1-100 scale, 2, 3, 4, and 5 carry just as much information and are just as legitimate as 20, 30, 40, or any other value between 1 and 100.

All rating scales will be in conflict unless they are mutually exclusive. You can't use a number that exists in each of 2 different scales without knowing the scale. It's like going to the lumber store and asking for a board that is 4 long. 4 what? feet? metres? yards? 4 does not mean the same on a scale of 1-5 as it does on a scale of 1-100. If you want to allow multiple scales that have common values, you need some way of specifying which scale is being used.

Here are some options, as I see it. There are probably others.
1. Make the compromise as described in post #47. The rating system will be inconsistent and illogical for the 1-100 scale, as I have described.
2. Pick one and only one scale and displease users of the other(s).
3. Allow various scales but add some switch, or tag or preference or some other method to distinguish which scale is used.

I'll get used to whatever is implemented. In my mind, I'm just helping by pointing out a logical blunder.
But in the end, this isn't brain surgery and nobody will get hurt no matter what is decided.

Thanks for your time.

Windows 10 Home, 64 bit, Winamp 5.666, Bento Skin
ryerman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29th November 2012, 08:58   #50
Aminifu
Forum King
 
Aminifu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 4,658
If I ever start using ratings, as a way to influence random playback (as discussed elsewhere), I would appreciate a simple 0-5 scale. I assume most casual users of ratings would also, since it directly relates to the number of stars. Thank you DJ Egg for bringing it back.

However, for those into granularity I assume most use the 0-100 scale. Everyone is comfortable with the 10-base numbering system. A 0-255 scale (allowed by the ID3 spec) would only be comfortable with programmers and those familiar with other numbering systems. I can envision some being surprised when rating between 0 and 1 star (and a value of < 6 results in more than 1 star). We will see, but it would be no different than with the current (previous) system.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MrSinatra View Post
one thing i am curious about though... given that now the tags number value will exactly = a given amount of stars, i was calling that "hardcoded" which i see as a benefit, b/c it means winamp can eliminate making any kind of calculation, division, or integer math, and just reference a one for one style chart. "this value = this star" period. this would seemingly save processing time.
My 2 cents as a former programmer.

1. Programmers like using equations when working with numbers, as opposed to boring look-up tables.

2. Tables take up more room (code size), although not significantly more in this case.

3. Processing time with either method is also not significantly affected in this 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
Aminifu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29th November 2012, 09:33   #51
Aminifu
Forum King
 
Aminifu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 4,658
Quote:
Originally Posted by ryerman View Post
The problem is that after reading the Rating comment, Winamp sometimes assigns rating stars incorrectly for users who have used a true 1-100 scale. For example, Winamp will assign 2 stars to a file that the user rated as 2/100 and 1 star to a file rated 19/100. It seems likely that a user would be surprised at such behaviour! It is inconsistent with writing 20 for a file with 1 star and 40 for a file with 2 stars. If the numerical rating in the vorbis comment of file A is higher than in file B, file B should not be assigned more stars than file A.

My beef is that Winamp makes that incorrect assignation.
Of course you are right, but have there been a lot of complaints? I'm willing to bet there will be if the 0-5 scale is not supported.

The only correct way to handle this, is with a tag that specifies the scale being used. That is not going to happen without a spec change and mass vendor support for the change.

I think DJ Egg's compromise is best at the moment and it gets rid of that ugly hole from 11 to 19 resulting in 0 stars in the current (previous) scheme. Have there been complaints about 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 29th November 2012, 11:37   #52
DJ Egg
Techorator
Winamp & SHOUTcast Team
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 35,821
Quote:
Originally Posted by ryerman View Post
The problem is that after reading the Rating comment, Winamp sometimes assigns rating stars incorrectly for users who have used a true 1-100 scale. For example, Winamp will assign 2 stars to a file that the user rated as 2/100 and 1 star to a file rated 19/100. It seems likely that a user would be surprised at such behaviour! It is inconsistent with writing 20 for a file with 1 star and 40 for a file with 2 stars. If the numerical rating in the vorbis comment of file A is higher than in file B, file B should not be assigned more stars than file A.

My beef is that Winamp makes that incorrect assignation.

