Re: [Rhythmbox-devel] Re; Ratings feedback

Since we're doing user profiles here:

About me:
- I have a collection of 5000 songs.
- Rhythmbox always plays the whole library, repeat and shuffle activated.
- I never rate a sigle song, nor do I think I'll ever do it.
- I have bound the F12 key to "rhythmbox --next" in metacitys keybindings. 
That way I can go to the next song from anywhere.

About my usage of Rb:
- I start up Rhythmbox, then press F12, so it starts playing.
- Whenever there's a song I don't like, I press F12. That happens quite often. 
(I skip 2 out of 3 songs at least)
- Occasionally (every other day or so) I think "I want to hear XYZ now". In 
that case I switch to Rb, enter XYZ into the search field, double click the 
song to start it, then clear the search field again, so it continues with 

What this behaviour should mean to Rb:
- Listening a song to the end means I liked listening to it. I'd probably like 
listening to it again.
- Skipping it means I don't want to hear it right now. Maybe later, but most 
likely not "soon".
- Selecting a song explicitly means I like it a _lot_. I probably wouldn't 
mind if it was played three times in a row.
- Adding a song to the library means I like it. I wouldn't add it if I didn't 
want it to be played.

What I want Rb to do:
- Make it so I never need to use F12.


Quoting "jorge o. castro" <>:

> Derrick Ashby wrote:
> > I think the point is that this should be a thing that the user decides for
> > themselves.  You prefer 3 because you only rip songs you really like.  I
> rip 
> > every CD I buy, and I download tracks also: For me 0 is not rated, 1 means
> I 
> > don't like it, 2 means it's OK, 3 means Good, 4 V. Good, 5 Excellent. 
> > Starting at 3 is a waste of 2 stars.  I'd like to be able to turn Adaptive
> > Rating off altogether.
> > 
> I've got some feedback on adaptive ratings as well:
> I also rate my music in the same way Derrick does. I've been "training" 
>   my rb since .7 came out and have made some observations:
> The IMMS-like ratings doesn't really apply to the 5-star model of 
> rhythmbox very well. From scanning my xml file a good number of songs 
> are "2.8" or somesuch. This means for it to be totally accurate partial 
> stars would need to be implemented, but I'm not sure if that's a good 
> idea or not. Obviously, the larger a user's collection is, the longer it 
> will take for the "training" to become effective. During that time the 
> user might just say "ugh, I've given the thing 3 weeks and it still 
> thinks all my songs are three stars, this is worthless."
> I've been doing some thinking about my music collection and listening 
> habits, and there are certainly songs I keep around for "completeness", 
> ie. I like an album and want to keep it in my library for the sake of 
> completeness, but at the same time it has certain tracks that I don't 
> care for.
> We could probably argue that Derrick's rating is what most users think, 
> but someone might say "well, if I don't like a song I just don't keep it 
> at all." Perhaps a more balanced default behaviour is needed, after some 
> thinking I propose the following:
> 1) Adaptive listening should be off by default.
> 2) A user's manual rating should override the automatic rating.
> 3) All imported songs should start off as 0. If a user skips the song or 
> it is shown as unfavorable, then it remains at 0.
> 4) Songs that are shown favorable should start rating up according to 
> listening habit.
> I've come to these conclusions based on feedback from both my experience 
> and some people that I know. Basically, when I hit "random" on my music 
> player, I want rhythmbox to choose random songs for me. While I chose 
> "random", I would argue that most users really mean "pick a good 
> selection from favorite songs, but mix it up enough to surprise me on 
> occassion." If you think about it, a "true random" feature isn't much use.
> On top of that, I don't know a single person that takes the time to sit 
> there and spend hours rating all their songs. If anything we tend to 
> take the lazy way out and say "Well, I'll just sort by play count to 
> figure out what I want to listen to."
>  From a user perspective, we should be letting Rhythmbox do the hard 
> work and figure out what my favorite songs are, I mean, it's the one 
> sitting there doing all the playing, it should keep track of the stuff 
> and figure out a decent random list that will keep me interested.
> These are just some observations I've had, I have no idea what the 
> "optimal solution" is, which is why I propose it be off by default, but 
> at the same time, from my long experience with XMMS and IMMS, given 
> adequate training the stuff really does give me a random playlist that 
> totally rocks.
> -jorge
> _______________________________________________
> rhythmbox-devel mailing list

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]