Go Back   Winamp & Shoutcast Forums > Winamp > Winamp Discussion

View Poll Results: How should the album column format year ranges?
"1992-3", "1985-93" and "1999-2002" 2 9.52%
"1992-1993", "1985-1993" and "1999-2002" 9 42.86%
"1992-93", "1985-93" and "1999-2002" 10 47.62%
Other (post below) 0 0%
Voters: 21. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 18th April 2007, 19:01   #1
will
Nullsoft Newbie (Moderator)
 
will's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Sheffield, England
Posts: 5,569
How should the year of an album be displayed?

For albums which have tracks in different years, the ML now displays the range of years that the album spans.

If there is an album with 3 tracks, the first track having year 1990, the second 1991 and the third 1992 then this album has a year range of 1990 to 1992.

If all years are from the same decade is displays the range as "1990-2"
If all years are from the same century, it displays the range as "1985-92".
If the years are from different centurys, it displays the range as "1995-2004"

screenshot example:


Is this the best way?

[edit: consider the case "2011-2" for 2011 to 2012]

DO NOT PM ME WITH TECH SUPPORT QUESTIONS
will is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18th April 2007, 19:06   #2
gaekwad2
Foorum King
 
gaekwad2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: bar2000
Posts: 11,424
"1992-93", "1985-93" and "1999-2002"

"1992-3" looks weird imo
gaekwad2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18th April 2007, 19:07   #3
will
Nullsoft Newbie (Moderator)
 
will's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Sheffield, England
Posts: 5,569
fair idea, added to the poll.

DO NOT PM ME WITH TECH SUPPORT QUESTIONS
will is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18th April 2007, 20:08   #4
Koopa
16-Bit Moderator
 
Koopa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 4,341
Quote:
Originally posted by gaekwad2
"1992-3" looks weird imo
I agree.

"1992-1993" is the format, which I would prefer
Koopa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18th April 2007, 20:21   #5
Juanus
Major Dude
 
Juanus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Santa Monica, CA
Posts: 734
Send a message via AIM to Juanus
Quote:
Originally posted by gaekwad2
"1992-3" looks weird imo
Thirded. Have we learned nothing from Y2K? You have to go all 4 numeric values. 2003-2004
Juanus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18th April 2007, 20:24   #6
jph6t
Major Dude
 
jph6t's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: USA
Posts: 756
Re: How should the year of an album be displayed?

Quote:
Originally posted by will
[edit: consider the case "2011-2" for 2011 to 2012]
"1992-3" DOES looks weird. But even WEIRDER is the "2011-2" scenario
that will arise via the same approach in four years.

"1992-1993" is the best way to go.
100% consistency whether a difference of years, decades, or centuries.

I'm learning from Y2K
jph6t is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18th April 2007, 20:31   #7
niktheguru
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: London, UK
Posts: 120
Gotta say i prefer the third one. I'm a brit too, so buckling the trend! ;-)

Nikhil
niktheguru is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th April 2007, 17:04   #8
will
Nullsoft Newbie (Moderator)
 
will's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Sheffield, England
Posts: 5,569
option 3 wins!

gaekwad2, you get a cookie for suggesting it

DO NOT PM ME WITH TECH SUPPORT QUESTIONS
will is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th April 2007, 17:36   #9
jph6t
Major Dude
 
jph6t's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: USA
Posts: 756
Re: How should the year of an album be displayed?

I agree that option #3 is better than option #1 ...
but why have year ranges displayed in two different formats like it is in option #3?
Isn't option #2 the consistent approach?

I think it bad form to display something in one way on one line,
and in another way four lines later.

And if one makes the Year column wide enough to handle the largest format anyway (YYYY-YYYY), no real estate is gained by using the second format (YYYY-YY).
jph6t is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th April 2007, 23:46   #10
Kiyouta
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 56
It's the tyranny of the majority! First option is the only right one!

You'll regret this!

Kiyouta is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24th April 2007, 15:02   #11
zackbuffo
Member
 
zackbuffo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Germany (Old Europe)
Posts: 97
Here comes the nit-picker: This option is totaly useless!

There are the following tag options:

1. the year information is related to the album, then the correct tag is the year of the album-release (even it's a compilation).

2. the year information is related to the song

a. the first relesase of the song was on a compilation, then the correct tag is the year of the compilation-release

b. the song was released on another album, before the compilation was released, then your album tag is wrong.

Assumed the tag should show the FIRST release of a song or album, there is no need for a display method of a range of years.

Don't take it too serieous, but that's how it is...
zackbuffo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24th April 2007, 18:59   #12
jph6t
Major Dude
 
jph6t's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: USA
Posts: 756
Quote:
Originally posted by zackbuffo
Here comes the nit-picker: This option is totaly useless!

There are the following tag options:

1. the year information is related to the album, then the correct tag is the year of the album-release (even it's a compilation).

2. the year information is related to the song

a. the original release of the song was on a compilation, then the correct tag is the year of the compilation-release

b. the song was released on another album, before the compilation was released, then your album tag is wrong.

Assumed the tag should show the FIRST release of a song or album, there is no need for a display method of a range of years.

