[consumer_x]

I am a simpleton, and use the following method for rating songs (it is similar to my DAM method for fotos):
0 star = unrated
1 star = no like ( I will keep if I have a full album, but I tend to trash if it was a freebie)
2 star = okay/neutral
3 star = I like
4 star = awesome (low % of songs)
5 star = temporarily used to denote songs with artifacts from a bad rip
For podcasts:
0 star = incomplete listen
1 star = trash
2 star = i want to keep a portion of it (usually applies to NPR radio stories)
3 star = a keeper
85% of my ratings are done using my iPod during my weekday commutes.
cheers!

[Moof_in_Charge]

@ Wondercow

Try not listening to songs you hate.. but who knows maybe you like sticking your finger in the light socket... so go ahead create your own fantasy rating system.


You have music you "hate" in your library, then you are just as illogical as this tip. However, the more probable scenario causing a legitimate use for this tip would be in instances where you were sharing your library with another person. Too bad you didnt think about it as a valid example.

In that case you can enable the 1/2 star system in iTunes as someone mentioned and if that is not enough, create playlists to suite your fancy.

My response was directed to this guy's particular usage. I find the notion of 6th star, illogical.

[MadAxeMan]

I still disagree, the fact that the author has chosen to call this (random) comment '6 Stars', does not alter the fact that one is still left with 5. This is more misleading due to the recent column about activating the 1/2 star option. I like to hone my iTunes library to get it just right, and frequently use the MacWorld suggestions/tips; this is one that I will give a 'good stiff ignoring'!

[Rugby]

I just do not understand why iTunes don´t add the bonus of using Labels - colour coding would to me sometimes add more than stars etc...

[LouKash]

Quote

why iTunes don't add the bonus of using Labels

Agree. Labels have been Apple's "stepchild" since the beginning of OS X. Almost 10 years later and they still didn't get it right, even in Finder... (the visible color order doesn't even match the corresponding AppleScript index numbers!)

[sina]

Actually i think rating songs with stars is not very good, I use them to find the song, which I have recently added to my library to find them again , but the better way to rate songs is creating smart playlists based on their play count, which is more practical .e.g My top 50 or 100 !

[mdawson]

Quote

MoofinCharge wrote:

>

Quote

Try not listening to songs you hate.. but who knows maybe you like sticking your finger in the light socket... so go ahead create your own fantasy rating system.

I can understand your sentiment, but Wondercow is correct in his assessment of the standard use for a ratings system. For many people, having ratings is silly because anything they do not want they would delete anyway, as the point of a five star rating system is to grade something from horrible to excellent. For those that only collect songs, it stands to reason that they would not have music in their library that they do not listen to, so if a track has say 0 to 2 stars, then why would it be there in the first place?

On the other hand, like myself, Wondercow owns albums and has albums ripped to iTunes. That may seem silly to you, but there are those of us that do not see it that way. If I have a friend peruse my collection, I want them to see my collection and not just the songs to which I listen. Secondly, there are songs that I may not listen to as a part of regular playback, but may choose to listen to on a one shot. Lastly, as my music collection is rather large, by including entire albums instead of picking and choosing, I have from time-to-time found music that I like and did not realize, or had forgotten, that I had.

Personally, I do not use iTunes rating system in the traditional sense, because anything I would listen to is in a playlist and I use playlists near exclusively through Party Shuffle for listening to my music. Songs that I do not care for are unchecked in my iTunes library and they are not in any playlist, so unless I specifically choose them, they are never played.

The one way in which I have found the Rating tag to be useful is in prioritizing songs in tiered playlists, although iTunes is not too good at handling that scenario. For instance, I have a group of Urban Radio smart playlists grouped by decade?e.g., Urban Radio (1970s), Urban Radio (1980s), etc.?in an Urban Radio folder. Much of the time I will just select the Urban Radio folder as the playlist in Party Shuffle, but iTunes really does not have a way to prioritize how songs are selected for playback beyond the rating; the ?Select higher rated songs more often? option must be turned on in Party Shuffle. What I started doing was rating the playlists that make up the Urban Radio playlists.

Ideally, I try to rate (sub-)playlists based on how music was played on black radio during each decade. For instance, up through the 1980s, R&B dominated black radio stations. As rap music came into the picture in 1979, it still received little airplay, so songs in the Rap (1980s) playlist would have a low rating so that R&B songs have higher priority. In the Urban Radio (2000s) playlist, rap music has a much higher priority as urban radio is now dominated by rap. By the same token, I have Slow Jams playlists if my mood dictates more mellow music, so the Slow Jams (1980s) smart playlist also has relatively low priority. With songs rated in this way tracks in R&B, Funk and Dance playlists from the 1980s are more likely to be selected than Rap and Slow Jams.

The problem with this method is that I really need to have a feature in iTunes to set criteria playback priorities instead of using the Rating tag, because Party Shuffle?s selection behavior is incorrect when the ?Select higher rated songs more often? option is enabled. In the past, any track that was in my ?recently played? or ?upcoming? songs lists were not selected unless the number of tracks in the currently selected playlist was at or below the total number of tracks displayed in the Party Shuffle window; that is, number of recently played songs number of upcoming songs 1. Now, with the higher rated option enabled, that (correct) selection methodology is broken and I will often times hear the same song replayed within a few entries of its previous play or worse yet, back-to-back.

[mdawson]

Many, if not most iTunes users, listen to music randomly selected for playback by the software. As such, playlists based on play count would not be indicative of the user?s preferences.

[dennishenley]

I've always felt there was no need for more than 4 stars.
1 star is bad
2 stars is good
3 stars is really good
4 stars is excellent
I don't see the need for degrees of badness. I do recognize that 3 levels of goodness might be appropriate.
But any more stars...what's the point?
If you need that many, you might as well use 100. Then things could be rated as a percent.

[LouKash]

Quote

If you need that many, you might as well use 100. Then things could be rated as a percent.

In fact, as far as I remember, AppleScript indeed uses an index from 0 to 100 for applying star rating: 1 star = 20, 2 stars = 40, etc. Any values inbetween will be rounded to display as full stars, unless you activate the hidden Half Star option. But the effective value applied via AppleScript will be still stored in the database as is, as long as you don't change it manually later.

[DVA_Airwolf]

Slow news day at MacWorld?

[Mycroft_Holmes_MW]

This article needs a -1 star rating.

[Jon Seff]

DVA_Airwolf said:

Slow news day at MacWorld?

We posted 23 stories yesterday, so you tell me...

[adlur]

"Why not make ten louder?"
"But these go to eleven..."