Pirk
Posting Freak
Posts: 3976
Registered: 3-11-2003
Location: France
Member Is Offline
|
|
posted on 9-5-2003 at 09:06 PM
|
|
|
Suggestions about the new 5 stars system
Thank you very much Audiosoft for the new 5 stars system. I like it!
My first thought just concern my first feeling:
As at first all the songs are unrated, eJ always display 5 BLACK stars. That's not very bright!
I think in order to preserve a good look for eJ, you could use a faded golden color instead.
2nd thought:
Why not use this golden faded color for songs unrated which could represent the popularity level (=auto rating) of these songs. That could be 3 faded
stars by default. Of course any user rating replace auto rating on the display (only). The 2 things stay independentes. Look at http://www.audiosoft.net/forums/viewthread.php?tid=222 for the
source of my idea.
I hope I will not be too knocked...
Do you understand my idea?
What do you think?
Thanks.
 Pirk |
|
|
Audiosoft
|
|
posted on 9-5-2003 at 09:24 PM
|
|
|
Yes, we considered making the star display on the now playing panel use a different color and base the rating on the pick count when a song
doesn't have a star rating yet. However, we wanted to get v3.3 out before the weekend.  We may add this to the next version if more people think it is a good idea. The thing is - the star rating value
generated from the pick count will not seem very accurate and once all your songs have been given a rating this will never be used. Maybe instead we
should just make all the stars a different color if it has not been rated yet so you don't confuse 0 star ratings with unrated songs.
Also there is a small issue everyone using the new 5 star popularity mode under v3.3 should know about. For example: When you set it to "at least
4" stars under v3.3 it does "if song > 4 stars" instead of what it should do which is "if song >= 4 stars". Also if you
set "at most 5 stars" in v3.3 no songs with 5 stars will be played because it does "and song < 5 stars" instead of what it
should be which is "and song <= 5 stars". We have already corrected this issue for the next version. For now if you want to get around
the "atleast value" problem in v3.3 you can just lower the number from 80 (4 stars) to 79.
Audiosoft |
|
|
Pirk
Posting Freak
Posts: 3976
Registered: 3-11-2003
Location: France
Member Is Offline
|
|
posted on 9-5-2003 at 09:37 PM
|
|
|
OK, I think that I understand your ...
That's very good if you plan to add the default rating based on pick count  .
Thank you very much again.
Pirk |
|
|
Pirk
Posting Freak
Posts: 3976
Registered: 3-11-2003
Location: France
Member Is Offline
|
|
posted on 9-5-2003 at 09:53 PM
|
|
|
| Quote: | Message original : Audiosoft
The thing is - the star rating value generated from the pick count will not seem very accurate and once all your songs have been given a rating this
will never be used. Maybe instead we should just make all the stars a different color if it has not been rated yet so you don't confuse 0 star
ratings with unrated songs.
|
I think:
Song never played = 3 faded stars (any different color)
Song picked up some times --> faded stars be increased (The exact formula needs to be defined!)
User rating = 0 --> display return to pick count with faded stars.
That would be something like in Media Player 9. You see?
Pirk |
|
|
Audiosoft
|
|
posted on 9-5-2003 at 10:11 PM
|
|
|
The formula we could use to determine a star rating (for an unrated song) is (song's pick count / most picked song's pick count) * 100.
The problem with that is songs will be giving low star ratings if your most picked song has been picked proportionately many more times. So this
really is not very accurate because the star rating is so different from the pick count.
To clarify to other users: we are discussing the star display on the "now playing" panel only.
Hybrid Popularity mode takes care of playing songs without a star rating.
Audiosoft |
|
|
Pirk
Posting Freak
Posts: 3976
Registered: 3-11-2003
Location: France
Member Is Offline
|
|
posted on 9-5-2003 at 10:23 PM
|
|
|
| Quote: | Message original : Audiosoft
The problem with that is songs will be giving low star ratings if your most picked song has been picked proportionately many more times. So this
really is not very accurate because the star rating is so different from the pick count. |
I understand the problem.
But maybe you could add a factor to fade out songs most played. I don't know how they do that in Media Player?
Pirk |
|
|
Pirk
Posting Freak
Posts: 3976
Registered: 3-11-2003
Location: France
Member Is Offline
|
|
posted on 9-6-2003 at 12:42 AM
|
|
|
They do exactly like this (I have tested myself this issue in Media Player 9):
By default, all items are automatically given a rating of three stars. These auto ratings change based on the number of times the item is played. The
three-star auto rating is also used when you click Unrated.
[Citation from the Media Player Help]
So, each song is treated independently. It's more simple for a display with 5 stars...
i.e.:
Song picked up 0 time --> 3 faded stars
Song picked up once (and played until the end...) --> 3,5 faded stars
Song picked up twice (...) --> 4 faded stars
Song picked up 3 times (...) --> 4.5 faded stars
Song picked up 4 times (...) --> 5 faded stars
Why not do that also in eJukebox?
