Skip to main content

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: foo_discogs (Read 1341799 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 5 Guests are viewing this topic.

foo_discogs

Reply #1925
Hi zoomorph,

another release, with mixed numbers in the tracklist. No idea how to correct them on the DG site, to solve this in the component.

Code: [Select]
5     Marrakesh Express     
6     Long Time Gone     
7A     Critical Mass     
7B     Wind On The Water     
8     Try To Find Me


cheers!

foo_discogs

Reply #1926
Bug with some multi-disc releases

http://www.discogs.com/release/880847
http://www.discogs.com/release/863175
etc.

Tagger show only first track from disc [+HIDDEN]
I suppose it can be related to dots in tracklisting (1.01, 1.02) because usually all fine without dots (1-01).


v1.52 (latest beta though)

Track lists are entered wrongly on Discogs. They should be updated to use the new style (eg. 1-1, 1-2, 1-3, ..., 2-1, 2-2, etc).

foo_discogs

Reply #1927
Hi, I've just started using this excellent plugin once again (been a few years since I tidied up my music collection).

I have three questions about the album art:

1. All the art it downloads seems to be very low resolution (eg 600x600 pixels). That seems a little small, and it's hard to even read text sometimes at that resolution. Is there any easy way to achieve higher resolution images? (Without scanning the artwork myself, obviously.)

2. "Back" artwork is being named "cover_2" or "cover_3" etc. To me, the back artwork is almost as important as the cover and I like it to be specially titled so that I can easily click the cover to see the back. Can anything be done about this?

3. Sometimes there aren't even images of the back, not even for very famous artists. Can anything be done about this?

I may be wrong, but I seem to remember using the Discogs plugin a few years ago and there being a lot more choice in terms of images, and larger images. Though maybe I'm thinking of some other plugin?

By the way, when I use the plugin to search for an album, there's usually an asterisk next to the "right" album. What is this asterisk supposed to represent, just out of interest?

Thanks

1. No. Discogs max size is 600x600 pixels.
2. Discogs doesn't provide any way to distinguish front vs back cover.
3. You could scan and upload them to Discogs. :-)

foo_discogs

Reply #1928
Hi zoomorph,

another release, with mixed numbers in the tracklist. No idea how to correct them on the DG site, to solve this in the component.

Code: [Select]
5     Marrakesh Express     
6     Long Time Gone     
7A     Critical Mass     
7B     Wind On The Water     
8     Try To Find Me


cheers!

Hard for me to say how they should be entered. Current (7A, 7B) they're entered as a hidden track (eg. 2 tracks in 1 file). On another version, I see they're entered as subtracks.

foo_discogs

Reply #1929
Hi zoomorph,
in addition to this post,
here is another example. clicking any release (for "moving pictures") will always go to the master release.

cheers,

Attached file fixes this issue. It also opens releases in the browser as discogs.com/x/release/RELEASE_ID instead of discogs.com/release/RELEASE_ID since Discogs appears to be biased against the latter (it's very slow, and often times out).

[attachment=8455:foo_discogs.zip]

foo_discogs

Reply #1930
Artists searching for " Kelis" will not return results for "Kelis" as expected, but results for "Rick Kelis".

Is it possible to trim the searchterm (" Kelis" -> "Kelis") before submitting the search?

This will be fixed in next update, thanks.

Yes, there is a problem, because, as you wrote, those are individual files (at least at my HD) and imho, there must be an option for the user to expand those hidden files to "real" tracks.
Otherwise we cannot tag releases, where we have splitted a CD-MIX into seperate files, according the tracklist of the discogs release.

The problem is that you split the files from the CD into different files on your harddrive. Any user in theory could split the files into any number that he wants, and it would be impossible for foo_discogs to know how to put them back together in the proper way so as to tag them all correctly. But, the case you're mentioning here is probably the most common one: that hidden tracks are split into individual files.

Unfortunately, foo_discogs doesn't currently have a feature to expand hidden tracks or ignore them. I agree that such a feature should be implemented. For the time being, you won't be able to tag such files using foo_discogs unless you manually copy and modify the tags outside of foo_discogs. :-(

foo_discogs

Reply #1931
Hi zoomorph,

this release shows tracks 2, 3, 5, 8 fine on the website:


but after tagging with the component, its looks this way in foobar2000:

(name space comma space name
instead of
name comma space name)

the properties show:


I guess the names should be separated with a ; semicolon, instead of an , comma?
.....

