RSS
  • Scoring Wishlist : Charts modified by time (long).

    5 Nov 2008, 23:37

    Aah, too much time on my hands, so I was thinking of a couple of things that might make the service better for its users.

    So I'm looking at my charts, which are, as things stand, fairly accurate. However, I've come to the conclusion that a scoring system, rather than purely play-count might be a superior option for generating charts. The current system isn't bad, but could probably use improvement in a couple of areas (as far as ranking artists, not individual tracks). I'm thinking of this because:

    Time. Ranking artists by number of times played ignores the time one spends listening to said artist. For example, based on pure play-count, I like 45 Grave or Leonard Cohen (24th in my current overall) far better than Merzbow (number 63), although I've spent more time listening to the latter. The difference is that many of Merzbow's tracks exceed 20 minutes in length, and tracks by the former two artists are far shorter. Using play count as the sole criterion for chart numbers and positioning is, IMHO, inaccurate in this case (as well as some others) in terms of positioning the respective artists in the charts.

    It seems to me that a more accurate scoring system would take time into account, if it's done right.

    A flat modifier (such as play count x track length) wouldn't work, for the same reason I have against pure play-count, as it would skew the results too heavily for artists who have insanely long tracks, and against those who only have short tracks (most punk bands would be scored at a low level, and most classical scored highly).

    What I'd like to see with a scoring system:

    Two metrics: Play count, and time modifier. Play count would remain as it always has, but the time modifier would have to be dynamic, and change periodically (such as every x number of tracks or days).

    This modifier could be made by making a bell-curve of the length of tracks played (each play adding another count at its length), with the largest part of the curve making a standard modifier of 1. Example: If most of the bell encompasses a range of 3-6 minutes, the play count for a given track would be multiplied by 1 and added to the score. Using a bell curve would provide more accuracy than simple averages.

    Along the curve would be different modifiers. In the scenario above, a 2 minute song may rate a multiplier of .8, and an 8 minute song 1.1, before being added to an artist's score (I'm not anywhere near qualified to write the algorithms, so these are just hypothetical).

    Finally, the change in the time multiplier should change more slowly as it nears the edges of the curve to avoid skewing the results.

    I'm sure that someone who knows maths better than I do will have objections on a technical basis, that I am not qualified to either support nor refute; as far as I can tell, this sort of scoring system would help score artists more accurately than pure play-count, even if play-count remains the first metric and influences the second.
  • Note to self.

    6 Oct 2008, 5:52

    Not Guilty and Proud

    Next time I put a picture LP into a digital format, I'll pay more attention to which side happens to be sitting on the turntable. Accidentially just marked the tracks on side a as side b and vise versa.
  • About fscking time

    27 Sep 2008, 19:38

    Well, Leopard broke Amarok for me, and Fink didn't seem to be working too well either. Finally both seem to be properly updated, which is nice, considering I was suffering with iTunes for months.[1] It's nice to have a real music player again.[2]

    Current wishlist: A build of KDE 4.1 and Amarok2 that doesn't crash the minute I try to launch it on OSX.

    [1] iTunes is great for some people, but it isn't flexible enough for me, and not being able to play the half my library that was in FLAC or .ogg was rather irritating.

    [2] Well, now that I recompiled it with a more current version of gcc, it's great. It was crashing every five minutes before hand.
  • The stars must be right or something.

    8 Ene 2008, 4:14

    I hadn't anticipated on signing up for anything, much less to one of those networking site things. I was just getting annoyed with iTunes, and started looking for new music player software. I had heard/seen good things about Amarok (probably on /. or somewhere similar), and a short fink install later,[1] I was up and running (in a manner of speaking. The fscking thing still crashes all the time). Saw a plug to sign up in the prefs, and here I am. Perhaps at some point, I'll actually mess with the profile and such things of interest.

    I suspect that my primary motivation is curiosity, both in regard to the number of other odd folk with similar tastes in music, but also how (well) automated systems for recommendations[2] work. Then I shall execute my special plan.

    NP: Current 93I Have A Special Plan For This World

    [1] Short in terms of astronomical time scales. Doesn't help that the entire process consisted of multiple iterations of Download --> Configure/Compile --> Dependency build error --> Update PM --> Update installed --> Repeat until mad.

    [2] I need to get out more. Not many people visit sunken cities with non-Euclidian geometry.