meepos
Newbie
Posts: 1
Registered: 6-4-2003
Member Is Offline
|
|
posted on 6-4-2003 at 02:57 AM
|
|
|
Improve popularity mode?
The popularity mode is a great feature, but I think it could be improved on. The way it is now, a song can only become "popular" if we
manually select to play the song.
Of course, if I play "popular mode", I'm going to hear songs I've selected before, so it works in that sense.
The majority of times though, I'll just let my entire collection randomly play. Seeing as I have a lot of entire albums, there's plenty of
songs I don't care too much for, or just don't want to hear all that often.
What I propose is some sort of popular/unpopular system be created that accurately tracks what's really listened to most. I don't think
this would be that difficult if we tracked songs played for X number of seconds (maybe 30 seconds?).
For example, if a song is played past the 30 second mark (essentially meaning the user hasn't skipped to the next song), it gets a popularity
point.
Or we could go the reverse way and give each song an "unpopular" point if it's skipped past within 30 seconds.
This way, the commomly skipped over songs could be filtered out. This would be a much more true indication of popularity.
|
|
|
Pirk
Posting Freak
Posts: 3976
Registered: 3-11-2003
Location: France
Member Is Offline
|
|
posted on 6-4-2003 at 09:20 AM
|
|
|
Hey, it's not a bad idea! I often proceed like you to play my songs: random play and skip if too bad. The only problem with your idea is
sometimes I let the music play without really pay attention to what is performed. So in that case, all the songs will become more populars!
However, I like the idea to decrease the popularity of a song if skipped. That make sense.
Pirk
|
|
|
Demnos
Member
Posts: 207
Registered: 3-11-2003
Location: Berlin, Germany
Member Is Offline
|
|
posted on 6-4-2003 at 10:22 AM
|
|
|
|
Don't forget that Audiosoft is also working on a rating system that may take care of this issue much better than evaluating if 30 seconds have
passed or not. As I have said often before, be careful not to mix popularity and rating, they are two totally different things.
|
|
|
cbsoundman
Member
Posts: 105
Registered: 4-10-2003
Location: St. Louis, MO USA
Member Is Offline
|
|
posted on 6-4-2003 at 02:05 PM
|
|
|
I see your point about popularity vs. ratings but, why don't we have the ratings get affected automatically based on whether or not a song is
skipped prior to that 30 second mark. It could drop a point when skipped and increased a point when chosen.
I would also recommend that Kiosk mode not automatically affect ratings since, typically, when the program is in Kiosk mode, it is in a party scene
where guests choose what songs they want to hear rather than the owner of the program. To me, the guests would be more for the "Popularity"
mode and the owner of the system would be more for the "Rating" mode. (For example, a movie critic would rate a movie as poor but, the
movie would still be popular if people went to see it.) Rating is opinion based but popularity is measurable.
|
|
|
Pirk
Posting Freak
Posts: 3976
Registered: 3-11-2003
Location: France
Member Is Offline
|
|
posted on 6-4-2003 at 02:24 PM
|
|
|
I second you cbsoundman,
I think POPULAR means known but also LIKED, so:
I would like to obtain, in a natural way, a popularity list really representative of my tastes (Demnos, I hope you will not too frightened!):
In order to play my songs randomly, I set the popularity mode to "Play songs picked at least 0 times and at most 10 (or more) times" but in
this way there are a lot of songs I don't like very much and which are nevertheless often played. I would like an easy way to prevent these songs
to be played again in future.
So as I notice the most natural reflex for songs I don't like is to skip them, I think the skip function could be used to decrease their
popularity count. Each song skipped when in the popularity mode could have its "picked up" count decreased. In this way, unwanted songs with
a negative count would not played anymore.
Furthermore, the popularity cursor in the play mode option could be extended to a negative range in order to be able to play even though these
"bad" songs.
To sum up, each song added to the playlist would have its popularity increased if played more than 30s (if skipped before 30s the popularity is not
modified) and decreased if skipped when in the popularity mode.
In this way the popularity list will become really representative of the user preferences whitout have to do any particular rating effort. All is
natural, so efficient too!
Pirk
|
|
|
cbsoundman
Member
Posts: 105
Registered: 4-10-2003
Location: St. Louis, MO USA
Member Is Offline
|
|
posted on 6-4-2003 at 03:53 PM
|
|
|
|
Yeah, but at a party, in Kiosk mode, I don't want someone affecting my rating counts. This is why I would prefer it not happen in Kiosk mode or,
maybe that can be a check/uncheck option.
|
|
|
Pirk
Posting Freak
Posts: 3976
Registered: 3-11-2003
Location: France
Member Is Offline
|
|
posted on 6-4-2003 at 04:21 PM
|
|
|
-To cbsoundman:
Yes, concerning the Kiosk mode that is a different case. Nothing must happen.