That could produce something to display for the songs not already rated by the user and also for those who don't go to the trouble to rate their
songs!
I see that as a kind of easy "all made" mode for starting nicely. New users will be impressed using eJukebox since the first
experience...
Nothing prevent them (and us!) to take the control of their songs later progressively by doing accurate ratings.
Pirk |
|
|
jhlurie
Member
Posts: 212
Registered: 3-11-2003
Member Is Offline
|
|
posted on 9-6-2003 at 03:04 AM
|
|
|
Pirk, didn't we hash out the whole "auto rating is too much like popularity/pick rating" already?  If you make it TOO complicated it, how the heck is a casual user going to
keep things straight?
Another problem centers around different interpretations of exactly what "50" or two and a half stars MEANS (I'm assuming you meant
that instead of three stars, since three stars as a starting point, being HIGHER than the half-way point, would make the problem I'm about to
describe EVER worse). If just any old song is in the middle by default, and then pushed up by being played, eventually you will have an
imbalance--too many songs will be rated on the positive side. Think of it as kind of... ratings inflation.
I mean I really intend on using the middle rating as a benchmark for an "okay" song this time around, and ratings inflation is like a
nightmare for all the work I'll be putting in that effort. I recall my use of Launch.com, for example, where I started thinking that 80/100 was
an "okay" song. You know what's happened? 90% of what I've actually gone and rated is OVER 80, and thus I'm rating most of
the time only in a twenty point range. To have an automatic routine make that natural tendency even WORSE... I'm not thrilled at the idea, even
if its marked somewhat differently... the fact remains that ratings inflation will ruin the Popularity mode because your own permanently rated songs
would be over-run by songs with inflated auto ratings. Or, if you allowed the auto-ratings to change your deliberate ratings, you'd again still
have the problem of eternally rising ratings, as well as the confusion with what the "pick count" portion does.
And if you try and complicate things by making this "auto rating" be relative/scale depending on how often OTHER songs have been played, you
run into the problems Audiosoft mentioned. As the more popular songs play more, you get the reverse of ratings inflation for everything else.
You kind of lose out both ways. Some INCREDIBLY complicated formula will have to be worked out first, where all of these "auto-ratings" are
indeed balanced against each other, but at the same time the top and bottom of the scale is made "harder" to reach. And then you run the
risk of ratings in the middle getting all cluttered up. How do we win here?
|
|
|
Audiosoft
|
|
posted on 9-6-2003 at 03:15 AM
|
|
|
Very good idea - atleast for now playing display purposes.
We have updated the next version so that it displays faded stars on the "now playing" panel when the songs rating hasn't been set.
3 stars for 0 picks
3.5 for 2 picks
4 for 3 picks
4.5 for 6 picks
5 for 9 picks
This rating will only be used for display on songs that haven't been star rated and not for use by the play modes or visisble in the editor.
I am not sure everyone will be happy with the current star look/colors. So we still need to work on that. If anyone wants to create the look of the
star images that would be a big help.
Audiosoft |
|
|
Audiosoft
|
|
posted on 9-6-2003 at 03:25 AM
|
|
|
jhlurie makes allot of good points. I fear this addition will just confuse the user.
Questioning if we should include it the next version or not.
Things get quite complicated with 2 popularity ratings. BTW Anyone notice the new "presets" button in the playmodes?
Audiosoft |
|
|
jhlurie
Member
Posts: 212
Registered: 3-11-2003
Member Is Offline
|
|
posted on 9-6-2003 at 03:27 AM
|
|
|
As I said, the deepest problem, as I see it, is that the auto-rated and the "regular" rated songs are sharing the same popularity mode. If
you are a strict person with ratings, your own preferences are going to be drowned pretty quickly by songs you just happen to play occasionally, since
there is nothing to EVER make the auto-ratings go down. Sooner or later, the entire bottom end of the ratings system will be useless. Heck, I only
intend on using 50 for a median for an average song. Some people may decide that they only want to collect good songs in the first place, and use
ZERO and work up from there...
Also, we are starting from a bad place in one sense--assuming that Microsoft is doing it optimally.
I'm not saying an auto-rating is impossible, simple that the problems of WHERE to start the auto-rating, and also how much to change ratings and
when, is really really really really hard to compute without messing up the regular ratings and how much THEY are played. But then you get into the
issue I first mentioned of it becoming too complicated for an average user to understand. And also back to the fact that in essense the pick count,
in the hybrid-mode IS serving as a kind of auto-rating already--it's making those songs come up ANYWAY.
|
|
|
Audiosoft
|
|
posted on 9-6-2003 at 03:36 AM
|
|
|
Another problem with showing faded stars for unrated songs is that the user would be more likely to leave the song unrated. Wouldn't it be best
to have a static user rating for each song?
