Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[HaiGuys]

I have a question & fiddling with the category views (details, files, etc) doesn't cut the mustard.

Can you get a detailed library stats reportof how many artists you have,
how many songs per artist, number of albums, highest rated albums, what artists
have the most songs in your collection, which artists are the highest rated, etc etc.
 A FULL REPORT. All in just 3 clicks?

 File > Create Report > Statistics. THAT'S IT. No goofing around with this or that.
No bs?  MC is way behind the competition in this regard! Which is a shame as I really like the rest!
So, when can we expect a version of MC to have an easy to use, Library Statistics function? 




Thanks.

[jimmy neutron]

Good idea. I would love to be able to print these stats of my library. I don't know if it's possible to do this currently in MC, but it sure would be nice to have it done.

Jimmy

[Lasse_Lus]

You can build reports within a view, use categories with details, add your grouping together with [track #]

if you want advanced customized reports, i suggest you jump over to prod's fantastic 3:rd party "addon" sqlmytunes, http://yabb.jriver.com/interact/index.php?topic=56405.0, but you need some experience with databases to develope your own reports with this..

you can also copy the data to excel (now when "we" can copy more data http://yabb.jriver.com/interact/index.php?topic=72992.0) then use pivot tables or import to access or similair and create reports from there..

[rick.ca]

So, when can we expect a version of MC to have an easy to use, Library Statistics function?

Anticipating the objection Lasse_Lus' suggestions are "fiddling with the category views" and worse... you offer a hodge-podge of database details and summary statistics and imply there's some particular full, detailed report that would satisfy the need. There's not. If the competition offers something that looks like it is, it's only because their database is fixed and limited, and some arbitrary set of statistics serves well enough in describing collections bound to that design. In short, we're never going to get the sort of thing you describe—because it won't be of any practical use. It would be possible to add a feature that works like 'pivot tables', but that's not likely to happen either. Most users (even those willing to do more than 3 clicks) would consider such a thing too 'difficult' to use.

[InflatableMouse]

Other than "nice to know", I see no added value whatsoever.

Seeing that there are 3rd party options, you can export your library to XML too (lots of options available to play with that) I'm not sure the developers should spend considerable resources on such a niche feature.

[marko]

I believe it's still there under the hood, just that there's no obvious place to put it, and no huge demand for it either. There was barely a murmer when stats were quietly removed.

You could always roll back to v9.1, which comes complete with statistics, and detachable action window to boot...





I love these occasional trips down memory lane... MC has come a long long way in the past nine years. Amazing. Forget stats, read the status bar...

[Daydream]

I'm bumping this.

I think this should deserve more love. The points of view expressed are missing a few other places where statistical data can be applied - besides straight up reports. Take Theater view (*cough* what status bar ). It would allow the development of widgets so you can plug on the front page (or wherever) - which has unbelievable large unused space - data about what is in every section as you aim to take your pick.

And I'm not exactly sure why of why can't we get the ability to count across, average values across fields, the works. Is this a database or what is it?

[rick.ca]

Global Variables!

It would be nice to be able to display user-created variables anywhere in the skin. But with a little imagination, a more productive 'Statistics View' could be created using them—using expression categories to display the results of global variables.

[jimmy neutron]

Other than "nice to know", I see no added value whatsoever.

Seeing that there are 3rd party options, you can export your library to XML too (lots of options available to play with that) I'm not sure the developers should spend considerable resources on such a niche feature.

Yep, it is more of a "nice to know" feature. But I can also think of a very important reason that would make this "button" all the worthwhile: insurance. If your home gets broken into and the thief takes all your CD's, when you report this to your insurance Company they always ask for a "inventory" of the CD's that were stolen so they can reimburss you. Imagine telling your agent "They took around 8,000 CD's". You know what she'll say back? "How bout we just pay you around $1000.00". Now if you had a complete and detailed inventory, then she really can't argue back too much at that point, and at the same time you won't shortchange yourself by having to remember all 8000 CD's off the top of your head and forgetting a few. This happened to me once before about 10 years ago. My insurance Company paid me back on every one that I listed, but I know I forgot quite a few because I had no running inventory.

