+- MinimServer Forum (https://forum.minimserver.com)
+-- Forum: MinimServer (/forumdisplay.php?fid=1)
+--- Forum: Support (/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+--- Thread: Suggestion to avoid mandatory steps when browsing (/showthread.php?tid=131)
RE: Suggestion to avoid mandatory steps when browsing - bbrip - 15-08-2012 19:43
(15-08-2012 17:50)psme Wrote: Disagree! A TAG reading server shouldn't care any folder structure! I can put all song in a single folder, or place each song in a separate folder, and still get the same browsing content as long as TAG values are correct. The actual folder structure is only for user's file management. IMO
Hi Simon,
I would tend to agree with psme here. folder structure should not have an impact on the way albums are being grouped whatsoever. I have a similar issue with some albums being split into multiple albums just because my (automated) folder creation by mp3tag is based on composers as primary criteria.
No big deal for me, but if I browse the library based on TAGS I don't really think Minim should second-guess album-structure based on folders.
bbrip
RE: Suggestion to avoid mandatory steps when browsing - winxi - 15-08-2012 20:15
(15-08-2012 18:45)simoncn Wrote: Unfortunately, I've been unable to make this work. This is because of a limitation of the UPnP architecture and protocol.
Many thanks for trying this and the detailed explanation. This is not a big thing. After all some user would have been confused by getting kicked to an album view after selecting an artist.
RE: Suggestion to avoid mandatory steps when browsing - simoncn - 15-08-2012 20:16
(15-08-2012 19:43)bbrip Wrote: Hi Simon,
I would tend to agree with psme here. folder structure should not have an impact on the way albums are being grouped whatsoever. I have a similar issue with some albums being split into multiple albums just because my (automated) folder creation by mp3tag is based on composers as primary criteria.
No big deal for me, but if I browse the library based on TAGS I don't really think Minim should second-guess album-structure based on folders.
bbrip
If you're browsing the library based on tags, why is it important for you to split an album with tracks by different composers into a different folder for each composer?
When I download or rip an album, I create a new folder for the album. If the album contains tracks by multiple artists or multiple composers, I don't see any reason to split the tracks between different folders. Do you sometimes browse by folders and sometimes by tags?
RE: Suggestion to avoid mandatory steps when browsing - winxi - 15-08-2012 20:30
(15-08-2012 19:43)bbrip Wrote: Hi Simon,
I would tend to agree with psme here. folder structure should not have an impact on the way albums are being grouped whatsoever. I have a similar issue with some albums being split into multiple albums just because my (automated) folder creation by mp3tag is based on composers as primary criteria.
No big deal for me, but if I browse the library based on TAGS I don't really think Minim should second-guess album-structure based on folders.
bbrip
I also agree, as it is the natural expectation of the user that a tag-based server neglects the folder structure and filenames. I believe that there are many different folder structures used by different users, and some of them don't necessarily put a whole album into one single folder.
But I definately agree that it is important to split different albums which have the same album name incidentally.
Maybe it would be better to do it vice versa and use a [split] string in the foldername to indicate that this folder should be treated as a separate album instead of [part] indicating to merge folders. This would meet the users expectation and i think that [split] would be used in far less cases than [part].
Users who need [split] would consider it as a feature whereas users who don't need [split] wouldn't care.
With [part] users who don't care or just don't know about it (like me before) might consider this as a bug.
RE: Suggestion to avoid mandatory steps when browsing - bbrip - 15-08-2012 20:48
(15-08-2012 20:16)simoncn Wrote: If you're browsing the library based on tags, why is it important for you to split an album with tracks by different composers into a different folder for each composer?
When I download or rip an album, I create a new folder for the album. If the album contains tracks by multiple artists or multiple composers, I don't see any reason to split the tracks between different folders. Do you sometimes browse by folders and sometimes by tags?
I never browse by folders. folders are just a means to find back a track in case I need to change tags. When I create folders manually, I just dump it into the prime composer's folder structure. but mostly I let mp3tag create the folders - and by putting it into the composer's folders first, I always know where to search for it if I need to maintain the tags
RE: Suggestion to avoid mandatory steps when browsing - bbrip - 15-08-2012 20:52
(15-08-2012 20:30)winxi Wrote: But I definately agree that it is important to split different albums which have the same album name incidentally.
