Print

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

[6233638]

It does seems like it would be easy enough to support. [10 star rating]
 
Personally, I don't see a need for that much granularity though I wouldn't object to half-star ratings being there if they are optional.
Shifting a neutral rating to 2 stars instead of 3 is what I'd prefer though, since that gives all the granularity necessary for rating tracks in my opinion. 60% is not "neutral".
 

• Bad
• Bad
• Neutral
• Good
• Great

Makes no sense to me.
 

• Bad
• Neutral
• Good
• Great
• Amazing

Is all that I need. Anything more than that seems superfluous.
 
 
What I would like to see—that would require some work—would be a better/worse/equal system that ranks your library automatically instead of using stars.
You simply rate the current track as better/worse/equal to the previous one, and MC would calculate its ranking.
Better/worse/equal is an easy system that doesn't require much consideration. Rating with five stars is difficult and ten even more-so. It becomes a distraction.

[glynor]

Shifting a neutral rating to 2 stars instead of 3 is what I'd prefer though, since that gives all the granularity necessary for rating tracks in my opinion. 60% is not "neutral".

I agree completely.

I've asked for it before, but I'll mention it again... What I would like is: Tools > Options > Library & Folders > Rating Weight Bias that defaults to zero (which preserves current behavior) but allows you to select integers in the range -3 to +3 (or maybe -5 to +5 but that seems unnecessary).

I'd set it to -1 and then Play Doctor would consider my two-star rated tracks what it considers 3 star/unrated, and I think it would improve the behavior of Play Doctor with my system of rating.

I don't know that they said this would never change.  They may not have liked certain proposals, or not commented, but there are other fish to fry.  Would have been a good one for the thread, but I forgot about it until just now.

As far as half-star ratings, I'm not interested.  It might be nice if you could set the range on the stars so that you could use Stars Edit Types for other purposes more easily (so you could set it to 10 to get ten stars, or 3 to get a three-way switch, as discussed in the Checkbox thread).  Might be nice, though I'm not super motivated to push for it.

[MusicBringer]

• Bad
• Neutral
• Good
• Great
• Amazing

I agree with 6233638 on this.
Makes sense to me.

[TCube]

Errr ... my scale :

0. insignificant / never listen to / to keep for the sake of it
1. listen once or twice / to be scrap later maybe with no remorse
2. give it another try
3. good but not as "too" good as to be in a Playlist (think it over while listening my playlist)
4. great
5. blows my mind

TC

PS. Isn't "half star" based on statistics from numerous listeners ? (Kind of Amazon' ratings).  Please ConfusedNoob what's your personal scale when you rate with 1/2 star ? Let's read it.

[rec head]

When I rate tracks I think of how often I actually want to hear a song.  I have a playlist for randomized tracks without any rating and I do most of my rating using Gizmo while working out. You can see from the list that "0" and "1" don't even count as ratings for me. The tracks given a 1 eventually get a different rating after I've edited the start or end time. I would really like more granularity so I could have bi-weekly squeezed in there. Also having a half star in there for "delete this garbage when you get a chance" would be nice.

My scale is:
0 = haven't gotten to it yet
1 = need to edit the beginning or end to remove nonsense such as crowd noise
2 = yearly
3 = monthly
4 = weekly
5 = daily

[rudyrednose]

0 = haven't gotten to it yet
1 = dislike but keep for sake of completeness
2 = meh
3 = like
4 = good!
5 = any time :-)

[6233638]

If you're making changes to Play Doctor, will you consider adding a ratings offset adjustment?
 
After going through the process of rating a large number of tracks in my library, Play Doctor started giving me bad results, since it does not use a weighted scale.
 
Without that, any other changes are irrelevant.

Stars	Current	Offset -1
1	Bad	Bad
2	Bad	Average
3	Average	Good
4	Good	Great
5	Great	Amazing

[broncodan]

If you're making changes to Play Doctor, will you consider adding a ratings offset adjustment?
 
After going through the process of rating a large number of tracks in my library, Play Doctor started giving me bad results, since it does not use a weighted scale.
 
Without that, any other changes are irrelevant.

Stars	Current	Offset -1
1	Bad	Bad
2	Bad	Average
3	Average	Good
4	Good	Great
5	Great	Amazing

I would really appreciate this option too (in fact I would love it for the current play doctor!) - although I would like at least a 2 star offset - as I still consider one star to be okay to hear.  This would also make the play doc more useful to me.  As for integrating streaming music - free would be okay but not willing to pay for anything else. 

[glynor]

I built this thread out of an older thread about Rating with Half-Stars:
http://yabb.jriver.com/interact/index.php?topic=93252.0

And the recent Play Doctor 2 thread:
http://yabb.jriver.com/interact/index.php?topic=95350

There have been some older posts about this too.  Including but not limited to this thread:
http://yabb.jriver.com/interact/index.php?topic=77935.msg530114#msg530114

[broncodan]

@Glynor - Thanks for this idea.   I have been around since MC13 and there have been requests ongoing for more or different types of ratings units since then.....  I started another thread last month that had some other suggestions:  http://yabb.jriver.com/interact/index.php?topic=94825.0 

the support for MC has definitely shifted more towards the video space (and honestly that was the space that needed a lot of attention early on) and truthfully the audio section is pretty darn good compared to everything else but I really only use this for Audio so still looking for some improvements...  this would be a welcome one in my humble opinion...