The point is that it would not be very difficult to incorporate an inventory feature into MC. I mean MC already knows EXACTLY everything you have in your library. All we'd need is to have MC just organise that data onto a prearranged data page and allow it to be printable, or be able to be backed up to your drive or cloud service. The information is already inside MC. Some of us could this feature more than others, but it's still a valuable feature that requires no future updates past the initial build.

This has my vote.

Jimmy

[rick.ca]

But I can also think of a very important reason that would make this "button" all the worthwhile: insurance.

I don't know what this has to do with statistics, or what it is you think needs to be added to the program to produce an inventory for insurance purposes. That could be done at any time—before or after the loss of CD's—using a smartlist. Such a list could be exported and emailed to an insurer. How effective it is in supporting a claim might depend on the quality of your data (how well it identifies the original media and it's value), but that has nothing to do with the program.

[jimmy neutron]

The program IS the statistics. If MC had a feature that allows the user to generate an inventory list of all his music - and a bit more info as well - I feel it would be a valuable feature to have. MC already has these statistics in it's database. All that needs to be done is to just format it and allow the user to print it. What is so hard about that? And why would anyone be so against it? I mean it's not like it is a feature that would take so much precious time and continued support that it could break other features, or keep programmers from building and implementing new features into MC. I'll wager that Mat or Jim could probably get this done in an afternoon by themselves. Just because 1 person may not like/use the feature does not mean all others won't. There are plenty of features in MC right now that I don't use and find frivolous, yet some other people find them usefull. It's a simple addition that would require no further upkeep. It's just a statsheet basically of your library. I think that is a useful feature to have. Some may not think so. Some may like using 3rd party software to do this. They may like opening another program, letting it run on their music drive, and having it show on the screen while MC is closed or minimized. I think it would be a more elegant design to have MC display it in the program while MC is running. I think having it be an all-in-one solution by the same program that knows your library better than anyone else is simpler. I don't think I'm alone on this thought.

[rick.ca]

I can only make sense of what you're suggesting by dropping the two red herrings—insurance and statistics. MC does have a simple facility for printing lists based on the current view, but nothing that would pass as a 'report generator'. So regardless of what the report is for, we have little control over its formatting, or any ability to add totals and/or summary statistics.

Although requests for such a feature aren't uncommon, it's not difficult to understand a developer's choice of considering it a low priority or ruling it out completely. Adding a reasonably capable report generator would be far more that an afternoon's work. What can be done with such a small effort has already been done. The effort required for the more capable version would be of dubious value. Those who have any pressing need for the sort of report it could produce can already do so using other software.

You may think an all-in-one solution must be simpler and more convenient, but that's unlikely the case. Those unable to cut & paste or export data to Excel and format a report there are also likely to have difficulty doing so with a built-in report generator.

[jimmy neutron]

Oh well. Another feature request shot down. 

Apparently it's of dubious value.

[marko]

* marko is listeng to: 'Don't Give Up' by 'Peter Gabriel' from the album 'Shaking The Tree: Sixteen Golden Greats' [Duration: 5:55 | 669 kbps flac (28.4 MB) | rated 5/5 | played 82 times ~ last played 2.18 years ago  (14/05/10)

[Daydream]

Is this where I came back and attempt to frame the discussion the right way, by throwing in terms like confidence interval, regression series, and standard deviation? After all, all I wanted was to find out how my taste in music changed over time. Just need a couple of functions...

[HaiGuys]

No 'practical value'? Hm. It'd be practical to me.  

And consider this: What practical value is there to music at all? And, to jukebox software in particular?
The whole thing is about having fun and enjoying your collection. Unless there's some scientific, possibly
conspiratorial, application I'm unaware of? That'd be neat. Cure dandruff and file your taxes with MC18!

