Tag Panel Position

Hi all..

I always want the Tag Panel to be displayed at the bottom so that I would have a larger column width for each mp3 file.

Bu the problem is that, I don't know where this setting is kept. I've tried using the Save Configuration[i] menu but it doesn't take into effect for the Tag Panel position.

So, can someone please tell me how do I save this settings then?

Thank you very much.

Well, if you place it at the bottom, Mp3tag should save your settings and next time you open it, the fields will still be at the bottom - it works for me.

I just tried this, and I like it! I didn't know I could do this.

It would be better if the cover panel moved to the right and the text boxes weren't as long, because otherwise a lot of space is wasted to the right of the cover panel.

Sorry for not stated my point clearly.

Actually what I mean is when I fresh install/reinstall the mp3tag, how do I get that layout back? I've tried several times, after I install, it will revert to the original setting i.e. Tag Panel is on the left-side. Even mp3tag does not to be reinstall after I format my drive C: (I install all my programs on the F: drive), the Tag Panel will again appear on the left.. :frowning:

So, is there a way of storing this setting through registry, a file whatsoever? :huh:

I think settings are stored in HKCU\Software\Florian Heidenreich\Mp3tag.

I agree with noroom
When tag panel is moved to the bottom its layout should switch automatically to more efficient one!

Compare current look:

with the following mockup:

The following "rules" can be used:

  • 1st column contains Title, Artist and Album fields
  • 2nd column - Year, Track, Genre and Comment
  • 3rd column - all the additional fields from Tag Panel settings
  • cover art is on the far right
  • and the extra space left could be used for "extended tags"-like list of all the other tags from file(s)

P.S. I would also prefer "Directory" to become an optional field. So I could turn it off since I don't use it at all.

P.P.S. Have you noticed that extra fields on Tag Panel don't have trailing colon unlike standard do? I believe that can be added automatically (if not present).

Wow, the mockup would be fantastic.

Very interesting mockup, would love to see it implemented! I'm always scrolling back and forth horizontally to check things; with that layout I would be able to utilize my screen in a more efficient way. Just my two cents :slight_smile:

I cannot agree more now that I've tried the horizontal layout for some time. I'm not sure about the mockup, but I'll experiment a bit when I have some free time.

I'll keep you posted :slight_smile:

Excellent news, looking forward to it Florian! :slight_smile:

OK, the latest Development Build features an improved layout for the Tag Panel in horizontal mode :slight_smile:

Kind regards,

Wow, this is fantastic - thank you very much. :slight_smile:

It's such an improvement for my 1280x1024.

Great! Glad you like it :slight_smile:

Hi, can you say which is the highest version of MP3Tag that does not have this layout? Is it v2.42? I don't understand why there is so much grey space, it is massively inefficient use of the space! This is ironic when the change to this layout appears to have been made on the grounds of efficiency.

I was on v2.39 (at least, I think I was) and have updated to 2.45a, and was very disappointed to find MP3Tag had been altered so fundamentally. But what was even more of an insult was the phoning home by default that has been implemented! I know it is under the guise of an update check, but I do not use software that acts in a spyware-ish manor. Can you confirm which version of MP3Tag does not have the "update check" built in, and which version will not nag the user to update the program (as v2.39 did, telling me it is rather old).


BTW, I registered a new account to post this, but after logging in I was just getting a "Board Message" and not allowed anywhere on the forums! BugMeNot to the rescue!

Yes, I think it's v2.42.

You can disable this at Options > Updates. And please stop spreding FUD: it does not transmit any data.

You have to validate your account via the link from the validation email first before posting.

OK, I'll have a look. Actually, I probably won't as I've reinstalled 2.39. I stopped it nagging by hitting yes to download the new version and just closing the browser (well killing the process before the browser appeared, crucially before the browser contacts the download site).

But the application still contacts the application writer, by default, at every start of the application! It is essentially impossible to run the application without it at least once trying to phone home.

It does not transmit any data? You realise that means 0 bytes? It is impossible for it to work without sending some data, so I simply don't believe you. And if you are not being accurate about that, how else are we to know that it isn't accurate to describe the update check as spyware-esque?

Lets be honest, it probably gets a file containing the current version number over http[1], compares it with the local version number, and offers to send you to the download page if not equal? If that's the case, then your httpd will be logging when and what IPs are checking for updates. Either you are ignoring the logs, or you are using the logs at the very least to try and determine how many active users of MP3Tag there are. Cross referenced with other data, and you can find out all sorts about the userbase.

I haven't seen any statements of anonymity, though even if there were I still wouldn't believe them, because there has been so much malware that lies to users. Unfortunately that is the environment you are developing in (Windows), where there are really scummy applications, from viruses to trojans, spyware to adware, crippleware to shareware. Then there's professional applications, that whilst never wearing out like a physical item, still get obsoleted by the writer when they decide they want to make more money from a new version.

If you are to develop an application in this world, then for your application to be good (and not in the eyes of people who think iTunes is a good application) it has to be cleaner than clean. It has to have no smells of spyware. It has to have no crippled features so you can try to up-sell to a pro version. And it shouldn't nag the user or do things behind their back.

There was an incident many years ago where a version of real player was checking for updates, but they had a bug (yeah, right!) in their code where each client checking was uniquely identifiable to the update server. Real went on the defensive, but it cost them a lot of reputation.

You have to bear in mind that many features in commercial applications are there as part of the business model, i.e. features are only there to try and make money or reduce costs. Update checks in commercial applications give the maker info about usage, but it also means that all users should be using the same version, reducing support costs. Motivation like this isn't there for a freeware application (but it doesn't stop some users thinking they need built in update mechanisms just because some other packages do). There is no reason for you to to try and encourage all users to be on the same version, so there is no need for you to implement features that also have a bad reputation for being abused by others.

If you don't want people to ask if it is spyware (spreading FUD in your words) then don't implement features that will cause people to ask. With drama-queen personal firewalls being common place these days, a tag editor trying to contact an internet site will be noticed by a lot of people. Some of them will come to the wrong conclusions.

Oh, I thought I did, whoops.

Forcing people to register is not appreciated though either. It boils down to abuse of this by others again (spamming users, mainly), so instead of using the BMN account as this site has been blocked on BMN since yesterday, I'll just create my own throw away account.

[1] If this is the case, then you probably use the underpinnings of IE to get the file? AFAIK, that supports cookies, so could it not be possible that the update check even uses cookies to track individuals via the update mechanism?

Yes, a file is queried when checking for updates (more specifically this one http://download.mp3tag.de/versions.xml ) using my own HTTP library which has no support for cookies.

Again, please disable the update check if this is too spyware-esque for you.