Print

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

[rhkrhk]

I mentioned in an earlier post about the inability of MC to find two versions of "I'm my own grandpa".  I imported both audio files, which are in different directories on the same drive, separately. Both are properly tagged. When I open either of them  by clicking on the filename I see the cover art, see the tags, and hear the music.   Search from the main window  search box to the right of JRiver media Center 18) sometimes brings up one of them, usually reports no search results, never shows both.
  Search from "play doctor" brings up a classical album of one sort or another and starts playing it. "Sinatra" brings up a similar list of classical tracks.

if I enter "cello" into the search box,  I'd like an orderly list of all works with "cello" in the title.  No way. i get a long list of separate tracks in random order.
  

Any way to accomplish my goals without being a genius in computer search language?  

[yannis]

The default search is admittedly to wide and fuzzy for its own good; but you could use the wizard (pressing the little triangle at the left of the search field) to set specific criteria for your query. Tedious, but it usually works much better.

[MrC]

n=cello

[marko]

I mentioned in an earlier post about the inability of MC to find two versions of "I'm my own grandpa".  I imported both audio files, which are in different directories on the same drive, separately. Both are properly tagged. When I open either of them  by clicking on the filename I see the cover art, see the tags, and hear the music.   Search from the main window  search box to the right of JRiver media Center 18) sometimes brings up one of them, usually reports no search results, never shows both.
  Search from "play doctor" brings up a classical album of one sort or another and starts playing it. "Sinatra" brings up a similar list of classical tracks.

That would be this thread: http://yabb.jriver.com/interact/index.php?topic=79115.0

I offered help, but you did not respond.

[MrHaugen]

If you are only interested in searching for titles of tracks, you can remove the other tags from search. You do this under Options - Library & Folders - Manager Library Fields... I think removing the search keywords also leaves the tags out from the search engine. I might be wrong though. So you should test it on one field first.

As MrC also points out, you can specify the tag you want to search in. n is short for name. Name, Title and N should all search for only the title/name specified.

[yannis]

n is short for name. Name, Title and N should all search for only the title/name specify.

Sorry but these replies don't seem to help a lot.

n=run (just like the wizard) returns all names containing RUN, including Drunkard, Burundi etc.
n=[Run  seems to return all titles beginning with Run
n=Run]  seems to return all titles ending in Run
n= Run (with a space before) returns a completely unfathomable collection of titles


How can we limit the search to whole words (plain and simple RUN)?
How can we perform simple boolean searches?
And why in the Google age do the search mode has to be so "proprietary" (for lack of a better word)?

[MrC]

Sorry but these replies don't seem to help a lot.

n=run (just like the wizard) returns all names containing RUN, including Drunkard, Burundi etc.
n=[Run  seems to return all titles beginning with Run
n=Run]  seems to return all titles ending in Run
n= Run (with a space before) returns a completely unfathomable collection of titles

How can we limit the search to whole words (plain and simple RUN)?
How can we perform simple boolean searches?
And why in the Google age do the search mode has to be so "proprietary" (for lack of a better word)?

I think the replies help the original question, which was about "cello" anywhere in the title.

For your case, use ^ to anchor to full words:

   n=^run

See Quoting and Anchoring.  (Note that your usage above is missing a matching bracket).

To use AND and OR, see Grouping and Combining.

The syntax has evolved and grown over time.

[yannis]

thank you, ^ works. But the real question was the last one: why does it have to be so cryptic? Why can't it just be "Run", just like in a plain google search?

[MrC]

Because the language evolved over time, and was already defined quite some time ago.  Full word search is new in MC:

17.0.82 (2/3/2012)

8. NEW: The search language supports putting a hat in front of a keyword to do word matching (so ^car matches "Car Blues" or "My Car Broke" but not "Carolina on My Mind").

These things can't just be ripped out and changed, as that would break existing smartlists, views, etc.

[JimH]

... the real question was the last one: why does it have to be so cryptic? Why can't it just be "Run", just like in a plain google search?

Because the program can't guess what you want.

[MrHaugen]

If you are only interested in searching for titles of tracks, you can remove the other tags from search. You do this under Options - Library & Folders - Manager Library Fields... I think removing the search keywords also leaves the tags out from the search engine. I might be wrong though. So you should test it on one field first.

I was slightly wrong here. You'll have to remove the check mark "Default search field". That will prevent all sorts of irrelevant info to show up in the search results.