Otherwise:
+ Quality of life.
+ Quality of your experiences (including this forum).
+ Ease of use.

You already have a superior product, meat-and-bones wise. Why not add some bells and whistles? Your skins are by far the grooviest! How about instead of that...add what we're talking about here? Or maybe a sleep function that fades volume, built in? I understand though, that if you're kinda 'hard up' for resources, for hands on deck, this particular development would be further down the list of things to do. I can see that. I guess it depends on who your target audience is, too. I thought it was mainly people like me, with a large collection...wanting to enjoy their music. And have fun doing it?

Anyways, always nice to know yr responses to these things.
Guess I'll save my other romantic, fanciful ideas for another forum.

Thanks for the considerations, bros!
Cheers!

[HaiGuys]

Three clicks.

[jimmy neutron]

HaiGuy, that is amazing. How did you do that? External software? Hidden in MC? Personal custum plug-in?

Jimmy

[glynor]

I think this would be cool as something in the Tag AW.

[rick.ca]

No 'practical value'? Hm. It'd be practical to me.
...
Guess I'll save my other romantic, fanciful ideas for another forum.

I think you're making inappropriate assumptions about the willingness of others to consider ideas. Some of us quite enjoy discussing ideas and feature proposals. Discussing ideas can spawn better ones, or adapt them to a form more useful to a wider group users. Even if they never end up in the program, considering them often leads to useful insights on how to make better use of existing program capabilities.

The problem with the initial suggestion is it was much too vague. Calling it a 'statistics report' or the comment it could be useful for insurance purposes didn't help. Knowing any kind of fixed-format report would be rather useless for many, I made the assumption it would have some report generator-like qualities, but that would likely be more effort than it's worth. Vague or not, the fact the thing would be practical to you is of little significance. It's not going to be added to the program unless there's reason to believe it would be useful to many users. But that can't be determined (by reason or reader response) unless the feature is properly described.

You've repeated the '3 clicks' idea, which implies this report is fixed in format and content. The illustration suggests it's only for Audio, and only for all Audio in the library. Why, when MC could easily generate such a report for any file selection? And why the content illustrated, when many other choices might be more appropriate. For example, 80% of my collection is of the Rock genre, so I would be more interested in various measures within that genre than it comparing the whole to other genres.

Most of the information in the illustration is available to me dynamically in my primary Audio Panes View. I can slice & dice the collection any way I like using the panes, and get the results from the pane headers and the info bar. With that in my face every day, what would I use this report for? Top Ten Lists? Wouldn't it be more fun and informative to do that with a view that (for example) excludes tracks not played in a relevant period (e.g., the last month or year), and then measuring the 'popularity' of an artist or album by summing the products of [Number Plays] and [Rating]?

I think it would be far more useful to have an option to display applicable count, total, average and standard deviation for every group in a list, for every field in the view, and with values for all the files in the view at the end. I would then be able to include any files of any type and get detailed statistics for any grouping I cared to define.

[jimmy neutron]

 ? [palm to face]  ?

[rick.ca]

[palm to face]

Funny, that was my reaction to "The program IS the statistics," and "But I can also think of a very important reason that would make this 'button' all the worthwhile: insurance."

[Matt]

I think it would be far more useful to have an option to display applicable count, total, average and standard deviation for every group in a list, for every field in the view, and with values for all the files in the view at the end. I would then be able to include any files of any type and get detailed statistics for any grouping I cared to define.

Interesting idea.

You can already show a category view in details mode.  In other words, you can have a list of artists (or any other grouping) and show the number of files each, total duration, etc. with columns.  This allows sorting, copy-n-paste to a spreadsheet, printing, and more.

Adding expressions to get the mode, min, max, etc. from a grouping would be no big deal.

The only hitch with this approach is that it's complicated.  In that respect, a fixed report in HTML or something would be more accessible for most people.