Audiosoft |
|
|
jhlurie
Member
Posts: 212
Registered: 3-11-2003
Member Is Offline
|
|
posted on 9-6-2003 at 03:41 AM
|
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by Audiosoft
Another problem with showing faded stars for unrated songs is that the user would be more likely to leave the song unrated. Wouldn't it be best
to have a hard coded rating for each song? |
Well the one objection which was made elsewhere which comes into this is that the unrated songs DO need a slightly better look. Maybe the stars could
be replaced by the word "Unrated", if that kind of change isn't a big programming deal?
I'm sorry to shoot down Pirk's idea so strongly here, but indeed... what good is a ratings system where only the top is used? And inevitably that WILL happen with this plan no matter what, because
even if the person makes a deliberate effort to start marking songs DOWN when he starts hearing them too often, it will stop becoming convenient
eventually. You will always be "chasing" songs down and having to mark them lower as the inflation of the auto-rated songs grows and grows.
Thus undoing the effects of the inflation transforms the ratings into a chore, instead of a feature.
And I still can't get away from the thought that playing songs more often based on how many times they are heard is STILL duplicative of what
you've now renamed "Pick Count" is doing. And that Pick Count continues to work no matter HOW long you've left a song sitting
around unrated, and it DOES continue to adjust itself and grow as time goes by, without user intervention. Exactly what Pirk wanted the Auto-rating
to do.
I'd curious what a few of the other regulars think of this. I guess Pirk and I have been the two most active users today.
|
|
|
Audiosoft
|
|
posted on 9-6-2003 at 03:58 AM
|
|
|
Well...we are going to need to atleast leave star outlines for unrated songs...so that the user can click on them to rate it.
If anyone wants to create the new look for unrated and/or rated stars please feel free to post images in here. And we will get the next version out
asap.
Audiosoft |
|
|
stsirois
Member
Posts: 156
Registered: 3-11-2003
Location: Rochester, NH USA
Member Is Offline
|
|
posted on 9-6-2003 at 04:54 AM
|
|
|
Sorry, Pirk, I'm with jhlurie on the rating system. I think if we
make this rating system more complicated than it already is, people aren't going to use it. KISS, right?
On the topic of displaying the unrated state of songs: without having seen the new rating system (downloading the upgrade right now ), maybe an animated picture of 5 empty stars with pulsating glowing borders
would work? This way, it alerts the user that, "hey, this song is unrated - rate me!".
Thanks,
Steve
|
|
|
Spazz
Junior Member
Posts: 84
Registered: 8-20-2003
Location: North Dakota, The Frozen USA
Member Is Offline
|
|
posted on 9-6-2003 at 07:31 AM
|
|
|
Well, as interesting as the ratings system is, I had always thought that was the basis of the popularity mode. Just a different way of doing it.
All the use I can see in the rating system is assigning songs I really don't listen to around other people (The "closet" music  to like, one star so I can effectivly shut them off at times. I definetly
agree with those who think that trying to make it auto rate would overcomplicate and mess up the whole thing.
-Spazz
|
|
|
Pirk
Posting Freak
Posts: 3976
Registered: 3-11-2003
Location: France
Member Is Offline
|
|
posted on 9-6-2003 at 09:43 AM
|
|
|
So you have knocked out my idea when I was in a deep sleep... :mad:
Thanks. 
Vox populi, vox dei!
I don't think my idea complicate the things. It's something totally independent of true popularity (pick count) or user ratings.
FADED stars don't interfere with user BRIGHT stars and popularity counter...
I think faded stars could simply ALERT the user. In this way he could easily distinguish for each album which songs he has never or rarely
listen from these he often pick up.
That could prevent some songs sink into oblivion! THIS IS THE SENSE OF MY IDEA.
But in order that be efficient:
I realize it needs to display stars IN THE SONGLIST for each song (like in Media Player...). Because the user needs to know that BEFORE he had chosen
its songs! You see?
Unless you prefer display the popularity counter instead, nearby each song in the songlist. But it's another topic...
Even so yet interesting, no?
Pirk |
|
|
Brandir
Junior Member
Posts: 32
Registered: 4-9-2003
Location: Münster, Germany
Member Is Offline
|
|
posted on 9-6-2003 at 02:31 PM
|
|
|
Rating 4all
Especially for the initiation of the new rating system (I really lovew it
) a rating for the whole artist and/or album would be very handy.
Individual ratings could be set later, but for a rough sorting that would be a great help.
Jan
|
|
|
jhlurie
Member
Posts: 212
Registered: 3-11-2003
Member Is Offline
|
|
posted on 9-6-2003 at 10:02 PM
|
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by Pirk
I don't think my idea complicate the things. It's something totally independent of true popularity (pick count) or user ratings.
