Q: dynamic playlist of unrated songs

[D. R. Evans]

Jeff Mitchell said the following at 06/30/2009 04:30 PM :
> D. R. Evans wrote:
>> Gary Steinert said the following at 06/29/2009 01:50 PM :
>>
>>> Could we not (talking from a visual side here) give some indication to the 
>>> user that the track is unrated other than having no stars. The first idea that 
>>> comes to mind is simply writing 'Unrated' across the stars (see the attached 
>>> screenshot) This would remove any ambiguity and allow people to rate a track 0 
>>> stars.
>> YES.
> 
> MAYBE.

:-) "YES" was shorthand for "If I had a vote it would be resoundingly in
favour".

Having only recently subscribed here, I forgot that the shorthands that I'm
used to seeing on more technical technical reflectors may not be readily
interpreted here the way that I intend. I apologise for that assumption.

> 
>> If people decide to insist on zero rating being the same as unrated
> 
> They don't.  You can't rate something zero.  The fact that there's no
> distinction in the UI is indeed a UI problem, but it doesn't change the
> fundamental fact that you cannot rate something zero currently.  I wish
> people would stop insisting that people are insisting that a "zero"
> rating is the same as "unrated", because no one is insisting it in the
> first place.

Yes they are. See
<34d6dcc20906281822t453980a7q64a4761086da006a at mail.gmail.com>.

> 
>>> Also, just to give a scenario when 0 stars would be useful. I, more often than 
>>> not, get music by the album, and I hate having incomplete albums in my 
>>> collection (no idea why, just really annoys me =P). So every once in a while I 
>>> get an awesome album with a track I absolutely hate. I dont want to remove it 
>>> from my collection because its part of the album, but I would rate it 0, 
>>> rather than 1 which suggests I actually like something about it =P.
>> You're talking about "Revolution #9", right? :-) Or am I showing my age?
>>
>> And that's exactly what I want to do, too.
> 
> It was a silly argument, and it's still a silly argument.

Well thank you.

So do you rate the argument zero? Or is it unrated? Or rated ½?

And can you perhaps give an objective explanation for why it's silly?

> 
> You might convince me that a rating of "zero" is something needed, but
> it won't be "because I want to rate something lower than the lowest
> rating", which doesn't carry any more water than wanting to be able to
> rate something 11 because this one goes up to 11.

"because I want to rate something lower than the lowest rating" -- where
did that quote come from? I can't find it and I'm certain I didn't say it.

  D

-- 
Web:  http://www.sff.net/people/N7DR

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 260 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/amarok/attachments/20090701/8c91602d/attachment.sig>