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: Tag-standards In Plugins<->formatting (Read 172020 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Tag-standards In Plugins<->formatting

Reply #125 –
Turning this into a pedantic underscore vs no underscore debate won't do any good, IMO. I agree that consistent use of underscores would be nice, but considering the widespread use of %ALBUM ARTIST%, I think no underscore is our only choice. So, how many established tags uses underscore? Is it really possible or desirable to try to change this, only to achieve consistency?

My main hope for this thread, was that the confusion would be reduced, no matter the case of it. Changing established tags just to remove an underscore, is something I would expect to cause more harm than good, even in the long run.

What I see as important, is to reduce inefficency, redundancy and "Lock in", and in the process of doing so, settle on some well thought through formats. The agreed upon (?) format of LAST_PLAYED (or LAST PLAYED ?) is good, IMO, as it's sortable, easy to read and easy to use.

Here is an example of what I see as inefficency and redundancy that might lead to "Lock in":
People tag Various Artists albums in different ways. %various%, %va% and %album artist% are the ones that comes to mind. The first two, are often given a value of "1" or "Yes", so their presence is their only purpose. %ALBUM ARTIST% on the contrary has a dual purpose, as it's used both for its presence and for storage of the text you want to display. Meaning it's a better choice if we want to reduce redundancy caused by having at least three tags doing essentially the same thing. Formatting strings can either support all of them, meaning more code and reduced speed, or choose one of them. The latter might lead to "Lock in", by making it cumbersome and confusing for users to switch to another formatting.

So, IMO, we should try to achieve three things:
* Reduce the number of tags doing essentially the same thing
* Settle on the format of tags like LAST_PLAYED
* Agree on what e.g. the %rating% tag should contain (integers seems a better choice than storing the actual rating symbol).

All of this should be done by considering what's being used at the moment. The fewer tags that needs to be changed or reformatted, the better.

In the end, people will still be able to use whatever they want.  But if you prefer to use %va_artist% instead of %album artist%, don't expect every formatting string to support it. And, if you want to develop a formatting string with making it public in mind (main purpose), try not to invent alot of exotic tags, when you could instead use what "everyone else" uses.

[span style='font-size:8pt;line-height:100%']Edit: typos[/span]

Tag-standards In Plugins<->formatting

Reply #126 –
One more time, i completely agree with upnorth. The original goal of this thread was to reduce ambiguity(leading to lock-in or inefficiency), finding a better way and then making it easy for devs and users to jump on the bandwaggon - leading to adoption(because without adoption all this stuff is just fictional).

So, my personal priority-list looks like this:
1. (ease of) adoption
2. preventing ambiguity and incompatibility(lock-in)
3. Usability
4. Efficiency
5. Consistency

So, while consistency is a nice thing to have if we can get it for free, then i won't say no. But in the case of last_played the standard has already been agreed upon and users have begun to adopt it. Thus, i disagree to risk alienation and confusion(countering adoption) for the sake of consistency.

- Lyx

edit: typo
I am arrogant and I can afford it because I deliver.

Tag-standards In Plugins<->formatting

Reply #127 –
Quote
Proposal for the VA-issue:
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Now in [a href="http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=Foobar2000#Encouraged_Tag_Standards]wiki[/url].

Tag-standards In Plugins<->formatting

Reply #128 –
I guess will have to agree to disagree on this then.

Tag-standards In Plugins<->formatting

Reply #129 –
For the rating tag it might be an idea to use negative integer values for negative ratings. This would at least provide some consistency (basically the only difference between users would be the number of levels they want to use).

Tag-standards In Plugins<->formatting

Reply #130 –
Out of curiosity... how would you display something like that? Like three red dots and then a white dot and then three green dots, or? Sounds kinda complicated. :/

And what's the benefit? What's wrong with just using 1 and 2 (or, if you want to be more precise and go on a scale of 10, you can use 1 through 4) for bad songs?

I'm not arguing against it (i don't use ratings anyway, so it's not like i'd care), i'm just curious as to why you'd want to do it like that.
~

Tag-standards In Plugins<->formatting

Reply #131 –
ITs worth noting that the id3v2 standard specifies a value of 1-255 for the rating in the POPM frame. (http://www.id3.org/id3v2.3.0.txt) A few applications use this frame for storing/retrieving rating data.

If foobar were to ever import/save this information, it would be nice if the %rating% tag could be translated easily. ie, a rating of 0-5 stars is easy to translate by simply multiplying by 51.