[Lasse_Lus]

Adding expressions to get the mode, min, max, etc. from a grouping would be no big deal.

please matt, give us 

i almost forgot how neat it would be

The math function is great, please let us also do math in detailed view = summarize integers

[Vocalpoint]

I have to say +100. The overall lack of reporting in the system is definitely something that could be vastly improved. I would love to have a "Report Manager" of some type to be able to generate reports on the library (s).

VP

[rick.ca]

You can already show a category view in details mode.

I do use that occasionally when I want something more in the form of a statistical summary than a Panes View can provide. I would use it much more for that purpose if it didn't have one very limiting behaviour. That is, there's no way to select 'all' of a given category. So if I include [Decade] as a category, then I will get a summary of everything—or the last selected category value (e.g., one genre)—by decade. But then I must select a decade to go any further—so any further statistics are for that one decade only. I can, of course, revise the view to remove [Decade] or place it elsewhere in the sequence of categories included. But that ruins the otherwise dynamic nature of the report.

The simple solution would be to include 'All' in the list of existing values for the current category. That would provide the means to 'skip' a category selection so it does not restrict further selections. If the categories were [Genre] - [Decade] - [Artist], I could select a Genre and see a summary by decade, then have a choice: (1) select a Decade and see a summary of that Genre/Decade by Artist, or (2) select 'All' and see a summary of Genre by Artist. I could also include [Decade] more than once in the sequence of categories, then use it where desired and skip it in other positions. The view could then be changed from a summary of Genre-by-Decade to Decade-by-Genre to Artist-by-Decade in just a few clicks.

I don't use Category Views much and haven't considered what impact this solution might have on other uses of the view. But I can't think of any harm it would do. Actually, I wonder why it's not there already, or whether I'm missing something...

Adding expressions to get the mode, min, max, etc. from a grouping would be no big deal.

I suppose that might be a little redundant, but the option do so would make the view more interesting. The grouping could be set to whatever the user finds most relevant or useful, and the summary statistics would help in relating it back to the line selected in the category pane. Also, assuming the summary statistics would be added to every column with numerical values, maybe we could add anything imaginable simply by including an expression column. With Global Variables!

I prefer not to kill trees, but I do see there's a File > Print List command that can be used to print the summary. The heading is set to the name of the view, so those who like printed reports can create different, appropriately-named views (e.g., 'Music Stats', 'My Video Collection', etc.), and print a report at any time with one click.

So maybe a few simple changes would make it clear using Categories View as a dynamic statistical summary is far superior—and renders any other type or form of report redundant.

[HaiGuys]

The problem with the initial suggestion is it was much too vague.

No, it wasn't vague at all. If you'd done even basic research into your competitors, you wouldn't need me to even bring this up.
And certainly wouldn't need me to draw a picture for you. Even a simple Google search, after the fact, would've set you straight.

Knowing any kind of fixed-format report would be rather useless for many...

You've asked them?  They've tried it and said, "Please don't add this feature! It'd be useless to me."
Really doubtful. Scrobbling to Lastfm is such a popular thing because people like seeing their collections on display.
People love bragging. If anything you should take this suggestion and go further with it. Make these reports
 postable on lastfm, FB, etc. After, that is, you get the function up and running. And you will.

Most of the information in the illustration is available to me dynamically in my primary Audio Panes View.

First off, false. It's not available. Not with three clicks. Not with a million clicks. And, definitely not on one screen.
I'll gladly wait for you to post, as I've already done, a screenshot showing:


~ Top genres played, total file number, total length in h:m:seconds.
~ Top artists played, total file number, total length in h:m: seconds.
~ Top albums played, total file number, total length in h:m: seconds.
~ Top year played, total file number, total length in h:m: seconds.

~ Total genres in library, total file number, total length in h:m:seconds.
~ Total artists in library, total file number, total length in h:m: seconds.
~ Total albums in library, total file number, total length in h:m: seconds.
~ Total years in library, total file number, total length in h:m: seconds.