While Winamp never writes rating values like 23, 45, 2, etc., the user may write such numbers, using some other application or the Advanced tab of the Winamp's File Info dialog. On the 1-100 scale, 2, 3, 4, and 5 carry just as much information and are just as legitimate as 20, 30, 40, or any other value between 1 and 100.
Why would anyone have songs in their collection marked 2,3,4 or 5 out of 100?
Surely that would mean they think the song is absolutely crap, yes?

I know, in an ideal world, we should never assume anything, but I think it would be safer to assume that if a song has a numerical rating of 2,3,4 or 5 then that surely must be the actual rating.

Of course, if we'd never implemented support of the "No. 1-5 = Rating 1-5" system for FLAC in the first place, then things would be different.

Yes, ideally, there should probably be a setting in in_flac config to select the rating system used (e.g. 1-5, 1-10 or 1-100),
but alas, that is not going to happen right now. Sorry :-(

Let's just be happy with the happy medium for now. Okay?
DJ Egg is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 29th November 2012, 13:31   #53
ryerman
Major Dude
 
ryerman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Canada
Posts: 669
Quote:
Originally Posted by DJ Egg View Post
Why would anyone have songs in their collection marked 2,3,4 or 5 out of 100?
Surely that would mean they think the song is absolutely crap, yes?
Yes. So why have a scale that allows that?
What it seems you are saying is that the 1-100 scale is too fine, or granular. I agree.
Surely there is little appreciable difference between songs rated 76 and 77 out of 100, yes?

I now feel that to be logically consistent, the 1-100 scale should be scrapped and the 1-5 scale used for all file types.
If Winamp assigns only 1-5 stars, why pretend it can read ratings of 1-100?

If the 1-100 scale can't be applied properly, don't use it at all.

Windows 10 Home, 64 bit, Winamp 5.666, Bento Skin
ryerman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29th November 2012, 16:15   #54
DJ Egg
Techorator
Winamp & SHOUTcast Team
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 35,821
@ryerman

No, you seem to be not understanding what I'm saying.

I thought I'd explained it well enough?

Just to add to my previous explanations (which I think you need to read again)....
Marking a song with a value of 2,3,4,or 5 out of 100 is not the same as rating a song 2,3,4 or 5 out of 5

But for this workaround(?), I think it would be safer / more sensible to assume that if a value of 2,3,4 or 5 is found in the RATING field of the FLAC tag (Vorbis Comment), then it's more than likely to represent the actual rating out of 5 (who the hell has a song in their collection with a rating value of less than 5 out of 100?)

Also, I'm not saying there's anything wrong with the 1-100 scale.
It's the default scale (for FLAC), and always will be.
DJ Egg is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 30th November 2012, 02:40   #55
ryerman
Major Dude
 
ryerman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Canada
Posts: 669
Quote:
Originally Posted by DJ Egg View Post
No, you seem to be not understanding what I'm saying.

I thought I'd explained it well enough?
That's exactly what I say to you!
Quote:
Originally Posted by DJ Egg View Post
Marking a song with a value of 2,3,4,or 5 out of 100 is not the same as rating a song 2,3,4 or 5 out of 5
Right. That's a point I tried to make earlier. And that is the problem in a nutshell.
Winamp can't tell the difference and will show silly results, like 3/100 gets 3 stars while 13/100 gets 1 star. That's clear when looking at the screenshot in your post #43.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DJ Egg View Post
But for this workaround(?), I think it would be safer / more sensible to assume that if a value of 2,3,4 or 5 is found in the RATING field of the FLAC tag (Vorbis Comment), then it's more than likely to represent the actual rating out of 5 (who the hell has a song in their collection with a rating value of less than 5 out of 100?)
I don't know who. Perhaps a "completist" who has a significant number of songs that he considers crap but keeps anyway because they are part of a larger body of work. But your claim that a rating of less than 5 out of 100 is unlikely doesn't make it impossible. And as long as it is possible, the workaround will give inconsistent results.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DJ Egg View Post
Also, I'm not saying there's anything wrong with the 1-100 scale.
It's the default scale (for FLAC), and always will be.
Good, but I don't care very much. I'm saying that there is something wrong with trying to accommodate 2 different scales without some mechanism to differentiate between them.


Just because the workaround is broken doesn't mean it's unusable. My argument has always been more philosophical than practical.
But I know that compromises are often made to accommodate the needs and desires of various interest groups. I will adapt to whatever rating system is used.
The fact that it gives inconsistent results will have no affect on how I use ratings.
Just don't expect me to believe that 3 is greater than 13.

