why do people use tags ??

[racekites]

hey guys...

I'm a simple creature. Computers use files. I use files. Rockbox uses files. Life is simple.

However, a friend just purchased a new (unsupported by Rockbox) mp3 player, a Phillips 30G goGear. It uses Windows Media Player to sync files onto the device. It then uses the ID3 tags to order and index the tracks.

Why do modern player tend to use tags to index the music ??

There's no way to simply copy files onto the player from a computer and play them.

I've never understood why we use tags. All my audio (and video) is organised in directories. I have a top level music directory which then has folders a to z, in these i have the artist and then albums. Its easy, I know where everything is. If I want to add a new ablum its simple to copy the album into the correct location, it takes seconds. Its simple.

With tags, if the tags are not correctly populated nothing is in order and chaos ensues...

I copied some of my files via WMP, then a sync to the device and because the tags had not been filled in correctly. Some of my media is audiobooks, 10 + CDs to each book, 20 tracks on each CD.... give or take thats 240 tracks. Fixing the tags for just one audiobook takes hours.... WHY !!!

Why do we have tags... how do they benefit the user.... ?

Surely, simple is better ??

Cheers
A

[Febs]

This really isn't a Rockbox question.

[racekites]

yes agreed, however if tags are such a great thing, why is rockbox written around files and directories... so its kind of about rockbox...  

[gnu]

To answer your question:
You have sorted your music by artist (like most other people). But if you wanted to sort it any other way (e.g. by track, by album...) you'd be screwed. If your player uses tags, re-sorting the music is no problem. That's it (in my opinion).

Oh, and if you want to tag your audiobooks, use a program like godfather. It makes it much easier.

And rockbox supports both tag based browsing, and normal file browsing; that way everyone can chose the thing that he likes better.

[soap]

People use tags because a directory structure, no matter how complex, is not a database.
Please tell me how I can keep track of:
(easy ones)
  Track Artist
  Album Artist
  Release Year
  Track Number
  Album Name
  Track Name
  Genre
(hard ones)
  Replaygain Track Peak
  Replaygain Album Peak
  Lyrics
  Comment
  Encoder
  Composer
  Language
  BPM
  Recording Date
and on and on and on...
in a directory structure without hitting a pathname limit.

[AlexP]

I use a file tree and not database as I have artist\album structure, and normally listen to full albums.

However if you want to do something like listen to all music from one genre, or every track released in 1995, database is much easier.

I don't like databases, and a major consideration when I bought my H140 (before rockbox ran on it) was that I could use a file tree.  For that reason I would never buy a non-rockboxable iPod.  However, despite the fact it would do my head in if I HAD to use the database, I don't and I appreciate why other people like it.

[racekites]

People use tags because a directory structure, no matter how complex, is not a database.
Please tell me how I can keep track of:
(easy ones)
  .
  .
  .
and on and on and on...
in a directory structure without hitting a pathname limit.

but why would anyone want to ??

certian tags, i can see the sense of, artist/album/year/trackNumber/trackName...

however the additional effort that appears to be required to have access to the remaining meta tags outweighs the the usefulness of them.

I come from a DataManagement background in the oil industry, so understand the need for accurate and descriptive metadata.

I guess what i'm saying if I download an audiobook from the net, filenames have to be unique, and common sense says files are in sequence. The effort required to enable me to play this from start to finish, in the correct sequence, on a rockbox enabled (or a player that does a file structure) takes as long as it does to copy it to the player...

To play the same audiobook (10 disks, ~ 20 tracks/disk), front start to finish, in the correct sequence on a player that only works on tags takes an order of magnitude more effort....

The need for metadata is not in question however should it really be needed to enable me to play a track on a mp3 player ??

Its just taken me 30 minutes of editting to enable an audiobook that plays perfectly in rockbox to play the same on a Phillips 30G goGear...

A file tree is so much easier, faster, easier to understand, to organise so why are they almost extinct in the mp3 player world... ??

A

[AlexP]

So how would you do it through filetree if you want both to be able to play complete albums, and play all songs from a particular genre?

Edit: Without setting up loads of playlists that would need updating every time you added new music?  Remember, I'm a file tree person, but there are some things I can't see how to easily do with a file tree.  I don't do them, so fine, but if you want to?

[Llorean]

Here's the deal:

1) Filetrees are in no way extinct in the player world. I think we can all agree *requiring* database use is silly, but allowing it adds for those who want it. It's an extra layer of hassle if it's the only way to access your player, and you have direct needs.

2) Rockbox exists, in part, as a way of bringing filetree browsing to those players that don't support it.

3) This forum is about Rockbox, so the discussion of "Why is filetree browsing nearly extinct" is irrelevant: We don't make policy for manufacturers, nor do we particularly care what policy they follow with their own firmware, so long as we can find a way to replace it.

[soap]

Its just taken me 30 minutes of editting to enable an audiobook that plays perfectly in rockbox to play the same on a Phillips 30G goGear...

A file tree is so much easier, faster, easier to understand, to organise so why are they almost extinct in the mp3 player world... ??

Any good tagger will fill in tags for you based upon filenames and paths.  If your directory structure is consistent, it won't take your computer but a couple of minutes to tag all your files.

A file tree is not faster, more understandable, or easier to organize when you are doing anything but the most basic of manipulation.  Relational databases are needed to do any complex query, and are helpful for even simple queries.

A file tree method of organization can best be viewed as a risky hierarchical database, where there is only one path to find any given item, and all information (metadata) about said item is dependent on its placement in the tree.

[AlexP]

To be honest, this is a pointless arguement.  

Some people prefer file trees, some prefer database.

I find file tree easier, but all I do is play full albums.  It is patently obvious to me that should I want to do more complex tasks, the database would be better.

Anyway, rockbox allows us to do either, so why worry?  There is no point trying to persuade each other.

[bascule]

There is no point trying to persuade each other.

That wasn't the point of the post, it was a genuine 'why' query.

For me, the Database is fantastic for the following reasons:

I can quickly go to an artist, but I can just as quickly go to an album, without having to browse to the relevant artist first.
I can play all an artist's tracks as simply as choosing a specific album, even if some of those tracks are on a compilation album.
I can play all tracks released in the year 2004, or any other year from my collection spanning ~1960-2007.
I can browse directly to a track by name, even if I can't remember the artist or album it came from.
I can search for text within any of the metadata tags.
I can play all tracks, or select an album or artist from a specific genre.
I can see which tracks I've played most, least or not at all (I know this is not strictly metadata, but it is database data).
I can separate out podcasts/radio shows from the general melée and sort them by loaded order and whether or not I have listened to them.
I can view a list of all my recently added tracks.

[soap]

I find file tree easier, but all I do is play full albums.  It is patently obvious to me that should I want to do more complex tasks, the database would be better.

I too browse by filetree, and for the same reason.
That being said, I can not imagine managing my music collection without full metadata.  

[AlexP]

There is no point trying to persuade each other.

That wasn't the point of the post, it was a genuine 'why' query.

Yes, I know, but the thread has turned into that.