Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: foo_discogs (Read 1460570 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 4 Guests are viewing this topic.

Re: foo_discogs

Reply #2325 –
Zoomorph,

Just a quick thought: in the Match tracks dialog, it shows the filename of the local files. Instead of showing filenames, could there be an option to show the %track number%, %artist% and %title% tags instead? That would help people like me, whose files are unnamed, but we have tagged them with Freedb.

Fuffi,

I was under the impression that Freedb is usually far more accurate than Discogs, which is why I tag all my files with Freedb, and only use Discogs for getting album art. (I also allow it to tag the music with the release and artist ID numbers.) I really see Discogs as a backup for when Freedb doesn't have an album in its database.

As for online music, I have never bought music online. I guess I was put off back in the early days when they only sold 128Kbps mp3s. I found the thought quite horrific of not owning the lossless original, or at least the thought of not being able to compress it myself. My aversion to online music was furthered by the fact that the only main online sellers were Apple, and I absolutely hate Apple and iTunes, for so many reasons. So I wanted nothing to do with online music.

I know things have changed in the last 10 years, but I don't buy any music any more, so it doesn't concern me. My entire music collection ends in the early 2000s. I have several reasons for that, which I won't list as they're probably not very interesting or relevant. :)

Re: foo_discogs

Reply #2326 –
Hi zoomorph,
I think, it could be useful (esspecially but not exclusive, when updating more than one album), when the name of the album and maybe the album artist woulb be shown in this window.


Re: foo_discogs

Reply #2327 –
Quote from: Grand Dizzy on
Just a quick thought: in the Match tracks dialog, it shows the filename of the local files. Instead of showing filenames, could there be an option to show the %track number%, %artist% and %title% tags instead?
You can try to build your own display here:

This will alter the information shown at the Match Tracks Window. Dunno, if it will work as you like, but try it and tell us :-)

Quote from: Grand Dizzy on
I was under the impression that Freedb is usually far more accurate than Discogs, which is why I tag all my files with Freedb, and only use Discogs for getting album art. (I also allow it to tag the music with the release and artist ID numbers.) I really see Discogs as a backup for when Freedb doesn't have an album in its database.
Well, I guess, thats depends on our point of view. A lot of times, when I use the freedb component, it shows me about 2-5 possible results for a ripped CD. All of those offer different spelling of the tracktitles or artists, but mostly represent the same CD. Some have set the release year, some not. and so on.... Its mostly like the dozenz of reissues or different releases of a master release on the discogs-db, but I prefer the unique discogs-ID before the CD-ID used by CDDB.

Quote from: Grand Dizzy on
I have several reasons for that, which I won't list as they're probably not very interesting or relevant. :)
We all have different and valid reasons for whatever is important for us :-)

Re: foo_discogs

Reply #2328 –
Fuffi: Thanks for that, I didn't realize it was already possible to change what information is shown in the Match Tracks dialog. I changed it and it worked, thank you! :) As for Discogs vs Freedb. I am not really experienced enough to comment, and they both seem pretty good to me, but I heard on these forums that Freedb was generally more accurate, just more limited in scope.

Zoomorph: Just noticed what I think is a small bug with the new filter on the Find Release window. When the search results first appear, you have several main releases, which you then click to look inside at the different variations. But if you click inside on one of the entires, and start adding new words to the filter (eg "ALBUM"), then some of the main releases disappear, meaning you can't "get out" of the one you're currently  looking in. I hope that makes sense, it's hard to explain clearly.

Re: foo_discogs

Reply #2329 –
Hi zoomorph,
regarding to the search, I'd like to ask, if it is possible to help the user find releases with special characters, by adding something like $ascii() to the search.
so, when I search for Jóga (just a simple example)
I just can type "joga" and it will find releases with "joga" and "jóga" in its name (and maybe others like "Jógà" too ...

Re: foo_discogs

Reply #2330 –
On the subject of special characters, Discogs doesn't recognize any apostrophes I have typed myself because I always use typographer's apostrophes in my music (’ Alt+0146). That means, for example, I have to change "It’s about time" to "It's about time". Same with ellipses (… Alt+0133). It really isn't a problem at all but thought I would mention it just for the record! :)

Fuffi, Hey, I used to love Björk! Homogenic was one of my favourite albums - IIRC, I think it was actually my first CD! :)

Re: foo_discogs

Reply #2331 –
Quote from: fuffi on
check, if a subtrack exists, so the code must be very complex and thats -unfortunately- way too complicate and exhausting for me to fool around in this smallish-one-lin-edit-mapping-window. (no offence!! its just me :-) )
Personally I edit the string in notepad then paste it in and press "apply", with the preview dialog open, to check what the result is, and then continue to edit it if necessary.

