Right-click Logic


#1

I just realized there is something unconventional about the right-click logic built into Mp3tag. If you select and click on a single file, the entire directory is loaded. A convention of right-clicking is to act only only on selected files. If the convention had been honored, my thread Preload Filename Filter would have been moot.


#2

Mp3tag always works based on directories. This is by design and will not be changed in the future.

Best regards,
~ Florian


#3

That definitely does not make the right-click behavior conventional! When I right-click on an Mp3 file in windows explorer, I get eight choices for action on that file or selection. Your program is the ONLY one in my action list that ignores the well-established convention and loads the entire directory! How many programs that you use every day force the loading of an entire directory? How would you like it if ALL programs worked this way? I am very pleased that WINAMP and the other programs I use do not employ Mp3tag right-click logic.

I'm also wondering; why does Mp3tag load hidden files?


#4

Rijkstra -

If you read Florian's post again, he says he's designed it and implies that he's not going to change it even if it is unconventional.

I find it hard to believe you are having so much trouble with this 'so-called' problem, as the rest of us have not noticed... Personally, I find it more intuitive. I load up my entire music directory anyway, when I am tagging. I'm not sure of the benefits of loading one mp3 at a time, unless you're completely disorganized.


#5

And by doing so he's permanently imposed a limitation on his program. If forcing the load of an entire directory is a good thing, why not load the entire drive, or better yet every mp3 that can be found on the system so no one ever has to make any choices! Loading beyond demand produces noise, just like WINAMP would if it behaved the same way! My point is that if one of the most basic conventions of right-clicking is ignored, why support right-clicking at all? And is it really proper to say that right-clicking is supported if the behavior is abnormal? There's yet another way the convention is violated. If you select two directories under the same parent, only one of them is loaded upon right-clicking.

I have over 3000 mp3's and don't want to add extra directory structures just to accomodate one program that doesn't want to conform to accepted standards.

Here's an example--I have a CD-size directory of singles with about 180 titles, no subdirectories because I have only one song by each of the particular artists. If I add five new ones and just want to work on those, the only way to do it is to isolate them in a separate directory, then when I finish I can discard the temporary directory. With any other right-click program, I can select as many files and directories as I like and only those will be affected by my action.


#6

I noticed, so at least one of the rest of us can't be covered by such a broad generalization. I just don't consider it a major weakness of the program. It is however, an occasional annoyance. Although my audio file collection is extremely well organized, there are relatively rare instances in which being able to tag a single file would be more convenient.

To be specific, I have in my collection two single-track albums, and they both happen to be the only files by their respective artists. The directory structure of my collection is F:\Audio<Artist><Album>\track#-Title.xxx

So, these two files are "loose" within my audio directory, and to re-tag them, I'd have to wait for the program to load the entirety of my F:\Audio directory. Unless the program has an option NOT to load sub-dirs (if so, I admit I missed it), then that wait will be for thousands of files.

It's true that I could simply create directories to contain these single tracks, but I've always avoided creating sub-directories for single files, since that seems to me to be counterintuitive, the purpose of dirs/sub-dirs being to group similar files, not to simply provide a wrapper for single ones.

Therefore, as I've said, the occasions for single-file tagging may be rather rare, but they can and will exist, even for those who are not completely disorganized.


#7

indeed, you missed it. :wink:

Rijkstra - you missed something too.
First, if you want to edit a single file, use winamp or something else.
second, noone is keeping 3000mp3s in one directory. It's not the programm, that is not conventional, it's you not having understood this thing about directorys.
No programm is ment to be used with directorys with more than 1000 Files. Even the explorer needs some time to only display it.

The problem is jsut your missunderstanding of how computers work and how data and files are stored. A computre is allways keeping data in a structure, so to be able to access it fast and easy. 3000 files in one directory (and this not temporary!) is destroying every thought about how a file-system should work, ever made.