Perhaps rating could be of this value (ie 0-255), then a user can assign what star rating maps to what 0-255 value in their rating and display plugins. ie -2 rating maps to 0, 0 rating maps to 20, 5 rating maps to 255 etc.

This way, regardless of what scheme you want to use, 0-5, -2 to 10 etc. You just have to divide up the 255 value into whatever scale you want to use for display. and multiply your scale back into the 255 range for storing.

You can also share ratings with other people and it will translate into whatever scale they use without fuss.

Tag-standards In Plugins<->formatting

Reply #132 –
how people use the rating tag would be up to them anyways. The only thing which would be specified is the tag-name, and the format of the value (i.e. integers only). But personally, i wouldn't see the point as of why i would use negative numbers - because its all just a matter of scale anyways - so, if -5 would be really bad, and +5 awesome - then you could as well use +1 to +10 with the same meaning. That would have the benefit that the chances are higher that a formatting-string would support it.

- Lyx
I am arrogant and I can afford it because I deliver.

Tag-standards In Plugins<->formatting

Reply #133 –
As a user I would request the devs to please use a standard specific format (specified in the standard like id3v2.4 or ape etc) instead of creating a new set of tags. This way even when I shift from the player or play my files somewhere else the same tags could be used in other players. For example if we use the play count and rating tags in the original id3 spec any player could use that data instead of it being exclusive to foobar. I (and I think a lot of other users) would really really appreciate this as our tags would be cross player compatible. There are already given set of specs at id3.org and almost every other player I have used follows those rules I don't know why foobar has to be different.

Tag-standards In Plugins<->formatting

Reply #134 –
Yes, there is no point in negative values, you just shift the offset of whats considered a "neutral" song if you want that.

If you were to use a scale of 0-255, you can scale this into whatever scale you want to dispaly. -5 to +5, or 0 to 5, or 0 to 255 etc. And share this value with other people and they can re-scale it to what they want to display. Or open your files in other players which already use this scale accordingly. (0 meaning unrated - not a bad song).

It also means formatting tags only have to work with 0-255, instead of a range of different scales.

Tag-standards In Plugins<->formatting

Reply #135 –
Quote
I (and I think a lot of other users) would really really appreciate this as our tags would be cross player compatible. [a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=276264"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I vote for that
But in the case of playcount and rating I guess that this is stored in a database for most players (itunes, MMJB)...so no real tag is used. However I guess having a cross-standard tag name (if you would like to export that info by tagging it into the file and then merging it into the player library) would be of a great help and wise. I've done some google but didn't find i.e. what's the usual playcount field used.

Tag-standards In Plugins<->formatting

Reply #136 –
For id3v2 it is the POPM frame: http://www.id3.org/id3v2.3.0.txt
or the PCNT frame, depending on whether its a per user playcount or global playcount.

MeXP loads and saves to this frame.

Tag-standards In Plugins<->formatting

Reply #137 –
http://www.id3.org/id3v2.4.0-frames.txt
Quote
4.16  PCNT Play counter or as shaneh said POPM

As I have said somewhere before that plugin developers should be able to use the main foobar database to store such stuff (non standard tags esp) but as a tag is already present for the play count the user should be given the option if he wants to store these tags in the database or not. I think that itunes reads the PCNT tag but I'll have to confirm it. Even if it doesnt and we want to store the play count we should use the standard instead of making something on our own.

Tag-standards In Plugins<->formatting

Reply #138 –
1)
Just to remind you:
-To have id3v2 support in foobar2000 you need to install a separate component
-Many people around here avoids ID3v2 like the plague
-There is a built in "Remove ID3v2 tags while updating" feature

So, using that standard as a template would be a strange choice IMO.

2)
A tag name like POPM (short for "Popularimeter") doesn't tell you anything at all. You have to remember that this is in fact a rating. Tags like RATING and TRACKRATING tells you instantly what the contents are. Keeping the contents in a human readable form would be nice too.

3)
You are free to use whatever tag you want. It's not like the customizability will be removed and everything will be hardcoded from now on.

4)
If you want to switch to another player at some point in the future, use the masstagger to convert to any tag you like. If you use your right to customize, you won't even have to do that conversion.

5)
Keeping (backwards)compatibility might prevent us from having new and better solutions


So, I don't support the thought of degrading the ease of use and readability, just to make it compatible with a tag standard that quite a few people around here avoids. Neither do I want to prepare now, for the possibility that I might change to another player at some point in the future. Especially when I know that I can easily convert those tags in a matter of minutes anyway.