FADED stars don't interfere with user BRIGHT stars and popularity counter...
|
For that to be true, Pirk, for the Faded Star songs to not totally overwhelm the songs you have rated yourself, then the Faded Stars would ALSO have
to have absolutely no effect on how often the song gets picked by Popularity Mode, beyond what the "Pick count" is already
doing with them, I mean. Which gets back to the issue of them being confusing. You want them to LOOK like the rating, but not have the same effect.
Which is totally confusing. Also, not optimal, since somebody might care about how often they were played regardless of whether the songs have been
rated or not.
| Quote: |
I think faded stars could simply ALERT the user. In this way he could easily distinguish for each album which songs he has never or rarely
listen from these he often pick up.
|
| Quote: |
Unless you prefer display the popularity counter instead, nearby each song in the songlist. But it's another topic...
|
Well that's not a bad idea, Pirk. Why confuse things by usurping the interface for ratings simply to show high popularity/pick frequency? At
some point it would be great to show BOTH rating AND popularity in the songlist.
Also, when a song is playing, a special marker or legend in the Now Playing window could indicate a high popularity song--be it rated high or low or
totally unrated. Maybe with the word "pop" or something...
Or, since a user doesn't have to adjust the pick count number (in fact shouldn't be able to) why not just display the Pick count itself as a
numerical value somewhere? Move the stars over a bit to the left, perhaps, and put the pick count up there (hopefully labeling it so a novice
won't confuse it with the rating)?
Just tossing out ideas here. I mean no matter how you describe the concern as an auto-rating, it always sounds like the existing Pick count, and
letting a user know easily that a song been "picked" a lot, is indeed what you are mainly concerned about. So why invent a new confusing
way to do what already exists? It just needs to be shown somewhere and doesn't need to be visually or logically confused with the ratings at
all.
|
|
|
Pirk
Posting Freak
Posts: 3976
Registered: 3-11-2003
Location: France
Member Is Offline
|
|
posted on 9-6-2003 at 11:04 PM
|
|
|
Well jhlurie, you seem to agree with my idea but not in the same way...
Yes, I would like too to see the pick count somewhere nearby the stars of the player, and also especially in the songlist for each song.
That could replace my "disliked" faded stars...
Even so it's a shame because I think faded stars could nicely fill current ugly black stars in case a song be not rated yet or even will be never
rated! But you think that will lead to confusion... I think not, I see faded stars as a "possible" palliative solution!
Why not inform the user of these to modes by a text when he pass over the stars like for the others functions?
Maybe like you say, we could use some different symbols, even if I think that's not necessary. That will weigh down the eJ look
unnecessarily...
I think my first thought was more judicious. And Audiosoft was agreed! before your veto...
But I poke the fire again...
Pirk |
|
|
jhlurie
Member
Posts: 212
Registered: 3-11-2003
Member Is Offline
|
|
posted on 9-7-2003 at 01:31 AM
|
|
|
That's not true Pirk. At that point you were talking about a system where songs were marked from 3 stars (approximately a grade of 60/100) and
up right from the start never using lower grades at all, under any circumstance. They got marked up very quickly, and as far as you
described it at that point in time, were NEVER marked down for any reason, and the songs were played more and more often as that
"auto-rating" got higher and higher.
Saying that they are actually "independant" of the real rating (a point you didn't initially make in terms of how OFTEN the songs
auto-played--you made it seem as if they'd eventually totally take over your auto-playlist) did nothing to change the fact that the apparent
ratings for these songs would inflate quickly till they ALL eventually read five stars, and the difference between them became very obscure, as well
as visually confusing when seen by a novice comparing them sitting next to a song that was purposefully rated lower.
And seeing all of these five star songs sitting there, would someone even think of purposefully rating a song much lower than five stars? Perhaps you
and I now know due to hashing this out that a two and a half star "rated" song might auto-play just as often as a "faded" five
star song (assuming Audiosoft programs it that way and doesn't let the auto-rating inflation totally subvert the play frequency), but would that
be obvious to a casual user?
Probably not, and the whole bottom of the system would be lost, because pretty soon EVERYTHING would be marked as five stars, or at least very near
that, either through deliberate or auto-rating.
|
|
|
Pirk
Posting Freak
Posts: 3976
Registered: 3-11-2003
Location: France
Member Is Offline
|
|
posted on 9-7-2003 at 01:04 PM
|
|
|
| Quote: | Message original : jhlurie
At that point you were talking about a system where songs were marked from 3 stars (approximately a grade of 60/100) and up right from the
start never using lower grades at all, under any circumstance. |
I haved well offer of possibly downgrades songs popularity when they are skipped , but at that point I don't even dare to ask for that anymore...
Would you (or someone else!) like this idea yet?
Pirk |
|
|