Quote from: fuffi on
Also, I don't understand, why there are automaticly "(" ")" when using a formatting string "$join($extend($array(%TRACK_TITLE%),%<TRACK_HIDDEN_TRACKS_TITLE>%)))"
That's just the way it is (according to Discogs guidelines it is supposed to be valid).
TRACK_INDEXTRACK_TITLE = Megamix
TRACK_SUBTRACK_TITLE = Flashback
TRACK_TITLE = Megamix (Flashback)

Something like this should work, at least for this release:
Code: [Select]
$puts(X,%TRACK_INDEXTRACK_TITLE%)$multi_if($get(X),$get(X) '(',)$ifequal(%TRACK_TOTAL_HIDDEN_TRACKS%,0,$multi_or(%TRACK_SUBTRACK_TITLE%,%TRACK_TITLE%),$join($extend($array($multi_or(%TRACK_SUBTRACK_TITLE%,%TRACK_TITLE%)),%<TRACK_HIDDEN_TRACKS_SUBTRACK_TITLE>%),' / '))$multi_if($get(X),')',)

Result:
Megamix (Music And Lights / Just An Illusion / Flashback)

Note: Since the Discogs tracklist is not really formally defined, there will always be some edge cases that are impossible to handle.

Re: foo_discogs

Reply #2332 –
Combining the dialogs is a good idea, although it may not be large enough for big releases. I'll think about your desire to preview the cover and how that can be done easier. (Note that often the covers for multiple versions of a release are very similar - maybe you don't care about finding the exact release?)

Re: foo_discogs

Reply #2333 –
Quote from: zoomorph on
(Note that often the covers for multiple versions of a release are very similar - maybe you don't care about finding the exact release?)
I always look through all the releases to try to get the closest match, but the cover helps me to do that because I can quickly rule out all the ones with the wrong cover.

Re: foo_discogs

Reply #2334 –
Hi zoomorph,
I found an incongruity (unpleasantness in usability) while matching tracks via track number *and* track duration:
this release, but I guess, its independent of the release.

When selecting this options: Match using tracknumber

The result is correct:


When selecting this options: Match using tracklength

The result is wrong/mixed up, but the component indicates, its correct:


When selecting both options: Match using tracklength AND tracknumber (which is IMHO a setting, every user activates, because he/she/it wants to have the component use all possible information at once)

The result is: no matching possible.


I would say, if those two options (matching with lenght or numbers) are mutually exclusive, then you should put in a (o) radio button, instead a [X] checkbox, which indicates, that those two options are available at the same time. And as a user, I'd love to have those two methods combined intelligent :-) Thats why I activated both (I assume, the intelligence in the component tries them both)

Maybe you could add an intelligence, which refers to the track title too? (I guess its complicated, because a simple string-compare would'nt do it in 60% of the cases, because of small differences in the typo. but what about only checking [A-Z,a-z] and counting the frequency/occurrence ? Just an idea. On average title-lenghts (max 5 words or so...), this should work ok.

At this time, the result is kinda sufficent but not convenient to get (imho), because the user has to click too many times for a single release to check if the matching is posivie or negative. (go to the settings, change the settings, check the result, go back to the settings, and so on..)


Anyways, additionally, I'd prefer a visual better indicator, when the track matching matches, like MATCHED TRACK ORDER. now, its normal grey and I don't recognize it* (*it = I don't recognize, that a track-matching has been processed in the background at all)

Re: foo_discogs

Reply #2335 –
Quote from: zoomorph on
Personally I edit the string in notepad then paste it in and press "apply", with the preview dialog open, to check what the result is, and then continue to edit it if necessary.
I use Notepad++ which enables brace matching, which is very useful, but still, its not funny ;>

Re: foo_discogs

Reply #2336 –
Quote from: fuffi on
I would say, if those two options (matching with lenght or numbers) are mutually exclusive, then you should put in a (o) radio button, instead a [X] checkbox, which indicates, that those two options are available at the same time. And as a user, I'd love to have those two methods combined intelligent :-) Thats why I activated both (I assume, the intelligence in the component tries them both)
If you know your tracks are always correctly labeled and in sorted order, just use the first option.

If you believe your tracks are correctly labeled and in sorted order, but want to be alerted when tracks mismatch by durations (maybe some tracks could be mixed up?), then use both options. Since Discogs durations are usually not exactly correct, you will often get false mismatches when you use this matching method.

It's working as expected.

Regarding coloring, lime green is very hard to see on the dialog box but I may come up with a better solution. Maybe coloring the background of the lists green/yellow or something would look good.
 

Re: foo_discogs

Reply #2337 –
Hi zoomorph,

I'd like to request a new Object/Field for the Master, not Release, Avg. Rating and Vote Counts.

Certain, usually lesser known, releases within the same master have very few votes or none at all.