-P.S. to Demnos:
I don't want the 5 stars user rating system (as it have been already planned here: http://www.audiosoft.net/forums/viewthread.php?tid=5) be altered
by the popularity count, not at all. My suggestion concern the improvement of the current popularity mode. I suppose the 2 rating systems will be kept
separetely?? But on that point, we are in a jam...
What do you think Audiosoft?
Pirk
|
|
|
jhlurie
Member
Posts: 212
Registered: 3-11-2003
Member Is Offline
|
|
posted on 6-5-2003 at 03:22 AM
|
|
|
A ratings mode should most definitely be static, except for by a deliberate change. The whole point of it was to provide a counterpoint to popularity
mode--where something is absolutely, not relatively, "ranked". The fluidity of the popularity mode is a seperate thing, and if further
developed, in my opinion, should always be seperate from an absolute "rating".
The idea HAS been discussed about a possible hybrid mode, where popularity and rating are combined. The popularity would act as a modifier on the
rating, basically, to help "correct" misconceptions you may have about your own listening preferences, but without overriding the
possibility of also following your pre-established biases when you feel like it (by turning off the popularity component and just following the
rating).
It's like... you may in the dark of night listen to lots of Britney Spears songs. They will be popular. Lying on your couch at night you
aren't going to be surprised to hear them pop up. Heck, you are going to WANT them to pop up--that's why you voluntarily request them a
lot.
But when you are setting the sucker up to play your "best" songs for someone else, aren't you going to expect a more refined list?
Aren't you going to want to sweep your Britney habit under the rug? You'll play your Bob Dylan, your White Stripes, maybe even your
Metallica. But Brit? She's popular, not "quality"? Do you want your friends (or customers, for some here) to hear that crap? To
know that in the dark of night that you WANT to hear that crap? Of course not. You want to play the "good stuff". At least at that point
in time. So you set the mode to play highly rated songs only, and little Miss Spears gets tucked away where she belongs--at least until you raise the
rating on some of her songs or turn the popularity figuring back on.
That's the difference between the modes, and a "hybrid", as described above, has a time and place as a third option too (the three
being "popularity only", "rating only" and "rating PLUS popularity" . At least IMO, "quality" and "popularity" are quite distinct.
And as has already been suggested, the reverse applies too. If this is set up in a public space, people may be requesting n'Sync songs left and
right. And so n'Sync should be marked as popular, and play a lot on its own when nothing is chosen and the sucker is in "Pop" mode.
But when the crowd changes (maybe its a place with distinctly different day and night crowds, for example) and you want only those "good
songs" to play--bang. You want to put a "ratings filter" on and have eJ only play the songs you have rated highly--maybe with a fudge
factor for REALLY popular songs... and maybe not... depending.
Works both ways. See?
|
|
|
Demnos
Member
Posts: 207
Registered: 3-11-2003
Location: Berlin, Germany
Member Is Offline
|
|
posted on 6-11-2003 at 12:05 PM
|
|
|
Regarding the "skipping a song before 30s changes popularity":
It seems that there is quite a big support for this here, and I think it could indeed be a nice feature. In fact, I am beginning to like the concept
myself to only count songs as popular that have played for at least 30 seconds - under that, they are not actually played as such, it is more like
they have been "sampled". So they should receive the same treatment as a song that has been scheduled into the playlist but then deleted.
So as long as skipping does not affect the new rating system, I am supporting this feature!
|
|
|
Pirk
Posting Freak
Posts: 3976
Registered: 3-11-2003
Location: France
Member Is Offline
|
|
posted on 6-11-2003 at 04:42 PM
|
|
|
jhlurie,
Thank you for your long explanations concerning the 3 differents mode possible.
I... agree, but my thought concern the improvement of the actual popularity mode. Others mode still can be considering!
| Quote: | Originally posted by Demnos
Regarding the "skipping a song before 30s changes popularity":
It seems that there is quite a big support for this here, and I think it could indeed be a nice feature. In fact, I am beginning to like the concept
myself to only count songs as popular that have played for at least 30 seconds - under that, they are not actually played as such, it is more like
they have been "sampled". So they should receive the same treatment as a song that has been scheduled into the playlist but then deleted.
So as long as skipping does not affect the new rating system, I am supporting this feature! |
Hey! Demnos,
Thank you for your support regarding the "skipping a song before 30s changes popularity". Effectively in this way I think it's possible
to IMPROVE THE POPULARITY WORKING like I have said on my previous post.