The problem here is the formatting string that I created, which puts that space there when it shouldn't. I will have to momentarily think of the best way to change the formatting string to prevent doing that with a comma join.

foo_discogs

Reply #1932
Changes:
* Joining artist names now done via special function $joinnames() instead of the old method, to fix the problem mentioned above.
* The following default tags changed: ARTIST, ALBUM ARTIST, DISCOGS_CREDIT_FEATURING, DISCOGS_CREDIT_VOCALS, and REMIXED_BY
* Right clicking a tag in the edit tag mappings dialog has a new option to restore default value. You can use this option to restore the above tags.

[attachment=8457:foo_discogs.zip]

foo_discogs

Reply #1933
Punctuation forbidden as prefixes/suffixes only. For example (CD-1.) or (.1-01.)
Whatever is around 10% such releases on discogs. I have doubt that someone will update all releases according to discogs tagger...
Also ", The" suffix in tagger is obsolete after latest discogs update.

Bug with some multi-disc releases

http://www.discogs.com/release/880847
http://www.discogs.com/release/863175
etc.

Tagger show only first track from disc [+HIDDEN]
I suppose it can be related to dots in tracklisting (1.01, 1.02) because usually all fine without dots (1-01).


v1.52 (latest beta though)

Track lists are entered wrongly on Discogs. They should be updated to use the new style (eg. 1-1, 1-2, 1-3, ..., 2-1, 2-2, etc).

foo_discogs

Reply #1934
Punctuation forbidden as prefixes/suffixes only. For example (CD-1.) or (.1-01.)
Whatever is around 10% such releases on discogs. I have doubt that someone will update all releases according to discogs tagger...

Discogs Guidelines:

Quote
* Multiple CDs etc: 1-1, 1-2…, 2-1, 2-2…
* Sub tracks, for example DJ mixes that comprise one track on a CD: Separate songs or tunes that are rolled into one track on a CD, LP etc should be listed using a point and then a number: 1, 2, 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 4… Letters can also be used, with or without a point; A3.a A3.b, or A3a, A3b…

http://www.discogs.com/help/doc/submission...rk#Tracklisting

I'm aware that many releases are entered wrongly (the guidelines on this subject changed some years ago). Maybe foo_discogs should accept the incorrect format, but currently it doesn't so users are encouraged to edit the release on Discogs to fix it. In cases where all tracks on the CD are actually a single file on the CD, the two conflict.

Also ", The" suffix in tagger is obsolete after latest discogs update.

Please explain... thanks.

foo_discogs

Reply #1935
Changes:
* Joining artist names now done via special function $joinnames() instead of the old method, to fix the problem mentioned above.
* The following default tags changed: ARTIST, ALBUM ARTIST, DISCOGS_CREDIT_FEATURING, DISCOGS_CREDIT_VOCALS, and REMIXED_BY
* Right clicking a tag in the edit tag mappings dialog has a new option to restore default value. You can use this option to restore the above tags.

Result 1.52 version.

foo_discogs

Reply #1936
http://www.discogs.com/forum/thread/690591
Quote
2.4.2. Artist names beginning with 'The' are now entered as "The Artist". In the past, we used to enter them as "Artist, The", but this data entry method is now defunct.




Discogs use normal "The" prefix now. Tagger still moves "The" to the end of string, and search result is not perfect, and in some cases very difficult to find correct artist.

Example with The Cake:


http://www.discogs.com/artist/777597

Should be like this:

foo_discogs

Reply #1937
Also some problem with flac files with embedded cue sheet.
Is very hard to compare tracks by title.



BTW "Matched track order" is handy in most situation but it can lead to trouble if discogs release do not have any duration but tagger gives positive result.
I would recomend false result if release is without duration.

foo_discogs

Reply #1938
Discogs use normal "The" prefix now. Tagger still moves "The" to the end of string, and search result is not perfect, and in some cases very difficult to find correct artist.

Ah, OK, I will remove that. Thanks.

Also some problem with flac files with embedded cue sheet.
Is very hard to compare tracks by title.

You could probably improve that by changing the "File formatting string" in the Matching settings.