Maybe it would be better to do it vice versa and use a [split] string in the foldername to indicate that this folder should be treated as a separate album instead of [part] indicating to merge folders. This would meet the users expectation and i think that [split] would be used in far less cases than [part].
Users who need [split] would consider it as a feature whereas users who don't need [split] wouldn't care.
With [part] users who don't care or just don't know about it (like me before) might consider this as a bug.
Mmmm, sounds way to complicate to simple-minded me
I would just never give more than one Album exactly the same name. Otherwise chaos is on call at some point in time almost certainly...
RE: Suggestion to avoid mandatory steps when browsing - simoncn - 15-08-2012 21:03
(15-08-2012 20:30)winxi Wrote: I also agree, as it is the natural expectation of the user that a tag-based server neglects the folder structure and filenames. I believe that there are many different folder structures used by different users, and some of them don't necessarily put a whole album into one single folder.
But I definately agree that it is important to split different albums which have the same album name incidentally.
Maybe it would be better to do it vice versa and use a [split] string in the foldername to indicate that this folder should be treated as a separate album instead of [part] indicating to merge folders. This would meet the users expectation and i think that [split] would be used in far less cases than [part].
Users who need [split] would consider it as a feature whereas users who don't need [split] wouldn't care.
With [part] users who don't care or just don't know about it (like me before) might consider this as a bug.
This makes sense to me, and it ties in well with another existing MinimServer feature: match filters. Instead of adding '[split]' to keep two albums with the same name separate, the user could add a match filter to the folder name of one of the albums.
A match filter is a string of the form ['filtername'] where filtername is any value chosen by the user. If a folder has a match filter, the tracks in that folder will be merged only with tracks in other folders that have the same match filter.
RE: Suggestion to avoid mandatory steps when browsing - winxi - 15-08-2012 21:30
Aeyy, after reading carefully the elder release notes, I'm now aware of even more feature-highlights I didn't know before
Yes, it seems that the [part] and the match filter feature are concurring features, whereby match filter is the more general one.
RE: Suggestion to avoid mandatory steps when browsing - simoncn - 16-08-2012 08:55
(15-08-2012 21:30)winxi Wrote: Aeyy, after reading carefully the elder release notes, I'm now aware of even more feature-highlights I didn't know before
Yes, it seems that the [part] and the match filter feature are concurring features, whereby match filter is the more general one.
There is a difference between these. MinimServer currently processes albums on a folder by folder basis, except for multi-disc albums or albums marked [part]. This processing uses an optimized path. Multi-disc albums and albums marked with [part] are deferred for processing until the whole library has been scanned, and these albums use a more general and less efficient implementation.
Removing [part] would bring the less efficient path into play for all albums. For a small library, this wouldn't matter. For a large library, I'm not sure what the impact would be. I would need to measure the impact and possibly do further optimization work to compensate.
RE: Suggestion to avoid mandatory steps when browsing - winxi - 16-08-2012 09:51
(16-08-2012 08:55)simoncn Wrote: Removing [part] would bring the less efficient path into play for all albums. For a small library, this wouldn't matter. For a large library, I'm not sure what the impact would be. I would need to measure the impact and possibly do further optimization work to compensate.
I see, scanning efficiency is of course a very important point. Let me summarise, i hope that i understand everything right:
1) Now, files of the same album in different folders are automatically split. This is useful for different albums with the same name but it is a problem for users with certain folder structures. For such users, it can be 'worked around' by using [part] or by changing the folder structure. Moreover, the current behaviour is useful for reasons of efficiency.
2) removing [part] would mean that no album would be split automatically because of files residing in different folders. For different but equally named albums (which is clearly an exceptional case) the workaround would be using the already existent feature 'match filter'. This would meet the expectation from a tag-based media server but it would also lead to a less efficent scanning.
This implies a tradeoff between efficiency and user experience. For me personally, efficiency is very important. If you decide to keep 1), it would be a good idea to clearly point out in the user guide that files from one single album have to reside in the very same folder (except for multidisc and [part]).