Audiosoft,
If you want to look into this...
...To sum up, each song added to the playlist would have its popularity increased if played more than 30s (if skipped before 30s the popularity is not
modified) and decreased if skipped when in the popularity mode.
In this way the popularity list will become really representative of the user preferences whitout have to do any particular rating effort. All is
natural, so efficient too!
Thanks,
Pirk
|
|
|
jhlurie
Member
Posts: 212
Registered: 3-11-2003
Member Is Offline
|
|
posted on 6-12-2003 at 02:23 AM
|
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by Pirk
jhlurie,
Thank you for your long explanations concerning the 3 differents mode possible.
I... agree, but my thought concern the improvement of the actual popularity mode. Others mode still can be considering! |
My reply was more to cbsoundman's views than yours, Pirk.
He said:
| Quote: | | I
see your point about popularity vs. ratings but, why don't we have the ratings get affected automatically based on whether or
not a song is skipped prior to that 30 second mark. It could drop a point when skipped and increased a point when chosen. |
Which implied to me that rather than this 30 second thing changing the POPULARITY, he wanted it to change the RATING--something I definitely
don't agree with. I mean if you allow ANY kind of play behavior to affect the rating, it just becomes another kind of Popularity score.
I have no problem with the 30 second idea applied relative to the Popularity score. Sounds like a fine idea.
I don't think we're actually disagreeing on this, I just think that cbsoundman's terminology in his post screwed us up. He basically
started talking about a static thing--a rating--and a changing thing--a popularity score--as if they were two different names for the same thing.
|
|
|
Pirk
Posting Freak
Posts: 3976
Registered: 3-11-2003
Location: France
Member Is Offline
|
|
posted on 6-12-2003 at 10:46 AM
|
|
|
OK jhlurie,
So, Everyone have the same point of vue, aside cbsoundman who mix static thing and changing thing...
There's no two ways about it, we are against his idea.
Thanks.
 Pirk |
|
|
Blaze
Junior Member
Posts: 48
Registered: 4-24-2003
Location: Denmark
Member Is Offline
|
|
posted on 6-12-2003 at 05:31 PM
|
|
|
One other thing. When you use the "Show what's playing next" mode or whatever we shopuld call it...I often use it for looking trough my
songs rather than skipping through them. Meaning I kinda use it like a mini playlist, finding a new song while this one is playing. But then it
doesnīt get counted in the popular mode, even though I selected it to be...I can see that can be hard to change.
But at least it should count it if you press play now on the song you found in "Show what's playing next", Since itīs a selected song
aswell as the one you choose manually.
|
|
|
cbsoundman
Member
Posts: 105
Registered: 4-10-2003
Location: St. Louis, MO USA
Member Is Offline
|
|
posted on 6-12-2003 at 06:43 PM
|
|
|
The reply I posted was for AUTOMATICALLY setting a rating for each song. I would want the AUTOMATIC rating for a song decreased when it was skipped
because it would typically mean that you did not care for that song as much as the others.
Statically set ratings should NOT change. If you take time to statically set each song's rating, keep it there.
POPULARITY settings should NOT be based off of RATINGS. A song could suck and be poular or be kick-ass and not played.
That were the points I was trying to make.
|
|
|
jhlurie
Member
Posts: 212
Registered: 3-11-2003
Member Is Offline
|
|
posted on 6-13-2003 at 02:41 AM
|
|
|
|
I guess I'm still confused. Have automatic ratings ever been discussed? My assumtion is that if a user never intentionally manually rates a
song, that it would stay in some neutral state and not be included in anything that looked for a certain rating level. It would be the equivalent of
the song being rated "0" for all intents and purposes, because you didn't care enough about the song to rate it (of course you might
still get the song randomly if the rating is being combined with the popularity in whatever "mode" you have set, but that's something
entirely different).
|
|
|
Demnos
Member
Posts: 207
Registered: 3-11-2003
Location: Berlin, Germany
Member Is Offline
|
|
posted on 6-13-2003 at 10:27 AM
|
|
|
Interesting question...how should unrated songs be treated. I think there are essentially 2 options:
a) default all unrated songs to "3" on a scale of 1-5, i.e. the exact middle. This would mean that "in the beginning, all songs were
created equal" until we tell eJukebox that some songs are actually better or worse than average.
b) keep them in a separate state outside the rating such as "0", so that we know the song has not been rated at all.
The latter seems to make more sense, but in that case, playback in a rating mode should include the option to [X] include all unrated songs.