From what I can see, the Master Avg. Rating and Vote Counts shown on Discogs are averages of all the Avg. Rating and Vote Counts of all the releases within that master. While this would mean that using the Master Release Avg. Rating and Vote Counts for a specific release would not account for the differences in that release, I think the differences are usually not significant to defeat the advantages.

Thank you for developing this great plug-in, please let me know what you think.


Re: foo_discogs

Reply #2338 –
Hi zoomorph,
I found this error for this release or that:
Quote
(FATAL) Error: Error loading release 2506269: JSON Parser ExceptionError parsing release credits.

[ESCAPE to close]

Re: foo_discogs

Reply #2339 –
Quote from: zoomorph on
Regarding coloring, lime green is very hard to see on the dialog box but I may come up with a better solution. Maybe coloring the background of the lists green/yellow or something would look good.
That was just an example. I trust you in make a better solution 8-) Anyways, its only "needed", when doing an automaticly matching, which I don't prefer, because I never know if the labeling/ordering/numbering of my files are "correct", because there is no such thing as "correct". My way is to take the release, which fits the most to my files and then change the order when nescessary. (for me, as I use the f2k Database intensely, I prefere releases with lots of information in it. I don't care, if it is the very special release I own, when its poorly filled with information, like writer, vocalist, remixer, etc.
I just take the "best fitting" relase to have the least work with. (better: I try to take, because recognizing the amount of information for a release requires me to go to the discogs-release-website because the component does not show such information and its kinda timeconsuming to check out each release I want to tag)

Quote from: zoomorph on
It's working as expected.
Ok, I see, thanks for the explanation, it is working as *you* expected it to work, not me :-)

For me, its too inconvenient to switch settings for each Album, EP or Compilation, I want to tag, so I don't change the settings too often. In fact, I have turned off matching tracks most of the time, and do the sorting by hand, moving the wrongly sorted tracks up and down to fit the release ordering. (For Compilations or Re-Releases Albums when they put in an extra track or switched some tracks)
I feel it makes more sense to not have the tracks automaticly matched, but to do it on users wish, like when he/she/it pressing a button to start the matching in the Match Tracks Window.
Say, the user has 10 Albums to tag, he/she/it has to change the settings 10 times? not convenient, nor usable.
You have the Job done faster, doing it by hand.
But thats sad, because that algorythm could really help when aplied by a click on a button and the user could see how the ordering changes.
Then he/she/it could press that button a second or third time to get the next matching, or undo the matching (again to see what changed). Now the tracklist is sorted and the user is forced to take that matching or change the settings and take that matching or change the settings... and so on... not nice if yo want to tag more than a single album.


Quote from: zoomorph on
If you know your tracks are always correctly labeled and in sorted order, just use the first option.

If you believe your tracks are correctly labeled and in sorted order, but want to be alerted when tracks mismatch by durations (maybe some tracks could be mixed up?), then use both options. Since Discogs durations are usually not exactly correct, you will often get false mismatches when you use this matching method.
Hmmm, how would I ever know if I (or the CDDB people) did a mistake when ripping and nameing ?
I could try trusting the Booklet I have scanned or check some websites. Or, for a digital release, take a look at the BackCover.
But thats not the way I tag my files.
Generallized, I don't know, if the tracks are correctly ordered/numbered/labled, but I try to match them to the release I want to tag the files with.
I take the Release-ID, which happens to "fit" the track names and numbering the most, but if there is no such relase (and I'm too lazy to create a new one or change a release), I move/sort the tracks by hand when possible. If not, I don't tag the files, but put them into a folder "maybe later this year".

You see, I do not use that function the way its intended to be, but try to get the best out of it! :-)

Re: foo_discogs

Reply #2340 –
Hi zoomorph,
this may be kinda special...
can you add (or is it even possible right now?) somehow the actual date/time into a variable to the component, so that we can set the date (we tagged the file) into the file itself?

like
Code: [Select]
LAST_TAGGED_DATE = "2016-10-13 21:37:00" (YYYY-MM-DD hh:mm:ss)

With the old component, there was no DiscoGS Tag for the DiscoGS votes (or I didn't used it...), so now I use to search&filter files, which I haven't updated the tags with the new component like "%DISCOGS_VOTES% MISSING" via the media library search or even an autoplaylist, which is very convenient.

But as this fine component evolves and me, changing a lot of tag-names (and logic to the formatting strings), I need to update also the newer files.

I could use %ADDED% to find new files to the library, but I delete my library very often (slsk is too slow with a lot of files in the library *and* any filter panel open).
Not to mention, that I can't remember, what I did last day...

So I came up with the idea to filter like, i.e.:
Code: [Select]
(%DISCOGS_VOTES% MISSING) OR (%LAST_TAGGED_DATE% DURING LAST 3 WEEKS)
to find me all files which I have tagged in the last 3 weeks and want to update them to to newest tags.

Is this something, which you consider an useful additional tag/feature?

