Problems with Gallery creation

[Eric]

Peter,
when I select all albums in a folder that also includes subfolders starting with "(Various)", and next I move selection to gallery in order to create a gallery from the folder, the result is a mess.
Could you please look into it and fix it?
Thanks.
Eric

[PeterSt]

Hi Eric,

Do you mean creating Galleries via XX functions, or do you (also) do things manually via (Embedded) Explorer ?

Anyway, "various" is treated separately, so I sure can imagine something. However, I really need to have explicit examples and how it exactly results. So, can you provide me with some more info please ?
And never interfere with manual activities !

Thanks,
Peter

[Eric]

Peter,
here is an example that I created to show you when it goes wrong.

Top gallery folder name = "Galleries".
I create a subfolder name = "Nice Music".

I create a data folder name = "Nice Music"
I create a subfolder name = "(Various) STS Digital"
In this subfolder I put 2 albums:
name = "(Various) STS Digital - 9th Edition"
name =  "Eline - Marching In [STS] (2006)"

Now I am ready to create the gallery content. So I start XXHE and select my data folder. The 2 albums appear both. So I select them both, right click and Move selection to gallery, select. And I choose the Gallery subfolder name = "Nice Music".   

When I look at the result in the Gallery folder, I see the 2nd album moved up in the hierarchy. Not Good.

I can show you another example where XXHE is creating a subfolder named "various" out of the blue.

I hope this helps to understand and fix the problem.
Thanks!

Cheers, Eric.

[PeterSt]

Thank you Eric.

I am not sure I can avoid this, but it also looks "wrong-ish" to me;
Think about this example :

Music\Deep Purple\Deep Purple - Made in Japan\

This is what you are actually doing, although it goes a bit unnoticed. So, I would put your example like this :

I create a data folder name = "Nice Music"
I create a subfolder name = "(Various) STS Digital"
In this subfolder I put 2 albums:
name = "9th Edition"
name =  "Eline - Marching In [STS] (2006)"

I think now it will go OK. But again better would be this I think :

I create a data folder name = "Nice Music"
I create a subfolder name = "Various"
In this subfolder I put 2 albums (ehm, notice that these are both individual subfolders again, as you probably meant to say all the time)
name = "STS Digital - 9th Edition"
name =  "Eline - Marching In [STS] (2006)"

If this doesn't work, call again ...
(but still known quirks with "various" exist !!)

Also think about the balance in the structure, and that something like this for sure will be bad :

I create a data folder name = "Nice Music"
I create a subfolder name = "Deep Purple"
In there I create a subfolder name = "Made in Japan"
Back to Nice Music, I create a subfolder name = "Various"
In there I create a subfolder name = "STS Digital"
In this subfolder I put 2 albums:
name = "9th Edition"
name =  "Eline - Marching In [STS] (2006)"

because this will look like :

(1)\Nice Music\Deep Purple\Made in Japan\
(2)\Nice Music\Various\STS Digital\
(3)\Nice Music\Various\STS Digital\9th Edition\                               
(4)\Nice Music\Various\STS Digital\Eline - Marching In [STS] (2006)\

Ad 3/4 : There's an additional level compared to (1).
Ad 4 : Eline will be regarded as the artist name, whereas in 3 STS Digital will be the artist name.
(just look at the Coverart Wallpaper, and I guess I am right).

So, with the last example you are creating mixed levels, and at determining what the actual "plain Gallery" is (\Nice Music\ in your case), it will go wrong at points. So, the last list again how I would try to solve it :

(1)\Nice Music\Deep Purple\Made in Japan\
(2)\Nice Music\Various\STS Digital\
(3)\Nice Music\Various\STS Digital\9th Edition\                               
(4)\Nice Music\Various\STS Digital\Eline ~ Marching In [STS] (2006)\   (the tilde won't do a thing, whereas the earlier dash will)

In the end this keeps on looking awkward, with the (most) logical explanation that Eline doesn't belong in the Various structure at all, hence you try to mix a group of certain albums (STS Digital in this case) while you also want to group in artists (which you denoted officially as Various). Which brings me to this final solution (I think) :

(1)\Nice Music\Deep Purple\Made in Japan\
(2)\Nice Music\Various\STS Digital - 1st edition\   (or something else you make up for this general (first) of the series)
(3)\Nice Music\Various\STS Digital - 9th Edition\                               
(4)\Nice Music\Eline - Marching In [STS] (2006)\

Notice that :

Levels are still mixed regarding the dash vs. the subfolders (but it will manage);
Same will count for 1 vs. 4, but this time it will confuse you.

Also notice that there are some options you can ask for on the Embedded Explorer (just try them all), and they will show you rather quickly how things internally work out, already on the original data folders. Not all can be covered for (so rarities *will* show), but it will teach you how you actually do wrong (or rather not consistent !) yourself.

Lastly, once you have created the Galleries, it's a tough job to undo or repair. However, repair options exist, but they are not covering for all situations yet, and I know that exactly the "various" stuff will go wrong. But if it's a mess already, just try it.
This is under Add to Gallery - Re-do Selection (at your own risk, but IIRC it will never delete original files ).

HTH !
Peter

[PeterSt]

While we're at it anyway ...