That way I can listen to ALL songs that I have not marked as bad, i.e. "give me all songs that are better than 3 or not yet unrated"
|
|
|
Blaze
Junior Member
Posts: 48
Registered: 4-24-2003
Location: Denmark
Member Is Offline
|
|
posted on 6-13-2003 at 06:26 PM
|
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by Demnos
The latter seems to make more sense, but in that case, playback in a rating mode should include the option to [X] include all unrated songs.
That way I can listen to ALL songs that I have not marked as bad, i.e. "give me all songs that are better than 3 or not yet unrated"
|
I like that idea, that way you'll have a chance to rate some of your songs you might forgot. Then you could use this option once in a while, when
you fell like rating songs, until your done rating them all.
|
|
|
jhlurie
Member
Posts: 212
Registered: 3-11-2003
Member Is Offline
|
|
posted on 6-15-2003 at 04:30 AM
|
|
|
Well, the only issue I see with a generic option to "include all unrated songs" is that those songs still need to be assigned some kind of
weight to determine how often they play, especially in relation to songs which ARE rated.
So its either right down the middle (50%--2 1/2 stars, whatever...) or possibly an even lower score to give even a badly rated song a "better
chance".
|
|
|
Demnos
Member
Posts: 207
Registered: 3-11-2003
Location: Berlin, Germany
Member Is Offline
|
|
posted on 6-16-2003 at 10:43 AM
|
|
|
Hmmm...Sorry, I disagree (again ;-))
I always thought the rating system would be used only as a "filter" of sorts, i.e. when you say "play all songs with 3 or better"
it would just ignore all songs with 0,1,2 stars. Just like when you now go into custom mode and select all songs with genre = XYZ.
I don't think we have ever discussed that the rating system will have an influence on how often a songs is played in relation to other songs. So
you are saying that it should play a song with 5 stars more often than a song with 4 stars? Hmmm, I am not so sure I want that feature, I hate when
good songs play too often because I may tire of them. And besides, when popularity and rating are combined on playback (as was discussed here),
doesn't that already give you the option to play the most popular AND best-rated songs rather than only the best songs?
So, if we keep the * - ****stars rating as a pure filter, then the option to [X]include all unrated songs can work without assigning some weight to
these songs.
|
|
|
jhlurie
Member
Posts: 212
Registered: 3-11-2003
Member Is Offline
|
|
posted on 6-16-2003 at 11:13 AM
|
|
|
I don't totally disagree... I think its a matter of HOW MUCH weight you give the better rating. I also don't want 5 star songs playing
almost exclusively. But I do want them to play SOMEWHAT more often that 4 star songs. And 4 star songs to play SOMEWHAT more than 3 star songs, and
so on.
I kind of thought this was implicit in the fact that Audiosoft agreed to try a 100 point system, where the "5 stars" part is just a visual
shortcut. If you are simply using the ratings as a filter and nothing else then why would you NEED scores in-between the star values? What value
would a score of 89 have, for example? Well... to help determine play frequency--why else would you bother?
Really, it seems that you objection might be even more basic. You just don't want whatever logic Audiosoft uses for the Ratings portion to
ignore how long its been since that particular song last played. Part of the play logic could check when the song was last played and make a decision
based on that regardless of how high the song scored.
Another possible solution? How about an open-ended formula. Give the settings for the Ratings playing mode TWO slidebars. Slidebar #1 says
something like "ratings score needed to allow play" and goes from 0-100. Slidebar #2 says something like "weight given to higher
ratings score" and to the extreme left gives ALL songs equal weight and as you slide the bar towards the right, the influence on how much a
higher score affects play time increases.
Wouldn't something like that last serve everyone? Both the people who want ratings just to be a filter and also the people who want them to do
more?
|
|
|
Demnos
Member
Posts: 207
Registered: 3-11-2003
Location: Berlin, Germany
Member Is Offline
|
|
posted on 6-16-2003 at 02:25 PM
|
|
|
|
Yes, that last suggestion of the 2 sliders could work...with the important modification that the second slider should sit in the middle for "no
effect", to the right for "play songs with higher stars more often" and to the left for "play songs with higher stars less
often". That way one could save those precios five star songs from becoming played so often that you want to downgrade them to 3 stars or
worse...
|
|
|
jhlurie
Member
Posts: 212
Registered: 3-11-2003
Member Is Offline
|
|
posted on 6-23-2003 at 09:21 PM
|
|
|
Audiosoft...
Since the ratings feature set is so eagerly awaited, can you give us a bit of an update about how its going? We all recognize how hard you are
working on this, we are just all eager and enthusiastic. 
|
|
|
