Re: [Banshee-List] Automatic Rating
- From: Brian Lucas <bcl1713 gmail com>
- To: banshee-list gnome org
- Subject: Re: [Banshee-List] Automatic Rating
- Date: Fri, 03 Oct 2008 16:04:01 -0400
Gabriel Burt wrote:
On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 2:40 PM, Brian Lucas <bcl1713 gmail com> wrote:
If the song has been played before then we need to take an faux-average of
the score so take the existing score and multiply it by the number of times
its been played. a song with a score of 50 and played 10 times then will
have a 500. Now add the percentage of completion (say 100% for simplicity)
now we have 600.
Shouldn't it add percentage/2 like it does if it's setting it for the
first time? Or is the /2 just for the first time on purpose to not
set a track as score=100 after just having played it once?
Correct.. you wouldn't want to overrate the song on its first play. As
I said before however this isn't the best algorithm.. Its just Amarok's
default.
through the score went up. Now lets say you skipped the song after only 10%
completion. we would have 525 / 11 = 47.73.
You mean either 25% or 510, right?
Again correct.. Was doing one thing in my head and another on paper. My
apologies :)
Thanks a lot for the explanation, it helped a lot. This will require
a small change t
Gabriel
_______________________________________________
Banshee-list mailing list
Banshee-list gnome org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/banshee-list
o Banshee core to do, you're right, but it shouldn't
be hard. Look at DatabaseTrackInfo's IncrementPlay/Skip count - could
modify those methods to take the percent complete and save that to the
database.
I haven't played around with the code in banshee at all yet but it would
be really nice if the whole thing was implimented in core. It would
eliminate a _bit_ of bloat by only storing the score in the database
rather than adding both the score _and_ the "most recent percentage of
completion". Not much I know.. but as project grow the idea of saving
space in the database becomes more and more important. :) I'm all for
it in either case though.
[
Date Prev][
Date Next] [
Thread Prev][
Thread Next]
[
Thread Index]
[
Date Index]
[
Author Index]