Windows 10 Home, 64 bit, Winamp 5.666, Bento Skin
ryerman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30th November 2012, 03:22   #56
DJ Egg
Techorator
Winamp & SHOUTcast Team
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 35,821
It's simple really...

If you manually enter a rating with a numerical value of 2-5 into the FLAC tags,
then we are going to assume this is a rating out of 5, and will treat it accordingly.

Values of 1 and 6-100 follow the default 1-100 scale.

Values of 2,3,4 & 5 are the exceptions.

If we didn't ever support the 1-5 scale then we wouldn't need to do this.
But after supporting it for a number of years, it wouldn't be fair on those who use it if we just removed it.

If it really bugs someone who 1) uses the 1-100 scale so "religiously" and 2) likes to keep really crap songs in their collection,
then they will just have to rate the song with a numerical value of eg. 1 or 6 instead of 2,3,4 or 5.

Sorry, but values of 2,3,4 & 5 are for the 1-5 scale.
The 1-100 scale in Winamp is 0, 1, 6-100.

I don't expect you or anyone else to "believe that 3 is greater than 13".
I just expect you to understand the methodology being used, and the reason why.

Alas, unless we add a config option for which scale to use, it is the only way to do it, for now.

At least the crazy 1-10 scale is gone...
DJ Egg is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 30th November 2012, 04:04   #57
MrSinatra
Forum King
 
MrSinatra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: WKPS, State College
Posts: 5,622
Send a message via AIM to MrSinatra
Egg,

i agree with you, but do you mind answering my question? you guys have now eliminated the need for math, right? its now just a straight one for one lookup, right?

i also wanted to explain why 0-100 is best, and its probably something most of you haven't considered before, since i seem to be the only one in this thread who considers ratings important.

some apps not only do half stars, but fractions of a star. a 0-5 data scale does not allow for that at all, while a 0-10 data scale only allows the halves. a 0-100 scale meanwhile allows more than enough granularity for just about any given user, esp if the stars shown are half/fractional as i think they are in WMP.

but here's the "killer app" of a bigger scale, imagine the following scenario:

an app, like say winamp, does audio fingerprint analysis, and uploads a users DB with hashes, fingerprints, tags, etc to a socially aware winamp site. some songs would be rated by the user, some not. now imagine many users did this. sound familiar? thats b/c its kinda like Tivo. now imagine the app could rate your un-rated songs for you, based on the profile you have, that jives with other similar profiles. it could suggest friends based on similar musical tastes, etc. now imagine the app could suggest music for you to DL or buy or listen to that you don't have, based on your profile, and that of others with a profile similar to yours.

so getting back to ratings, if you have lots of users rating a song, even if most only rate it 1-5 stars, the nature of the math is such that the avg rating of such a song might work out to 3.57 or roughly a 76 out of 100. its like metacritic, or those kind of scales that average multiple reviews.

so say you had a genre, like Funk, you could now have your songs in Funk get granularly rated by others with a profile similar to yours, and you could then sort the ratings column if fractional stars were supported, and very exactingly rate one song over another.

there is a huge opportunity out there for whoever nails this properly. itunes has already tried to do it several times, but they are too limited in what they will allow. winamp has an advantage in being more open and forward thinking.

btw, such a system as what i describe above would eventually allow winamp to get rid of gracenote and create its own "freedb" to use, based on real audio fingerprints.

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 30th November 2012, 08:56   #58
ryerman
Major Dude
 
ryerman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Canada
Posts: 669
@ DJ Egg

Don't kid yourself. The 1-100 scale is also gone, replaced by the the 6-100 scale.
Which is a good thing.

Windows 10 Home, 64 bit, Winamp 5.666, Bento Skin
ryerman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30th November 2012, 11:40   #59
DJ Egg
Techorator
Winamp & SHOUTcast Team
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 35,821
@MrSinatra
Yes. Very interesting.... :-)

@ryerman
Not really. It's always been like that, ever since we implemented it.
If someone had told us back then only to use the 1-100 scale, then we wouldn't be in this situation now....
DJ Egg is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 30th November 2012, 12:58   #60
ryerman
Major Dude
 
ryerman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Canada
Posts: 669
Yes really. History doesn't prove truth. I believe my eyes.

Windows 10 Home, 64 bit, Winamp 5.666, Bento Skin
ryerman 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