You're right, consistency is good and redundancy is bad. The option to save audio covers in a separate folder should be removed as well.
Yes, there should be consistency. If that means removing the location settings for album cover images, so be it. I don't mind personally. But be aware that there will be noise. I don't have a problem with ONE image in each directory. But when the amount of "meta" files is are around 70% of the content, the users might be thinking otherwise. Just as it is today with TV Show season folders.
You perceive a problem that has nothing to do with MC. This utility addresses your concern directly, but it's "bad" because it's not free? No wonder you won't provide reasons in support of the suggestion. It seems the only criteria that matters is that you get something for free at the expense of everyone else.
Are you serious? MC is creating all of this files, and we have no reasonable way of controlling it. That ability was removed. Who's fault is it? Is it Windows' fault for not having an option to automatically hide MC "meta" files? The reason I find this suggestion of a licensed application "bad" is because it costs money, and require some knowledge to set up. We can't expect all users to pay for this and put the time into it. MC is creating this files, and it should be MC's job to have options to clean it up. This goes for jpg's, but also things like sidecar files. Would you seriously tell all the users in the coming years something similar to this? "There is nothing wrong with MC. It's your ways that are faulty. If you want to do something about this, you'll have to pay for the Universal Shield program, and possibly get some help setting it up. That will fix all your problems."
There's been some suggestions in this thread that could easily solve this (example of the hidden files attribute). I have no problem with the file hiding application my self. I might in fact purchase it and use it. But I think it's pretty bad that I'm forced to purchase an application because MC's lost a function, and me and my tenants find it annoying to have the meta files filling up the directory structure.
You also talk about "at the expense of everyone else". Where does that come from? Would an alternative way of handling this files hurt you or others? That is simply not true.
I'm sorry (a tiny bit) for the sarcasm, but I believe you're being unreasonable. You say you don't want to argue, but you continue to do so.
There's a difference in discussing with you and others. What I'm trying sometimes is to avoiding a discussion with you when I know it will lead nowhere. When you're on your one way track, there is no way of derailing you or stopping you. Yea, I know. You might think that I'm talking about my self too. Let's face it. We're both very stubborn men. But the main difference is that I might actually bend sometimes. I might even turn completely if someone convince me of a need or a better way. I've gotten the impression that you don't. That's ok. I've gotten used to that. But you have to accept that I will continue to try to avoid discussions with you when I know it lead to a dead end. If I will ever succeed is another question. Look at how well it went in this thread
There has been quite a few similar posts to this one (images and xml sidecar files), and much more will come in time. Users that think it's a shame that they have no control of the meta files. My continued replays in this thread was an effort to try to fix this issue. To give some advice on possible solutions. I hope that is still allowed... It does not seem like you're willing to find a solution at all, and that's a shame. You usually have good and valid suggestions for other parts of MC, which I often support.
And now you're only support for the suggestion is "it will make people happy." If it will make people happy, there must be a reasons why it would make them happy. Knowing those reasons, we might judge whether the suggestion has merit or not. In the absence of reasons, surely we have to conclude the choice to be happy or not is already fully within the user's control, and doesn't have much to do with MC. In your case, the rejection of Universal Shield pretty much confirms this.
The main problem here is that many users still depend on browsing their folders to access media. Those with MC most often use MC, and don't care much about the folders and files. We've often gotten past that point. But there is some of us that are dependent on using explorer still. I use it when adding new media, picking a track or video to edit. When copying files to devices and so on. The main concern is those users that use explorer 100% of the time for browsing and playback. Everyone does NOT use MC for playback and organizing, and I can't force them. Some MC users even use explorer for playback! I have some tenants that finds it rather annoying to have folders tilled with thing they never use. And I get that. This is not only about the images. The sidecar files adds to this as well.
This are very valid point for those it concerns. No matter how small of a problem you think it is. Yes, it would make this users happier. It that wrong? Other concerns like consistency, spread locations for images and so on are also valid. There's also a few things mentioned in the previous posts, but I don't see the point repeating them.
I'm trying to highlight the problems with the system as it is today. There are no consistency, some images have location options and naming options, some does not. This makes backup, explorer browsing, updating of images outside of MC and organizing more difficult. At what benefit? MC having a little less problems with moving and renaming? Or was it the ability to have images for duplicate media files that was the reason? Unique file naming and positioning? I don't know. Only thing I know is that it would be a good thing for most of us if things was a bit more consistent, and that there was some option to help users clean up or organize this meta file mess.
