Ratings Script Idea

Post a reply

In an effort to prevent automatic submissions, we require that you complete the following challenge.
:D :) :( :o :-? 8) :lol: :x :P :oops: :cry: :evil: :roll: :wink:

BBCode is ON
[img] is ON
[flash] is OFF
[url] is ON
Smilies are ON

Topic review

Expand view Topic review: Ratings Script Idea

by meatlump » Sun Jun 17, 2007 6:11 pm

I find this a very interesting idea. I've often wished I had such a system for comparing/rating photos or graphic images. It does take a long time, but helps get around the problem of rating consistency.

Without such a system I find it difficult to decide whether to give 3.5 stars or 4. I also may rate songs differently depending upon my mood. A system of comparative rating over time smooths out any inconsistencies.

There is an alternative to the original mechanism that was hinted at in one post. It is not implemented in MM and would require a script or a lot of manual work. Use large numbers (0-2000) and use an adjustment algorithm like chess ranking. If you compare two tracks rated close together the changes would be small. If you compare two tracks with widely differing ratings and like the lower rated over the top rated, the adjustments would be large.

An example: Pick a 1200 rating over an 1150 rating and they change to 1205 and 1145. Pick a 1200 over a 1700 and they become 1300 and 1600.

This type of rating comparison is useful when you can not objectively assign ratings to individual entities. It allows you to make simple choices of A vs B and develop ratings over time and many comparisons.

If this were to be scripted, it would need to track the rating score, how many times it has been rated (more would be more accurate, less would need done more) and optionally a customized conversion of rating scores to MM ratings to be used in playlists, etc. (1800-2000 = 5 stars, 1600-1800 = 4.5 stars, etc.)

Another subject that has been touched upon is how to apply the rating range to your songs. Some people rate them based upon all music that they know, thus giving most tracks that they've chosen for their library scores of 4 or more. Others spread out their favorite music over most of the range.

We can debate the best way to make use of the range, but the best will be different for different folks based upon how they use MM. A single user with a small library can easily use the entire range, while a user who shares the library with others with different tastes will want to use 1 and 2 stars for music they may not want to hear much at all and most of their preferred music concentrated around 4.5 stars.

Thoughts? Discussion?

by Big_Berny » Wed Jun 13, 2007 6:03 pm

You could modify my script, so that you save the point-values into a customfield. Let's say it's 1000 by default (at the beginning). After that by rating (choosing) a song this point-value will increase or dercrease. Now my script will (if you modify it a little) convert (into normal curve) the point-values into ratings and save them into the rating field.

by MeMeMe » Wed Jun 13, 2007 11:54 am

rovingcowboy wrote:i don't think it is a total waste of time MeMeMe. but i think it would be if used for only one person.
Surely, whether it's a waste of time or not is for the person actually spending the time to decide?
but for one person i believe there are ways to customize big bernys script and diddeleedo's scripts to achive what the orginal poster was after. which is why i brought up those scripts.
I'd need to better understand the algorithm yours uses, to be sure, but for my purposes and experience with these two scripts, they just don't work for me.
Your script might give a quick start to Billy's process by making an initial guess for the songs initial ratings (rather than starting all at 2.5). But beyond that, it is very innacurate for a large proportion of my music.
I have a lot of tracks that I rate highly, but which don't get played often, and a lot of tracks that I rate somewhere in the upper middle, but which nevertheless get played a lot - because they are parts of sets I use for mood or background music. Plus there are songs in my library that I play more often outside of mediamonkey, like in car CD players, rather than when i'm sitting at my computer. So no system of measuring my playing habits will generate accurate ratings (where I rate the songs according to taste/like).

by rovingcowboy » Wed Jun 13, 2007 9:15 am

i don't think it is a total waste of time MeMeMe. but i think it would be if used for only one person.

i think it might be more suited for use with two or more people wanting to rate the same songs.. if it can be spilt like that.

but for one person i believe there are ways to customize big bernys script and diddeleedo's scripts to achive what the orginal poster was after. which is why i brought up those scripts. i can't say why the others brought them up.

unless they believe the same about them as i do.

i know with my custom script it raise's and lowers the rating
upon the amout of time in the computer and the number of plays. and i can adjust the number used for the amounts of time in the computer. which is not just the same as diddeleedo added on line but close to it.
and what i think seems to be close to what the orginal poster was trying to get at.

by MeMeMe » Wed Jun 13, 2007 9:05 am

There seem to be a few people saying this script is a daft idea, when it obviously isn't to the original poster. Why bother trying to persuade him it's a bad idea? If you don't want to or can't create the script, that's fine, but why spend so much effort trying to persuade him it's ab bad idea and pointing him to the track rating scripts when he has already said they don't work for him?

I've only responded because I think this is a great idea for a script, one that would work for me too. I liked the ideas in the rating scripts, but ultimately they didn't work for me because they rely too much on playcount.

While my top favourite songs do correspond to their playcounts, but most of the songs I like a lot like some or like a little don't really get ratings that correspond to those, when using playcount. Also, I have a lot of songs that became favourites or well-liked before I found mediamonkey, plus much of my current listening is new stuff - a lot of which isn't going to be rated very high, but is going to get a high playcount (over a short time frame, too). Those are some of the reasons that basing it on playcounts doesn't work for me.

by rovingcowboy » Sun Jun 10, 2007 10:43 pm

the more said the more i think you might beable to use a custom version of either of the two already out there big berny's or diddeleedoo's.

diddeleedoo likes to use the 2.5 star rating for starting out also.
and last i remember his script did not change your manual rating.

i don't know if big berny's was like that or even if he uses the 2.5 stars for the start of the songs.?

but i use an old version of dideleedoo's that he customized for me. it is close to what is online now, but he did a few things to it i wanted it to do.

so maybe when he gets back in to the scripting he will do it for you too, he might make one for you if you email him so might big berny.

by Teknojnky » Sun Jun 10, 2007 3:01 pm

Actually, I think the best usage of this type of rating, would be when you add a new album.