I use foobar2000 to listen to music, something I love, and I want to enhance that experiece as much as possible. I'm mostly concerned about how it works for my everyday usage, not how I could stay compatible with every player out there, or play along the rules of some elite, illegal file trading community.

What this thread was intended for IMO (using rating as my example):
People around here seem to use RATING or TRACKRATING, which one should we encourage people to use? Should we store integers or symbols in it? That's all, and if adopted, it would make it just a little easier to switch from one public formatting string to another.

[span style='font-size:8pt;line-height:100%']Edit: layout, typos[/span]

Tag-standards In Plugins<->formatting

Reply #139 –
Quote
1)
Just to remind you:
-To have id3v2 support in foobar2000 you need to install a separate component
-Many people around here avoids ID3v2 like the plague
-There is a built in "Remove ID3v2 tags while updating" feature

So, using that standard as a template would be a strange choice IMO.


Yes that is true but id3v2 is the next standard. If native support isn't implemented in 0.9 I would really be surprised. If "most people" don't want to use it they can disable it through the input menu but if its not supported it would make the player seem archaic in comparison with the others available in the market today.

Quote
2)
A tag name like POPM (short for "Popularimeter") doesn't tell you anything at all. You have to remember that this is in fact a rating. Tags like RATING and TRACKRATING tells you instantly what the contents are. Keeping the contents in a human readable form would be nice too.


POPM doesn't tell you everything but the thing is that the normal user doesn't always look at the name of the tag fields he will not complain that I don't understand his tag name instead he will say something like 'i rated my library with foobar why the #@# isnt the rating displayed in playerX'. Remember that standards are made to be followed and then ensure that things work every where just like the w3c standards.


Quote
3)
You are free to use whatever tag you want. It's not like the customizability will be removed and everything will be hardcoded from now on.


Yes that option should be available for the people who want to add custom tags like PLAY_DATE because they arent available in the standard tags. But at the end of the day I am talking about tag integrity and compatibility.


Quote
4)
If you want to switch to another player at some point in the future, use the masstagger to convert to any tag you like. If you use your right to customize, you won't even have to do that conversion.


Most people have trouble installing extensions how can you expect them to perform a function like this and if something goes wrong they'll end up blaming the person who  suggested this in the end its the out of the box functionality that is important. Its easier to to tell PPOM is for the rating tag instead of telling them use masstager and convincing them that it wasn't our fault their files got messed up while retagging etc etc. The hardcore foobar lovers won't take a second to adapt to such tags if they can write complicated formatting strings they can remember what a tag stands for. In the end it will potray foobar as a credible player instead of people like me complaining that it messed up our tags etc and we have to retag over 500 files by hand. This is why standard compliant tagging is important.

Quote
5)
Keeping (backwards)compatibility might prevent us from having new and better solutions

backwards compatiblity is important but a simple plugin like an impporter can be implemented which can convert your tags to standard compliant ones (masstagger script maybe) and with standards compatible tags I doubt we'd have to change again .

I am sorry for making everyone read this long post  (if anyone bothered ) but in my opinion this step would enhance foobar's public image and increase the usability alot. If standards weren't that convenient why would every other player out there support them. I remember the case with mp4 file tagging people were confused when files tagged in real pleyr didnt work in itunes but now that itunes tagging has become a standard everyone seems to be following it and things are working out well. Why do we have to be different. I truly hope that you understand what I am trying to say here because I have gone through most of the scenarios I mentioned above.

Tag-standards In Plugins<->formatting

Reply #140 –
Er. Is foobar2000 even designed for the, um, 'casual' listener? You keep talking about how these people will have trouble doing this advanced stuff, but i was never under the impression that foobar was designed for people who can't figure out things like installing components and doing mass-tag operations.

Maybe i'm wrong, though. I dunno. <_<
~

Tag-standards In Plugins<->formatting

Reply #141 –
Quote
Er. Is foobar2000 even designed for the, um, 'casual' listener? ...


I definitely think so! I recently introduced someone to foobar2000 who didn't use media players before on a regular base. I just installed the basic package on his PC and pointed him to places where to get some more information if he should want to do more advanced stuff in the future.
He didn't have any problems because foobar2000's default configuration is pretty good, it plays almost everything without having to think about the different existing formats and the important features for every day usage are reachable with a maximum of 2 mouse clicks. The standard windows gui helps a lot for such people and the plugin architecture lets people go further step by step!
I think that foobar2000 is ideal to get in touch with audio on computers in general.

