Q: dynamic playlist of unrated songs

[Orville Bennett]

Gary Steinert wrote:
> On Monday 29 June 2009 18:22:20 Jeff Mitchell wrote:
>> 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?
> 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.
EW.
Non colored stars already means not rated. Why complicate things? 
Wouldn't this also be deviating from what dolphin does and any other 
program (digikam?) which uses a rating system.
It would be better IMO to have the word "Unrated" in the dynamic 
playlist (should it ever exist) to choose from, in addition to the 
current ratings available. It would give the user exactly what they 
want, be clear, intuitive and not break anything for those currently (or 
in the future) used to the rating system used throughout KDE. And iTunes.

>
> 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.
Or you could just rate it 1/2 instead. The ability to humiliate the 
track by giving it no rating (while utterly satisfying) isn't very 
useful from a practical standpoint.
If you want to see the horriblest music you have in your collection you 
can (currently) choose to give it no rating or 1/2.
If you choose no rating, you then need to distinguish between "it's not 
rated yet" and "it's truly horrible".
If you choose 1/2, then it's a simple proposition to distinguish between 
the two.

And remember the current rating system goes from .5 to 5, but it's
.05 > 1 > 1.5 > 2 > 2.5 > 3 > 3.5 > 4 > 4.5 > 5
THAT'S TEN RATING POINTS! WHY DO WE NEED ONE MORE?
WHYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYeeeeeeeeeeeeee?
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Amarok mailing list
> Amarok at kde.org
> https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/amarok

Oh look he said the smaller numbers are greater than the larger numbers.
Let's all point and laugh!