Mass rating and clicking for each song, would be uh just a little too much for most people.

However, one album at a time would be a more digestable chunk.

Of course then that brings up the issue, if you just bought a new album and haven't really listened to it much, your only gonna have as much rating value as you can make for the first few listen.

But anyway, I think its a good idea, for the right time and situation. To me, doing a whole library in that manner would be insane, but to each his own. :)

by Billy » Sun Jun 10, 2007 2:38 pm

I didn't think there'd be too much interest in the idea, it is certianly a highly personalised and rather obsessive way to arrive at ratings. Its also good to do when you're really bored! :lol:

im no technojunky, but yes, many moons ago several of my friends decided my music needed some of their music, so i have a bunch of theirs which has become familiar enough that i am hesitant to ever delete.

Even aside from that, if every song i had was a 4 or 5, all my favorites, every 'filler' song weeded out, there will always be some songs better then others. Rating them in competition distributes those high rated songs across the range from 0-5, and just by rules of probability they end up in a normal distribution. The ratings are specific and relative to only what is in the library, so in this example, a one star could still be one of my all time favorites, and a 5 star would be a song almost worthy of worship.

Heres a final thought to ponder, would good songs still be that good if there were no bad songs to compare?

by Spazz » Sat Jun 09, 2007 11:21 am

I buy all my music legit and have every song I own ripped to the computer. As such I don't like all of my songs enough for 4 to 5 stars because most cds have their good and bad songs.

by rovingcowboy » Sat Jun 09, 2007 6:06 am

i argee with nojac it is kind of really a waste of time.
since the songs are already choosen to be put on the computer
you must have liked them enough for a 4 or 5 star rating, but if you let others put songs on the computer they like then you would need some type of system to rate what you liked.

i just use the rating of the songs to tell me which is played the most, i know that is just a basic way of doing it and i can read the database to see the true playcount. but if the stars are already there to use for the rating. then why not use them, and i am not going to rate every one by my self. so i use the autorate script that works for me.


by powerpill-pacman » Sat Jun 09, 2007 2:15 am

I really like the idea of the script, allthough i wouldn't like doing half of the clicking to rate my library - i think it would take me years (literally) to rate all the songs.
But i think it's a neat idea for not more than about 2000 tracks.

by nojac » Sat Jun 09, 2007 1:11 am

Of all the strange script requests I have seen, this one must be near the top.

I can not think that anyone would spend all this time rating the same songs over and over again.... And the results are far from accurate, since the songs they meet in the "competition" are chosen randomly.

There is also little reason to expect a normal-shaped distribution for ratings, since you've already made a selection in choosing to have them in your collection. (I have far more 4 and 5-star songs than 0 and 1 since I don't collect crap... And if I have some, I certainly won't have them come up again and again randomly!)

I suggest you rate your songs once and spend some of the time you save to learn how to script. With your patience I am sure you can be of much help to this community :)

Sorry, Teknojnky, this was NOT an interesting approach!

by rovingcowboy » Fri Jun 08, 2007 7:17 pm

diddeleedoo's script uses the play count that you can not change. so it is really a good way of keeping them correct

the playcount you see in the list view is not the one that it uses. because that one can be changed to check how many times a day or week or other schecdule the song is played.

i am not sure but i think big bernys also uses the same playcount that diddeleedo used the one for the core count
(or the one in the database only)

you got to remember though mm 3 wont use the same scripts as mm 2 so both these scripters are going to need to make a new updated one for mm 3, diddeleedoo said he is waiting for the finaly release of mm 3 to even start with redoing his.

by Billy » Fri Jun 08, 2007 5:52 pm

I agree that those two automatic rating scripts are by far easier, and do allow for a disribution, however they still are largely based on Playcount, which in my opinion has nothing to do with a rating of a song.
The skip-tracking of these do make them much better, but they are still vauge estimates of a songs rating.

Many of my high rated songs are songs which I have loved for years, and played to death long ago outside of MM. Since I play them rarely now, they get inaccurate low ratings under such automated scripts. These scripts are excellent for new libraries of songs, but not for pre media monkey library songs starting with fresh playcounts.

That is why I choose to manualy rate songs, and im sure there are other people with similar issues. However, direct manual rating --- guessing that one song should get a 4 or a 4.5 or perhaps a 3.5 isn't easy to do consistently....pulling rabbits out of hats...ratings out of thin air! My method keeps things consistent by rating songs, not based on playcount or guessing, but rating them relative to eachother.

And it does work beautifully! :D
Albeit an arduous task... :(

Having an accurate rating, completley independent of its playcount, allows for more refined and accurate auto generated playlists and what have you...and you can keep those garbage songs that you just can't come to delete at bay, even if they've played 32 times while you were out one day and accidentally left your music playing

I have written some tiny Javascripts in the past from scratch, so i understand some fundimentals of scripting, but I wouldn't know where to begin scripting a tool like this for media monkey.....don't even know what language the scripts are in! :o

by Teknojnky » Fri Jun 08, 2007 3:34 pm

That is quite an interesting approach.

I don't know if anyone is/will be interested in developing such script (if its even possible), but you should be aware that there are 2 different scripts with differing approaches to 'auto-rating' your tracks as/after you play them.

Diddledoo's Auto Rate & Announcer script

Big Bernies AutoRateAccurate script

Both can accomplish something similar to your desires, but not quite the same, based upon various factors such as play counts, skips, etc.