Regards,
The Link

Tag-standards In Plugins<->formatting

Reply #142 –
Quote
I truly hope that you understand what I am trying to say here because I have gone through most of the scenarios I mentioned above.[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=276350"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Yes, pretty much that foobar should do everything the same way every other player does.

I'm not against standards, but what I'm against is making every player a Winamp/iTunes/Musichmatch clone. No, I don't consider myself a zealot/fanboy, but I like the fact that there are different players to choose from, not just different flavours of the same player. foobar2000 has been and still is, an advanced player, and there are more than enough players out there for people that can't handle the amount of options it gives you. Like I said in another thread, it's not like it is a human right to be able to use every player out there. I don't consider people uncool or less worthy if they use another player. Either they have found a player that suits their needs, or they just don't care as long as they can open a file and press play. IMHO, that's the way it should be, namely that you have a real choice.

Of course it's all up to Peter and the developers, to choose the direction in which foobar2000 will go from here. It's popularity seems to be growing, but to be the player for as many people as possible, you would have to add some bloath, give it a nice pink skin and remove most for the customizability, because it's too difficult to understand all of it for most people.

Anyway, this is starting to be way off topic, and I start to regret I even suggested a thread like this, as I didn't expect it to be this difficult.

Tag-standards In Plugins<->formatting

Reply #143 –
Quote
Quote
Er. Is foobar2000 even designed for the, um, 'casual' listener? ...
I definitely think so! I recently introduced someone to foobar2000 who didn't use media players before on a regular base. I just installed the basic package on his PC and pointed him to places where to get some more information if he should want to do more advanced stuff in the future.
He didn't have any problems because foobar2000's default configuration is pretty good, it plays almost everything without having to think about the different existing formats and the important features for every day usage are reachable with a maximum of 2 mouse clicks. The standard windows gui helps a lot for such people and the plugin architecture lets people go further step by step!
I think that foobar2000 is ideal to get in touch with audio on computers in general.[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=276359"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Reminds me of what someone said in another thread: The problem isn't the users you describe here (the ones that just wants to play some music), but some of the people in-between. The group that badly wants to call them selves "advanced users", and customize everything. Of course they don't have the required patience needed to customize, and neither do they understand that providing an interface for the overwhelming customizability is pretty much impossible, as it's simlpy too much to fit in a single point and click interface.

Tag-standards In Plugins<->formatting

Reply #144 –
I think that aliumalik has a point. As a user I expect fb2k (or its components) to use standard/common tag fields. It has nothing to do with avoiding custom tags, or following id3v2, or trying to be cool to use fb2k instead of another player without understanding how it works, whatever.... I expect something that as much as possible (what a difficult term to define) stick to what'as already there if this is wise and widespread. For me it's something in between of:

- Let me use whatever I want as a tag in fb2k and stop complaining (or go back to winamp/wmplayer)

- I want fb2k to tag my files exactly as itunes, or winamp, or blablabla...

And more and more people are getting into foobar, and as popularity goes up, more people will complain about not being able to read the tags that itunes has write or to tags being wiped or their friend not reading their tags in MMJB, blablabla... not everyone uses fb2k, and I don't see the point whenever it's possible, to not support what's already being used by most people 

But upNorth is right, it's going OT.

Tag-standards In Plugins<->formatting

Reply #145 –
Quote
Reminds me of what someone said in another thread: The problem isn't the users you describe here (the ones that just wants to play some music), but some of the people in-between. The group that badly wants to call them selves "advanced users", and customize everything. Of course they don't have the required patience needed to customize, and neither do they understand that providing an interface for the overwhelming customizability is pretty much impossible, as it's simlpy too much to fit in a single point and click interface.

IMHO that's not a problem of foobar2000. It's a problem such people have when using advanced software in general. Configuring means either you have the knowledge or you are willing to learn and risking to fail without having the right to complain. Those people may become a problem for this forum and its moderators but they shouldn't be taken too serious (again IMHO).

Tag-standards In Plugins<->formatting

Reply #146 –
IMHO, interoperability between foobar and other players is something nice and which should be kept in mind. Its quite strange to complain that people need to retag their files to work between various fb2k plugins/formattings, and then say "well, when you want to use another player, then just retag your files" - thats hypocrisy.

