Q: dynamic playlist of unrated songs

[Jeff Mitchell]

On Mon, 29 Jun 2009 09:30:55 -0500, Aran Cox <arancox at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 9:18 AM, D. R. Evans<doc.evans at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Ben K said the following at 06/28/2009 07:22 PM :
>>> Actually the last time I looked at the source, an unrated song IS the
>>> same
>>> as a zero rating. The DB stores unrated songs' rating as zero, but it
>>> should
>>> probably be null. If people are happy for this to change I'll see if I
>>> can
>>> write a patch tonight.
>>
>> Yes; it is conceptually completely different to say "I have formed no
>> opinion about this song" than to say "My opinion of this song is that is
>> worthless".
>>
>> Reading later in this thread, I am astounded that there is any debate
>> about
>> this. The concepts are totally different.
>>
>> For example, If I ask "What is the cardinality of set X?" then the
answer
>> "zero" is profoundly different from the answer "I don't know".
>>
>> (Or to give an example closer to home: if someone asks me "How many
>> people
>> use amarok?", would the answer "zero" be acceptable?)
>>
>> So, no matter how it is implemented, there should be a way to
distinguish
>> a
>> zero rating from "unrated".
>>
>> I thought that was what the <blank> option was intended to do when
>> filtering according to rating, but apparently that's not so. It's not at
>> all obvious what the <blank> option is there for.
>>
>>  Doc
>>
> 
> Is there a way to assign a zero rating?  If not then 0=unrated for all
> intents and purposes.  If you want to rate the worst song you've ever
> heard give it 1/2 star (presumably for effort, if not execution.)
> Although I do understand the logic of undefined vs. 0 from a practical
> standpoint there is little difference.

Well, that's just it.

Right now you can't assign a zero rating.  No stars = no rating, not zero
rating.

What's really happening here is that some people make an (incorrect)
assumption that zero is a valid rating.  It isn't clear either way that
this is or isn't the case.  What the question really boils down to is: what
will be less confusing to *most* people -- no stars = not rated, or no
stars = zero rating?

I think the former, because if stars represent a rating, the absence of
stars means no rating.  In addition, if you count zero as a rating, then it
means that you have values 0-10, which is 11 possible rating values,
instead of 10.  Generally this isn't the way people think in terms of
rating anything -- they use a scale 1-10, not 0-10.  (The side benefit of
0-10 is you have an actual midpoint.)

--Jeff