#8
QUOTE (Chronial @ Mar 1 2004, 09:25 AM)

indeed, you missed it. :wink:


Thanks, Chronial. It took a while for me to see the sub-dir checkbox, but once unchecked, I now have what nearly amounts to single-file tagging within my file structure as in the case of my original example.

I still feel that the first response to the original poster, the one to which I first responded, featured too broad a generalization, and that true single-file tagging could only be an added convenience, though I admit that with the sub-dir box unchecked, I'm practically unaffected by the issue.


#9

JEdwardP -

I don't know why you are so offended by my statement. You've mentioned it twice already. But, to be honest, I did my first post partly out of annoyance - because of the tone of Rij.

I've never gone on a board of a program to yell at the programmer for something that's not how I would want it - and tell him essentially that he doesn't know how to program "conventional" software. Yes, I have requested and kindly suggested, but never said "That's not right - change it, because you're wrong about how it should work." So, in light of that, I gave my response as it was.

In addition, I feel my point was backed up by Chronical here, who states in a better way than I did that directories should be organized and the limitations of folders should be kept in mind.

So in all earnest, JEdwardP - and I mean it - you're right that it could be a useful feature.


#10

Sorry esaleris, I wasn't as offended as perhaps I came across as being. As you suggest, Chronal effectively restated your position, and upon reading that I saw that I reacted more to how you made your point, not as much to the point itself, for as I had said, I don't consider this to be a major weakness of the program.

I'm trained as philosopher, among other things, so perhaps I'm hypersensitive to generalizations. No personal offense was intended toward you.

Ultimately, it seems we may've all gained something from this discussion in spite of a misunderstanding, so the board has once again served its purpose.


#11

I gave the most extreme example of my directory size, a directory with 180 files, each of which is the only song I have by that particular artist. Presently I have 3024 files in 310 directories on my hard drive, about 40 ripped CDs and the rest singles by artist. My largest directory of singles by the same artist is 94 files plus a subdirectory of 17.

My default directory for Mp3tag is empty unless I have just ripped a CD. It's also my default directory for Mp3Gain a great track leveling utility that I use on all my mp3s. It's free and even allows you to load one file at a time if you choose, ridiculous since the program doesn't accomplish a whole lot if only one file is involved! :wink:


#12

sry, but you're ridiculous - you want to gain you music, but you're using mp3. You know that modern music formats (ogg, mpc...) support replay-gain by themselfes? No need to modify the music file itself.
Don't want to brag (g), but your mp3-collection is a little bit small :stuck_out_tongue:
I got 50GB of music (about half mp3, rest is in good music formats) in 10000 Files. That are about 300 albums and some singles.
On my other drive there are another 32GB of not jet extracted music.

But I never had any problems with to many files in one dir :wink:


#13

Chronial,

I really hate to get involved in rants like this, but you're the one who's ridiculous. I'm guessing by your posts that you're in your early teens, so I'll be polite. Please realize that your way is not the right way, it's just a way. I have my way, Rij has his way. Please don't say he's wrong because he uses MP3 format and then MP3Gain to gain normalize. One might argue that you're wrong because ogg and mpc aren't widely supported by hardware yet. They'd be wrong to say that, it's just opinions, not fact.

To Rijkstra's point, it would probably be more intuitive to the user if the menu only popped-up on directories, not files, if that's what MP3tag loads. I happen to agree, but didn't feel strongly enough to post it. Rij probably could have been a bit more diplomatic in his post, but as you see in his latest post, he has. He pointed out another application that allows for this, he didn't feel the need to insult anyone.

One might also point out that your need to brag about your collection might mean your covering up for other inadequacies. They might not necessarily be wrong...


#14

Since there are no new thoughts and opinions about the original topic on this post and some people are going very off-topic and need to brag about the size of their collections, I'll close this topic now.

I want to thank all those members, who contributed to this discussion in a friendly manner. I originally lost interest on this topic because of Rij's harsh way of suggesting a new feature, but after there are a few users who will benefit from this feature, I'll consider it again.

Best regards,
~ Florian