Or maybe anybody else has an Idea for me?

Re: foo_discogs

Reply #2341 –
Quote from: NoHomeJerome on
Hi zoomorph,

I'd like to request a new Object/Field for the Master, not Release, Avg. Rating and Vote Counts.

Certain, usually lesser known, releases within the same master have very few votes or none at all.

From what I can see, the Master Avg. Rating and Vote Counts shown on Discogs are averages of all the Avg. Rating and Vote Counts of all the releases within that master. While this would mean that using the Master Release Avg. Rating and Vote Counts for a specific release would not account for the differences in that release, I think the differences are usually not significant to defeat the advantages.

Thank you for developing this great plug-in, please let me know what you think.
Unfortunately that information is not available from the Discogs API.

As of version 2.07, this can be done manually using the following formatting string:
Code: [Select]
$puts(RATINGS,%<MASTER_RELEASE_RELEASES_DISCOGS_AVG_RATING>%)$puts(VOTES,%<MASTER_RELEASE_RELEASES_DISCOGS_RATING_VOTES>%)$puts(COUNT,$length($get(RATINGS)))$puts(TOTALVOTES,$sum($get(VOTES)))$multi_round($sum($multi_divd($multi_mul($get(RATINGS),$get(VOTES)),$get(TOTALVOTES))),2)
Note that this could be very slow for large master releases, as it requires loading each sub release and then calculating the overall average.

Re: foo_discogs

Reply #2342 –
Quote from: fuffi on
Is this something, which you consider an useful additional tag/feature?

Or maybe anybody else has an Idea for me?
I can see how it could be useful. I wonder if it could be requested from main foobar2000 developers rather than a special field provided by foo_discogs?

Re: foo_discogs

Reply #2343 –
Version 2.07 is now released:
* Fixed $joinnames() sometimes mixing up the join strings
* Fixed error handling when custom formatting strings on dialogs throw errors
* Renamed function $sum() to $count()
* Added new $sum() function that sums an array of numbers
* Modified all math functions, excluding $multi_div(), to support decimals
* Added new $multi_divd() function which supports decimals
* Added new $multi_round() function to round decimal numbers
* Added new RELEASES object array exposed from MASTER_RELEASE object
* Added new RELEASES object array exposed from ARTIST object

Re: foo_discogs

Reply #2344 –
Version 2.08 is now released:
* Added new DISCOGS_MY_RATING field exposed from RELEASE object
* Added new MASTER_RELEASE object exposed from RELEASE object
* Fixed dividing by 0 in $multi_divd() to return original number
* Fixed math, sum, count functions to return empty array instead of 0, when operating on empty array
* Improved internal logic for lazy loading data
* Improved status messages during processing

I have made a lot of changes recently. Hopefully I didn't break anything but let me know if you find any problems.

Re: foo_discogs

Reply #2345 –
@zoomorph I'm not sure if it's my computer or internet connection (I'm travelling at the moment) but I think that one of the last two updates has resulted in the tagger freezing after it loads the release list for an artist - I find the tagging window stops responding for some length of time (could be a minute or more) before then going on working fine.

Nothing else broken but this freeze is a bit trying...

Re: foo_discogs

Reply #2346 –
Thanks for the alert frogworth. It was "hanging" because it was wrongly loading full releases. Fixed now.

Version 2.09 is now released:
* Fixed lazy loading problem causing unnecessary loading for default find release dialog formatting strings
* Added new MAIN_RELEASE object exposed from MASTER_RELEASE object

Re: foo_discogs

Reply #2347 –
Great, thanks zoomorph!

Re: foo_discogs

Reply #2348 –
Hello, @zoomorph, thanks a lot for continuing with developing new versions! (:
But now I have a problem: I've updated tagger once again at the middle of the day to write some tags from Discogs a-and… it crashed my foobar. Firstly I decided it was cause of 13-page list of The Beatles discography there, but it also happened with other artist with 3-page list. With single page lists everything is OK.
So, pre-last versions (previous was I think smth v2.04) worked fine (unfortunately I didn't backup of it).
Crash starts with hanging of the app at last page of a artist list (ex. 13/13) and after that Windows suggests me to restart fb2k. I have crash reports.

And, sorry, I still cannot export/import tag mappings (^^)" Is it only me having such issue?
Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Turned back to v2.02 from backup, it gave me
Code: [Select]
(FATAL) Error: JSON Parser Exception'[' or '{' expected near ''

[ESCAPE to close]
so I'm between Scylla and Charybdis ::) Please, help!  :)

Re: foo_discogs

Reply #2349 –
Strannik,
"Crash starts with hanging of the app at last page of a artist list (ex. 13/13) and after that Windows suggests me to restart fb2k."
That sounds like the problem fixed in 2.09. Did you try 2.09? If so, are you using custom formatting strings for the "find release" dialog?