Question playlist tracks out of order by (date) added

[Niglin]

C'mon guy, it has been noted previously as an issue, even by the developers, read posts/screes in this thread alone. I'm glad it isn't an issue for you though, that makes me happy .

- You're either part of the problem, or part of the solution -

[nohitter151]

C'mon guy, it has been noted previously as an issue, even by the developers, read posts/screes in this thread alone.

I don't follow you. Where was it noted as an issue by the developers? The current implementation is the solution, previously if you sorted by Date added it would always use the entire date and time. The solution to that was to ignore the time component when there is a secondary sort by album.

If you read the entire ticket that you already screencapped, you'd understand that the solution discussed was already implemented. If you aren't happy with that solution, then say so, but please don't imply that this is a "bug" when the issue has already been fixed, verified, and closed.

[Lowlander]

If you want the Added files to be in order just sort on Added. If you want to sort on Added, but maintain the Album Track order use Added > Album > Track#.

However what you're asking is impossible, because you're asking to sort correctly on Added and then still maintain track# order correctly as well. This isn't possible as Added and Track# have conflicting sort. This can't be "fixed".

[Niglin]

You said it 'nohitter' 'you don't follow'..., the issue is being seriously belabored, lowlander, your sounding like a parrot. This is getting apathetic, perhaps the mod should just kill the thread.


-Those who know don't day, those who say don't know -

[Lowlander]

Then you will need to explain yourself better as what you have explained so far is either not possible as replied or makes no sense.

[Niglin]

I'm not gonna even attempt to patronize here... Can't be done, thanks, finally a straight answer, assuming your an authority on the matter, which I don't. Please, don't attempt to put this back on me, I certainly hope your not affiliated with Media Monkey in anyway. I mean the fact you don't comprehend, and can't make sense of this is telltale, that your literary skills are somewhat in question. Maybe in the future, recipients should refrain from using $10 words, so as not to baffle you, or do you have some other issues? There are many online dictionaries where you can look these perplexing words up, so there really is no excuse.

Personally, I'm somewhat frustrated. I'd previously created a ticket for Ventis Media, & they got back to me earlier today. The tech. said they are aware of this, as a current issue, a shortcoming, if you will, and they are working on it. So what say you to that Lowguy? Next time save someone a hassle, learn a thing, and be upfront in the beginning. If you don't know the answer admit it, or don't comment, rather than wasting peoples time.

[Lowlander]

Not everybody is a native English speaker, I certainly am not. It's telltale that you choose to attack people. So far it isn't understood what you're looking for and as you're unwilling to explain I can't help which I'm doing as one user to another user. I'm trying to be helpful, I'm trying to understand what you seek, so far it makes no sense as it would seem all possible variations of what you could seek have been covered. This seems to be not the case, but you choose to attack people instead of trying to explain what it is you're seeking.

[Niglin]

Well buddy, you pissed me off with your non native english speaking demeanor. You're in Canada now right? I don't think I need to speak to this any further, as I'm sure you know what I'm getting at. I'm sorry you feel like you're being attacked; how do you think I feel? Your previous responses were quite abrupt, if not blunt, and I'm not the only one who's noticed. BTW; everyone is entitled to their opinion.

[rusty]

Hi Niglin,

I know you're losing patience here, but getting back to the problem, I'm still confused about what the problem is, and would genuinely like to fix it. According to the bug, and per the screenshot shown by nohitter in this thread corroborated by my own verification of the functionality, the problem that autoplaylists fail to display tracks by track order as a consequence of being sorted by date-time added has a workaround that was implemented and works.

Based on your descriptions it sounds as if that workaround isn't working for you. Can you post a screenshot that clearly illustrates this (the existing screencap shows a sort by Added 2x, instead of by Added and then by Album) ? Better yet, if you can take a few minutes, a video with audio commentary would probably be even more helpful -- you can share one to the forum via http://www.techsmith.com/download/jing/ (I know this is asking a lot, but it would probably eliminate all of the confusion).

Thanks.

-Rusty

[Lowlander]

I'm starting to wonder if you're seeking:

Track# - Added
1 - 1/1/2012 14:56
2 - 1/1/2012 14:56
3 - 1/1/2012 14:56
4 - 1/1/2012 14:55
5 - 1/1/2012 14:55

to be sorted as
4 - 1/1/2012 14:55
5 - 1/1/2012 14:55
1 - 1/1/2012 14:56
2 - 1/1/2012 14:56
3 - 1/1/2012 14:56

Because that isn't possible, using Added > Album > Track# will sort as shown in the first set even though track 4 & 5 were added earlier.

[Niglin]

Understand Lowlander, what you said makes sense, but why are whole albums added on the same date not in sequence in order of time? I've tried the 'Added, and then the Album', also the 'Added, Album and Track #, as in the screenshot, makes no difference. Thanks guys.

[Lowlander]

I really don't follow.

but why are whole albums added on the same date not in sequence in order of time?

That is the case when you sort only on Added. Note that Added is a full date including seconds (which aren't shown).

So if you want files to show on date added it will do so by just sorting on added, but it takes the second the file was added to MediaMonkey into account (and each file is added at a slightly different time). This means that files are sorted in reverse in many cases as the last track was added first.

It would seem you may be asking to only sort on date hour:minute and that those files with the same date hour:minute are sorted on track#. This isn't possible as either you sort on date hour:minute:seconds (and possibly milliseconds) or you sort on date and within an Album ignore the date sort and sort on Album > Track#.

If that's the case you can't do what you're looking for and I don't understand why you're looking to do this sort (as it would break album sort)?

[Niglin]

It's down to a matter of preference, & as was suggested by support, it's being addressed for 1.05.1481+ stable release(s), to my understanding. MM is limited in this aspect as is Itunes, sadly, as I suspected. There needs to exist a sort variant to address this issue. If you google the same for Itunes, you will see a great many gripes about this shortcoming.

[Lowlander]

To me that seems a really strange sort preference as you will end up with tracks on albums not sorted in album order due to different Added times.

[rusty]

It would seem you may be asking to only sort on date hour:minute and that those files with the same date hour:minute are sorted on track#. This isn't possible as either you sort on date hour:minute:seconds (and possibly milliseconds) or you sort on date and within an Album ignore the date sort and sort on Album > Track#.

hmm... I don't understand the requirement either. Maybe a description of how this would be of benefit would help or perhaps a link to a discussion of the issue on iTunes

It's down to a matter of preference, & as was suggested by support, it's being addressed for 1.05.1481+ stable release(s), to my understanding.

I think that there may have been some miscommunication--the only remaining bugs targeted for 4.0.5 are listed here (and in fact there's no open bug for the issue you describe since we're still unclear of the need/benefit).

Thanks.

-Rusty