On Mon, 2004-02-16 at 10:12, in7y118@public.uni-hamburg.de wrote: > 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 > shuffle. > > 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. > > Benjamin What you describe is surprisingly similar to the algorithm used in RB right now. If you 'jump' to a song by manually selecting it, the rating will go up more. If you listen to a song all the way through and you have been active on your computer since the song started, the rating will go up more. If you skip a song before the last 30 seconds, the rating will go down. It is a bit more complicated than that, but you get the gist of it. You are probably the exact use case the algorithm was designed for; it also works for me well. This is the same way that IMMS works, and that seems to be popular. So, I doubt the algorithm has any huge flaws. The one problem mentioned was concern that it would not adjust the ratings of songs quickly enough. I personally think that slowly rating songs is good, because then you get less jittery ratings when your listening mood changes from session to session. But, I again defer to IMMS here, since when I wrote the auto-rating, I merely took the amount IMMS scaled songs and translated it for RB's 5 star system. -mt
This is a digitally signed message part