BTW "Matched track order" is handy in most situation but it can lead to trouble if discogs release do not have any duration but tagger gives positive result.
I would recomend false result if release is without duration.

That should already be the case. If it gives a false positive result, that would be a bug.

foo_discogs

Reply #1939


in this example absolutelly different releases gives positive matching result if is checked both "by track number" and "by duration". I suppose "by track number" takes over empty "by duration".

foo_discogs

Reply #1940
Hi zoomorph,

it seems, an old bug has come back to the new release, which was fixed, some time ago (or a new constellation shows a new bug...)

this release has lesser tracks, than the music tracks, I ripped:


So I remove the files, to have a correct relationship of tracks and files for later tagging:


Which results in wrongly applied tags: (B2+B4)







concerning the hidden tracks issue:

would it be possible to just skip this hidden track preparation in the component?

I guess, the DG-API sends plain tracks with (any correct or wrongly entered) tracknumbers and the component just interpretes the tracknumbers for further processing.
This would mostly reflect the situation of the tacks in the release and the files on my HD, correctly.

But sadly, in about 50% of my cases, the pre-processing of tracks from the component will result in exausting manual tagging.
And thats not because the files on my HD differ from the tracks of the releases on the DG-website, its only because the component tries to think for me :-)

I would prefer to have a button to deactivate that hidden-track-processing and just have the pure tracks from the DG-API shown. Moving the tracks around in the correct position, if needed, should be no problem, becasue the comnponent offers this useful feature.

I also doubt, that more than a handful of users will update the DG-releases to the correct tracknumbering, just becasue the component refuses to help the user. It'll get better and better, but it'll take years...

That said, I'd like to say thanks again for developing and improving this very useful component for us! You earned a lot of Karma :-)



foo_discogs

Reply #1941
...in addition to my posting about the hidden tracks, I found another nice release...


foo_discogs

Reply #1942
in this example absolutelly different releases gives positive matching result if is checked both "by track number" and "by duration". I suppose "by track number" takes over empty "by duration".

Yea... currently if you select multiple matching methods and one returns N/A (eg. track durations missing on Discogs), then others will work. This should be enhanced in the future to specify whether N/A should be considered a FALL ("hard" matching criteria) or not.


foo_discogs

Reply #1944
Here is a preview of the next set of changes I'm working on.... Busy for awhile so not sure when I'll get them finalized.




Goals:
- Remove the useless information from the "release" dialog, since tags are now arbitrary and completely customized.
- Keep the ability for users to change things like Genre/Style if they wish (they can now edit the tags before writing them to file).
- Allow users to preview the tags they'll be writing. (Should add an option to exclude any tag values that are not changed.)
- Allow users to skip any/all of these dialogs if they aren't interested.

Once this is in, I hope to fix up "update tags" using the new methods, fix the tracklist mapping, and figure out a way to map hidden tracks as well.

foo_discogs

Reply #1945
it seems, an old bug has come back to the new release, which was fixed, some time ago (or a new constellation shows a new bug...)

It may be because I had a harddrive failure and hadn't backed up all changes. I've noticed a couple weird things that I thought I had changed...

This one fails: http://www.discogs.com/Felix-Mendelssohn-T...release/5425851
(Not sure if it is entered as it should!)

I don't think that using "1-1, 1-2, ..." for subtracks is correct. foo_discogs, at least, parses those numbers as multiple discs, although the parsing could probably be made smarter for cases like this....

foo_discogs

Reply #1946
Hi zoomorph,
looks very interesting to me 8-)
suggestion: please include a "write tags"-button also in the "Match tracks"-window, so users can write the tags w/o previewing directly, because they trust their settings :-)

foo_discogs

Reply #1947
this crash.

foo_discogs

Reply #1948
this crash.

Thanks, this bug will be fixed in the next version. Note that an error in the tracklist numbering on discogs ("CD1-21" should be "1-21") may have to be fixed as well for foo_discogs to parse the tracks accurately.

foo_discogs

Reply #1949
Hi zoomorph,

a feature request, if possible:

could it be implemented to (optionally, if activated in the components settings) play the song, which is doubleclicked in the Release-Window on the right side (files) ?



sometimes the naming of a track is not matching and playing this track easy and fastly via doubleclick could help the user to manually check if its the right song or not.