However, it is just one of the many aspects which need to be taken into account. Its not an at-all-costs goal - at least IMHO. The tag-name indeed is among the most stupid names i've ever heard, and i guess it was for sure not invented by people who had the interests of the users in mind. So, once again, i tend towards upnorth's opinion but with a more moderate course: which players do support this "official" (patchwork)-standard tag? And how many people use it? Thats a honest question - if its in widespread-use, then i may give it a more thourough thought - if not, then screw it - this is among the most user unfriendly tagname and -format i've ever heard - it sucks even more than id3v2 overally. And the play_counter tag is already in widespread use by fb2k so adoption would be a piece of cake. This id3v2 standard better be good and in widespread use, otherwise my vote is "no thanks".

- Lyx
I am arrogant and I can afford it because I deliver.

Tag-standards In Plugins<->formatting

Reply #147 –
Every player I have used till now supports/prefers is3v2 tags musicmatch, itunes, winamp, wmp.....the list goes on. Even windows reads id3v2 tags before id3v1. I agree the name format might be unfriendly but most people will never care about the name of the tag. If there is a Field labeled Artist all they care is about putting the name inside. Even the advanced user will never need to edit the tag name. PCNT seems a good abbreviation to me because all fields have 4 lettered name. I do agree though that the ability to add extra fields must be there.

Plus many tags aren't supported by id3v1 like composert, art etc. We cannot just go on adding our own tags to id3v1 and continue a dying standard. Also Imagine if you were ripping 10-20 cds and now you tag them using a semi-automated tagger like tag&rename it will hardly take 10-15 minutes but if you use foobar and tag them in its own special way it will take hours and hours. I wouldn't want to go through that kind of anguish nor would anyone else I guess.

Also I don't think that this would make foobar a winamp clone. By not following standards we are like outcasts but if we are following standards we are just a better player not a clone. A clone would be one which copies the interface functionality etc but this is about files.

I am stressing this point because I used foobar with the play_count plugin sometime ago and the tagging methods are so weird that half of my files lost all their id3v2 tags and I had to add tags to 500 files by hand. Instead of editing a field it writes the whole tag again! and I don't know why the functionality is such by default that everything except id3v1 tags will be stripped when you update your file tags??? I mean they can coexist easily why do you have to remove them? and even when the option is set to id3v1 and v2 it strips out embedded art (cause foobar doesn't support binary data). Besides the tag names this is the functionality I want changed so when I update my tag files they are updated the normal way not in a way that leaves the user cursing the program/plugin afterwards.

Tag-standards In Plugins<->formatting

Reply #148 –
Quote
I agree the name format might be unfriendly but most people will never care about the name of the tag.

You're right, most of the tmies people don't care about the tag name, just want to see artist where it's being displayed (said 'translated' into human readable format) but I doubt that winamp or wmplayer or itunes uses a tag name that's called %PCNT%, I'm almost sure that this info is *not* written to the file itself but in to a media library (at least itunes does it). Anyway, to be sure what the tag names is being used if it's tagged you can always check with 'tagger' what's really written into the file. I think that PCNT stand for a frame name (or any internal schema that I can't understand at all) but is not the tag name, please someone correct me if I'm wrong.

Quote
By not following standards we are like outcasts

Fb2k follows the standards, I mean, the most common tags are written as you expected. I doubt that a rating, or genre or artist tag written with id3v2 or APEv2 or id3v1 will not be read by another player. Another thing is playcounts and/or another tags that aren't so standardised or at least that other players treat differently. You always have the choice of what you're writting and how, and you can see it (not being hidden or 'transalted' for you, and that's a thing that I love in fb2k.

Quote
By not following standards we are like outcasts. I am stressing this point because I used foobar with the play_count plugin sometime ago and the tagging methods are so weird that half of my files lost all their id3v2 tags
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=276505"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

That's completly OT.  I understand you, however it's another problem that has nothing to do with following standard names, whatever. Apparently this is going to be solved in the follwing version of fb2k (I mean the writting of id3v2) but about binary data (aka cover art) supported in fb2k, I really don't know if it'll still be wiped out. At least now you know what happens to your files if you tag them with fb2k in id3v2, and what you shouldn't do if you don't want them to be lost.

Now I really do think we should go back to the original discussion, or if moderators wants to split this conversation....

Edit: Wrong quoting corrected.

Tag-standards In Plugins<->formatting

Reply #149 –
I'll ask it again: how many players do support this tag-field and how many users use it? I don't give a crap about how many people and players use id3v2 - i only care about this tagfield (i forgot its name again) because thats what this thread is about.

- Lyx
I am arrogant and I can afford it because I deliver.