Don't take it too serious, but that's how it is...
zackbuffo, your approach is 100% valid ...
And I applaud you for having a consistent method by which you tag your songs.
Too few users think this out before they start tagging.

BUT ... depending on what another user is trying to achieve,
they may take a different approach.

Say for example, a user wants the year info for the song (for reference sake),
but wants to be able to quickly tie songs together for playing or browsing ...
because they appeared on a mix, in a movie, or on compilation the user likes ...
or because all the songs were ripped from a greatest hits album the user owns ... then can achieve this by using the Year field as it relates to the Song
and the Album field as it relates to the unifying album/mix.

I realize this might not be the best approach if that user ends up sharing his MP3 with you. Given that you each use different methods for tagging, his tags would mess up your library. But then I would put preventing this upon you ... to screen the tags of new files before incorporating into your library ... ensuring not only the use of ID3v2 fields is based on your method, but also that the same naming conventions (abbreviations and capitalizations) are being used.

Basically, the alternative method of tagging I outlined provides a user with a work around to deliver functionality not available to them with your tagging method.

Note that you should NOT see year ranges in your ML as (if you tag with 100% accuracy based on your method) you will never have files sharing Album values that do not also share Year values.

Basically, the way this functionality was built ... if provides options*!
Allowing the end-user to customize their experience.
Which most always is a nice thing!

* Nice work will!
(Even if you do insist on displaying the year range in an inconsistent manner.
Go go option #2! )
jph6t is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24th April 2007, 20:03   #13
DJ Egg
Techorator
Winamp & Shoutcast Team
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 35,824
Don't forget things like "no album", 12", 7", CD-S, CD Single, etc, and different albums with the same name - all of which will have one entry in the Albums pane, but with different years - hence the need for the xxxx-xxxx year feature.
DJ Egg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24th April 2007, 22:00   #14
jph6t
Major Dude
 
jph6t's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: USA
Posts: 756
Quote:
Originally posted by DJ Egg
Don't forget things like "no album"...
Ah yes, thanks DJ Egg. Good point.

Quote:
Originally posted by DJ Egg
12", 7", CD-S, CD Single, etc, and different albums with the same name - all of which will have one entry in the Albums pane, but with different years - hence the need for the xxxx-xxxx year feature.
Revisiting the tagging method discussion line above. For singles and such ...
I make the Album unique by populating the Album field with the name of the song
on the single and "[Single]" in brackets.

Example:
  • Stone Temple Pilots Live & Acoustic version of "Plush"
    which was on the "Sex Type Thing" single

    Title = Plush [Live & Acoustic]
    Artist = Stone Temple Pilots
    Album = Sex Type Thing [Single]
Just a tip for all you 'taggers' out there. But as I outlined above, each person may have there own method based on their own needs.

Further note ... if the single in question is a foreign single I'll note that in the brakets. Thus "[Single]" alone implies the single is from my home country.
ex) Album = Song XYZ [Canada Single]
jph6t is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24th April 2007, 22:21   #15
DJ Egg
Techorator
Winamp & Shoutcast Team
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 35,824
Yeah, but when you've got ATF set to show Artist - Album - ## - Title, it annoys me to see the same for Album and Title. So for vinyl rips, for example, I just put 12" or 7" in the Album field, and especially if I only like one of the tracks/mixes.
DJ Egg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24th April 2007, 23:00   #16
jph6t
Major Dude
 
jph6t's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: USA
Posts: 756
Quote:
Originally posted by DJ Egg
Yeah, but when you've got ATF set to show Artist - Album - ## - Title, it annoys me to see the same for Album and Title. So for vinyl rips, for example, I just put 12" or 7" in the Album field, and especially if I only like one of the tracks/mixes.
A fair point. And yet again, as I outlined above, each person may have there own method based on their own needs.
jph6t is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26th April 2007, 22:34   #17
jph6t
Major Dude
 
jph6t's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: USA
Posts: 756
Winamp v5.34 includes the implementation of option #3.
Option #3 = "1992-93", "1985-93", & "1999-2002"

Thanks will and DEV team!

(#3 is better than #1, but still not #2. Go go option #2!)
jph6t is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26th April 2007, 22:47   #18
Koopa
16-Bit Moderator
 
Koopa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 4,341
Don't worry, I prefer #2 too.
Koopa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27th April 2007, 16:52   #19
MertcanKaya1991
Member
 
MertcanKaya1991's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: TÃœRKÄ°YE
Posts: 83
i was voted for #3 but it can be #2. because i was thinked that it can be short but i forgot that there is already 19xx-200x's. so i can't use a short year column. if we were in 20th century i prefer the #3 but now i prefer #2. but it can be stay like #3. can't you made an option to chose it in the preferences?
MertcanKaya1991 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29th April 2007, 07:42   #20
jph6t
Major Dude
 
jph6t's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: USA
Posts: 756
v5.34 - ML Album Pane - Year Column Date Range Option(s)

Quote:
Originally posted by MertcanKaya1991
can't you made an option to chose it in the preferences?
I have logged such a feature request in the wishlist here.
jph6t is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply
Go Back   Winamp & Shoutcast Forums > Winamp > Winamp Discussion

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump