Database Question/Request

[Toxikator]

I don't know if this can be done... but if it can't, I'd like to declare my request for it.

Is there a way to configure the tagnavi file to eliminate the "untagged" option for certain categories?

Example:

I click on Artist
-- Album 1
-- Album 2
--
---- Song 1
---- Song 2

I would like to reduce this to just

Artist
-- Album 1
-- Album 2
-- Song 1
-- Song 2.

Clicking onto albums makes perfect sense, as it means the albums playback correctly. But for unsorted songs, it seems like an unnecessary step, especially for artists whom I own no albums from, only the one or two unsorted mp3s.

[Toxikator]

bump  

[bascule]

Is there a way to configure the tagnavi file to eliminate the "untagged" option for certain categories?

Taking this at face value, if you mean get rid of any < untagged > entries, then tag your files properly

However, your explanation of the problems leads me to believe you mean something else. Unfortunately, I don't understand your description.

Please describe exactly what steps you take, what the result is and how you would like that result to be different...

[roolku]

Clicking onto albums makes perfect sense, as it means the albums playback correctly. But for unsorted songs, it seems like an unnecessary step, especially for artists whom I own no albums from, only the one or two unsorted mp3s.

Not possible. You can't have albums (or any other tags) on the same level as Songs.

As for requesting it - can you tell me why you would want it? It is not reducing the number of button presses if you have a minimum of two albums.

[Toxikator]

The idea is to save button presses and to make things more logical.

The idea behind eliminating 'untagged' entries is to stop an unnecessary organizational step.

It makes sense, for example, to organize by album if you have whole albums on your rockbox (and indeed I do). so I might click "Meshuggah">"Nothing">"01. Stengah".

But it DOESN'T make sense when the tracks aren't organized by album.

Why go, for example, "Static X">"untagged">"Dirthouse", when the ONLY Static-X song I have is Dirthouse? It'd be easier to just go "Static-X">"Dirthouse".

You can DO this in file view mode, which is why I was asking. My Linkin Park folder used to look like

Linkin Park
- Hybrid Theory
--- (tracks in order)
- Meteora
--- (tracks in order)
- Qwerty (Live)

Now it goes

-Hybrid Theory
--- (tracks in order)
- Meteora
--- (tracks in order)
- untagged
--- Qwerty (Live)

Seems like an unnecessary level to me.

However I don't want to use the file tree view because it's not as accurate (character restrictions and all that)

[roolku]

The idea is to save button presses ...

Well that is what I am debating. Depending on how many albums you have you need to press cursor-down lots of times to reach the first album-less track in comparion to just entering the "folder" with a single right-click. If you don't have any albums than you can omit the album level all together.

... and to make things more logical.

Maybe it is my personal view, but mixing tracks and albums on one level doesn't seem logical to me at all.


But regardless of personal preference I doubt it will get implemented as it can not easily be generalised. Assuming you have a structure:

artist -> year -> album -> title

and you have mp3s that have an artist, album, title tag, but no year tag. What do you want to appear when you enter artist? The album, the title? Having there in pace of year seems perfectly logical to me.

Or just make sure your mp3s are adequately tagged.

[LinusN]

Or just make sure your mp3s are adequately tagged.

Just curious, how would you suggest he tagged the tracks in question? Not all tracks in the world are from an album.

[Llorean]

I personally name the album "Single" if it doesn't have one.

But I think the real problem is that it'd be hard to generalize what to do when a tag isn't present in a specific field. In some cases it might be preferred that the next level of the search be rendered, and the other it wouldn't. Though honestly, probably the only case you'd prefer to see the next level is if it's the "Track" level of the search.

[bascule]

Now I see what you want

As roolku said previously...

Not possible. You can't have albums (or any other tags) on the same level as Songs.

This not being possible, any solution is a compromise workaround of some sort...

If I were you, I would tag the orphan tracks with the album name you think they most fit with, so that they move into the appropriate album selection.

Alternatively, tag them all with an album name "unsorted" or similar

[Toxikator]

If I were okay with having them in some folder why not just leave them as "untagged"?  

BTW I'm on an iPod, so there is no "cursor down" button press.

It's just a logical thing for me. Some tracks are from albums, some tracks aren't. The ones that aren't shouldn't be foldered away like that.

It seems highly logical to me.

If you organize by Artist>Album>Track, and there is no "album", then the logical thing to do, IMO, is to have those songs organized as Artist>Track, rather than to generate an "untagged" label for them and stick them in that folder.

I don't obviously know enough about coding or the db structure in general but it seems like a relatively simple If-Then...

If ID3Tag:Album /= ""
Then
(whatever the commands are to make it display Artist>Album>Track)
ElseIf ID3Tag: Album = ""
Then
(Whatever the commands are to make it display Artist>Track)

There are probably more important things, though.

[roolku]

Or just make sure your mp3s are adequately tagged.

Just curious, how would you suggest he tagged the tracks in question? Not all tracks in the world are from an album.

I use 'meaningful' keywords such as "bootleg" or "single" or "own recording".  " < untagged > " in my mind means: I haven't fixed the tags for this track and I have a database view that shows all my mp3s with unfixed tags, so if I am bored I can tidy them up.

But I am sure different people have different opinions about that, hence "adequately".

[roolku]

It's just a logical thing for me. Some tracks are from albums, some tracks aren't. The ones that aren't shouldn't be foldered away like that.

It seems highly logical to me.

I still fail to see how it is logical.

I agree and may be convenient, or a paradigm that you are used to (in fact I have sorted my files in the directory structure like that), but how is it logical?

(BTW you never answered how to deal with the artist -> year -> album -> title example)

I don't obviously know enough about coding or the db structure in general but it seems like a relatively simple If-Then...

If ID3Tag:Album /= ""
Then
(whatever the commands are to make it display Artist>Album>Track)
ElseIf ID3Tag: Album = ""
Then
(Whatever the commands are to make it display Artist>Track)

I am sure it is possible to do this exception handling, but elegant and easy it is not. (Think for example about chunking browsing for low mem targets, the insert playlist handling etc.)

And remember, the database engine is interpreting the queries from the tagnavi.config dynamically. Hard-coding one specific case seems counter-productive to me.

[Toxikator]

I'm not asking for it to be hard-coded, I was asking if there was a way to allow Tagnavi to do it.

All I was asking about was a protocol that would move "untagged" entries up one category.

I don't know what the "year" tag would do differently.

I don't tag any songs by year, but lets entertain the idea for a second:

Current Method (only going as deep as albums):

"Crazy MF band"
--1999
---- "Rock your dildo"
--1997
---- "Electric Hellsmash"
---- "Squirt"
--1845
---- "Charleston Yankee"
--1635
---- "Church Chants vol 1"
---- "Church Chants vol 2"
--< untagged >
---- "Wirelifter Chinese Spoon Torchlit"

My Idea (again, only as deep as albums):

"Crazy MF band"
--1999
---- "Rock your dildo"
--1997
---- "Electric Hellsmash"
---- "Squirt"
--1845
---- "Charleston Yankee"
--1635
---- "Church Chants vol 1"
---- "Church Chants vol 2"
--"Wirelifter Chinese Spoon Torchlit"

Makes perfect logical sense to me. If the organizational chain is missing a link, instead of adding a "ghost" link to replace it, you just shorten it.

Think of how this would work for more obscure tags; Imagine, for example, you had a significant number of 2-disc albums. You might find it sensical to add a heirarchial level for "disc"

So that you might go
Garth Brooks>Double Live>disc 1> 07. Longneck bottle (or whatever track it is)

But then for every other one-disc album, would it make more sense to have it tagged
Artist>Album>disc 1>song
or
Artist>Album>song

It's the same thing here. When I don't have an intermediary "album" sublet, I just want Artist>song.

[roolku]

Makes perfect logical sense to me. If the organizational chain is missing a link, instead of adding a "ghost" link to replace it, you just shorten it.

Well, not to me. This would mean in my artist -> year -> album -> title example, if you enter an artist, you might be looking at a wild mixture of years, albums, and titles (depending how they are tagged).

So for example, you select "Eurythmics" and you see an entry "1984" - so it this the album? Or just the year (containing the album "1984" and the EP "Touch Dance" from the same year)? Or is it maybe the maxi version of the song "1984" ? Maybe it is just me, but I would find this highly confusing.

IMHO one level in the menu should only contain entries of one kind (the kind that is displayed as the heading).

[Toxikator]

if you would find it confusing you could disable it. I'm not asking for a replacement structure, I'm asking for an option

In fact, if you were really going to run into that problem, would it not make more sense to simply eliminate the < untagged > removal for years?

So have it sort
Artist > Year > Album (RemoveUntagged)> track
Rather than
Artist > Year (RemoveUntagged) > Album (RemoveUntagged) > track.

that's the (theoretical) beauty of having it in the Tagnavi; it's completely customizable.