[MrC]

I believe Matt indicated that (most) all stock fields are now internally set to be Search fields, and the setting you see in the field defs is not used for these.

[MrC]

Ah, here it is:

17.0.4 (9/16/2011)

16. Changed: More stock fields are default search fields (most all text fields are now searched by default).
17. Changed: Stock fields don't use the 'Default search field' option, but instead rely on rules in the source code.

[MrHaugen]

In that case, I can understand there will be a lots of irrelevant searches. If the default search filed is of no use, why keep it? I've not been using search for years though. So I have little experience on this subject.

[MrC]

If the default search filed is of no use, why keep it?

For your own user fields.

[yannis]

Because the program can't guess what you want.

Google (and countless others) can read perfectly well a simple language query. If I search for "run", it returns all the "run"s it can find, but it's smart enough not to bring "Drunkard" or "Burundi". And with no need for hats, t's or pants. Only quotes, if I want them.

I would have liked it if it could have been as simple as that in MC. We're not in the 80s, when every utility had its own little dialect. And the argument about smartlists etc is understandable, but I suppose MC could have had a better search mode, while retaining the syntax to be used "under the hood".

In case anyone cares about a different point of view, plain users, not being  programmers, may admire MC's magic but in the end they don't really care about or want to know how it performs it. I think MC is an amazing program to still have such shortcomings and from my little experience I'm convinced it's losing customers (albeit not me) because of this stress on a "do it yourself" attitude. If I had a say in it, I'd have all those wonderful tips, expressions, views etc that are lost somewhere in the forum gathered, updated and offered ready for use - perhaps tucked in advanced tabs or submenus so as to not intimidate newcomers. Or at least some examples, to facilitate learning, like in the Smartlists section...

[kstuart]

I believe Matt indicated that (most) all stock fields are now internally set to be Search fields, and the setting you see in the field defs is not used for these.

So, when the File Properties Wiki Page says:

" The Search column indicates if the field should be searched when using Media Center's Search area.  "

that is out-of-date, and they should all be checked in that column ?  (Or are you referring to something different)

[MrC]

This is a tough, since the Wiki both documents old and new MC versions at once.  When I (re)wrote that page, Search fields was still used.  Shortly thereafter, this was changed.

I used to write notes that reflected when changes were made, so that documentation was more comprehensive, but it is JRiver's preference to have documentation reflect the current version only, with the idea that users should update.  To me, this is an odd form of documentation, but Their House, Their Rules.

[MrC]

yannis, I think you're being tough here.  Many of us search using partial words (e.g. clan for clannad, zepp for Led Zeppelin, or jo for john and jon).  Google isn't so good at returning instant results this way.

If partial word matching was disabled, we'd have to spell everything out, or use what you describe as 80's syntax (Google's - (dash) exclude character feels very 80's, as does the range .. sequence, and double quotes, and the ~ similar query, and *).

Remember, Rome wasn't built in a day.

[yannis]

No complaints at all about speed, but the argument on ease of use still stands - I wouldn't find the hat thing on my own if my life depended on it 

OK, maybe you're right and I'm the one left back in the 80s, but the point is why make the plain user feel inadequate to use the program? In other words, why insist on Shift+Insert when already half the world knows and uses Ctrl+V? And why on earth should everyone have to rediscover the wheel?

PS, sorry if I spoke harshly, it was not my intention. But it's already v.18, isn't it?
 

[rhkrhk]

reply is just so I can find the thread again
thanks

[Matt]

I often type only part of a word.  I would be sad if "unfor" didn't get me the series of Metallica's Unforgiven tracks.

I don't feel strongly about whether "forgive" should match "Unforgiven" for an unqualified token.

If you want intelligence (guessing what you might mean), use the search suggestions.  There's a lot going on to try to figure out your intent.

Instant list filtering doesn't have the advantage of asking you what you mean like the suggestions, so must follow consistent rules.

[yannis]

I post back here because this is relevant. I've just noticed smth I consider strange behavior and I'd like to know how is it explained.

On a root level I place in the search box the free term "ttana" (without quotes). The list populates with songs of the artist I'm looking for, Lucas Santtana, but the pop up "Suggestions" contains only irrelevant info (mainly with the name "Thanasis") and NO ref to Santtana. There must be smth wrong there, right?