~ List of ALL artists sorted by total file number, total length in h:m:seconds.
~ List of ALL genres sorted by total file number, total length in h:m:seconds.
~ List of average track number per album, favorites and total.
~ List of average length per track, favorites and total.
~ List of average bitrate in your entire library, favorites and total.

~ Average number tracks per artist.
~ Average number tracks per genre.
~ Average number tracks per album.
~ Average number tracks per playlist.

~ Average track number played per day?
~ How many tracks do you have with 5 stars?
~ What genres are they mostly in? How many h:m:seconds would it take to play 'em all?
~ Average rating of tracks both in the total library and in those you've played.

And on. and on. and on.

All on one page! ===> Available with just three clicks.

Not gonna happen. MC can't do this. You know it. I know it. Quit lyin'.
Grouping by columns is basic, boring and not at all what I'm talking about.
Not at all what other programs are already doing.  It's not rocket science.
Your lunch is getting eaten, and you're saying, "I wasn't hungry anyways."  

I can slice & dice the collection any way I like.

Bully for you. Even if you could, somehow, cobble together a report like the one above, it's of zero significance here as most of your customers aren't you.

I don't want to know how my television or car works. That's why I pay people to handle it.
You're getting paid, then bragging that because you know how to do something, everyone else should too.
In other words, you're completely missing the point.

I think it would be far more useful to have an option to display applicable count, total, average and standard deviation for every group in a list, for every field in the view, and with values for all the files in the view at the end. I would then be able to include any files of any type and get detailed statistics for any grouping I cared to define.

So, first you insult anyone supporting this suggestion. Now you're taking full credit for it? Yeah, classy.  

===>  



Anyways, it's not that big of a deal one way or the other:

I'll just use one of the competition's programs to do my report. And, to 'fade-to-sleep' at night as well.
Heck, since I'm already there...maybe I'll just go ahead and sign up for their program?  Why not?
At least when I offer free advice on their software, I won't be condescended to and attacked.
.
.
.
.

HaiGuy, that is amazing. How did you do that? External software? Hidden in MC? Personal custum plug-in?

Well, that's what the competition is already doing. Three clicks. Actually, one click a hover and another click.
Fun, isn't it? A joy to play with! AND==> Easy to use. A complete report. And, if you noticed the little sidebar,
those two screens are just a small sample of the output. there's more to it than those two screens.

Here's another example. This one with just ONE CLICK:

Now, don't judge the software by my measly collection.
Same with the other images above. If you had a longer history, your stats would be FAR more interesting!

Ciao! Don't sweat it.

[jimmy neutron]

Yes!!! Now that's what I'm talking about!  Having stats like that are exactly like what you said - for fun at least, for bragging rights too, and to just plain know what you have at a glance. You have the program (MC) open already, why not be able to pull up some stats? For every person that finds interest in this they can give you 10 reasons each why they like it, want it, need it.

You know, it may even be a better idea if the Men That Be here at MC could allow us, the fans, the ability to creat our own plug-ins and share them with those that want them. I've noticed that just about every other media player has this capability, and the fans use it extensively. I don't know if MC has that capability, or if it does why no one is using it, but having a user submitted plug-in section could elevate MC into a whole new high. Maybe it's the tools? Or the documentation? I don't know.  ?

Anyway Haiguy, this is one of the better ideas I've read of here. I hope it comes to fruition.

Jimmy

[HaiGuys]

Why else listen to music? If not for fun?  
Quality of experience. Ease of use. Intuitive Design.

Anyways, so many other platforms have been doing this for so long, just seems like a no-brainer.
It's really not that big of a deal. At all. Very basic idea. Not sure where all the resistance is coming from...

In 5 years, all media software will have their own versions of the above images.

[JimH]

Thanks for the suggestion.

[Matt]

most of your customers aren't you.

You're getting paid...

Just to be clear, rick.ca does not speak for, or get paid by, JRiver.

As Jim said, thanks for the ideas.  I'd like to add something like this to the program, but I'm not sure when it will happen.