I notice that more Coverart is missing than is showing in the Gallery Area. I'm fairly sure this is since 0.9z-5 and some changes I applied. So please notice this won't be you (anyone) doing wrong. It's me ...

Peter

[Eric]

Peter,
the current implementation of the Library creation does not match with my setup (which I created with the same function). I believe it used to be different in the past (before the z-series?) because my whole library structure was created without any problem. So I guess something has changed in the way it works. E.g. I have this folder "Buddha-Bar Collection" containing the albums Buddha-Bar I, ... etc. Now if I add the latest album, XXHE creates a folder named "various" and puts it in there. So, if I want to get it right, I would need to rename most of my albums and folders. Especially classical albums are going to be disastrous.
So, please can you rollback the changes to the Library creation function? I hope it can be done.
Cheers,
Eric 

[Calibrator]

Hi Eric,

I understand the changes to the gallery creation methodology came about when Peter introduced the album renaming function. A most valuable feature that is also.

I also have been having difficulties coming to terms with the new "rules" for gallery creation, and as a result have fired up an earlier version of XXHE when time comes to add new albums. Over time I will work my way through my albums and try and put things into the "official" naming convention, but it's a daunting task for me, so I've put it in the "too hard" basket for the moment. I would rather spend the time listening to music that re-arranging/re-naming folder structures.

Most, if not all, the issues I have arise when albums contain more than one disc and characters are added after the usual CD01, CD02 etc. Boxsets in particular are problematic, and I haven't figured out a foolproof method of describing each album in full, and still allow conformity. Invariably I end up with the rogue "various" folder being created.

Having the option to choose the old or new method of gallery creation (via a tick box) would be very beneficial at the moment for me also.

I have been meaning to bring these issues up myself but never quite got around to it. I can imagine the task of trying to code all the different variants to be a hair pulling experience, so I thought it best to avoid premature baldness for Peter

Peter, perhaps if you could lay out the "rules" the folder naming needs to adhere to it in your coding it might help in our understanding. As I said before, single albums are generally not an issue, it's the multi volume albums where things sometimes go awry.

Cheers,

Russ

[PeterSt]

Yes, it seems that this needs some roll back activity on my side. The things you mention work here though, but other things do not (anymore).

Notice that the re-do function has been extended largely (but this was somewhere in the 0.9z-4 series) to cover from going to the new method while the old one has been applied, but that too for sure doesn't do what it's supposed to.
Don't use it (opposed to my earlier half-advise).

The testing of this is VERY time consuming, especially when knowing that all which doesn't work out during testing, actually has to be undone manually while all must be made clean (in the original folders for Reference Files) or otherwise it may do nasty things to begin with.

Yes, all still works without a database, but I'm vastly loosing time on that decision by at least now (if not already for years).
Why I ever decided it all could do without database I don't know. I guess I saw it as a "sport", being in the middle of database design all my IT life ...

[Eric]

I also have been having difficulties coming to terms with the new "rules" for gallery creation, and as a result have fired up an earlier version of XXHE when time comes to add new albums.
...........
Cheers,

Russ

Thanks Russs for this great idea!
It solves all my problems with the libraries when I want to add albums. Super!
BTW which XXHE version are you using for gallery creation?

Cheers,
Eric.

[Calibrator]

Thanks Russs for this great idea!

Glad the idea has been helpful

I've been using 0.9z-2, but only because it was still sitting on my harddrive. That version has the issue of not having the progress bar working though, which comes in handy when adding more that a few albums at a time. I may get around to going further back in versions for the interim, but hopefully Peter can sort things out a little better soon.

Cheers,

Russ 

[PeterSt]

When I look at the result in the Gallery folder, I see the 2nd album moved up in the hierarchy. Not Good.

Hi Eric,

First of all I won't say it all works glitchlessly (there are performance problems with this to begin with), but now I'm working to get it all more right, I thought to start with your example. Well, I'm afraid you don't understand a few things ! So, with the above in mind, look at the result of your example (from your earlier post) below;

Also referring to my earlier explanations, you see (wonder ogh wonder) that exactly happened what I put forward to you as being logic;
1. Your Eline is an Artist, while you wanted "(Various) STS Digital" to be the Artist, ehm, at the same time.
2. So XX is smarter, recognizes Eline to be the Artist, and denoted that as an artist folder.
3. The "9th Edition" as you denoted it, can't have anything else than "STS Digital" as the artist (there's just nothing else there), and so it formally creates a funfolder for that.

Ad  3.
While creating the sub folder is a choice out of two possibilities (the other one being having the "Artist - Albumname" structure in one and the same folder), you see a duality here, because in the album folder the artist is repeated again (the "STS Digital -" part). So, if there's anything wrong with it, it would be this. But it can't harm much.
Notice that all your STS Editions would appear under the one created sub folder "STS Digital", would you have had them all.

Notice that my choice of creating a sub folder for the artist instead of having all in one folder (which the "-" in between Artist and Album) may or will create the both structures in one system. In fact like you see it happening here. Technically this does not harm (both can exist together), but whether this is the best to have it mixed, is something else (not of course). Currently I have two reasons why not to bother much : One is that we ourselves undoubtedly have these mixes in the original data already, Two is that when having to create stuff like this under the hood (like it happened here), the separate sub folder for Artist is more formal ("structured", like in programming).

At judging this yourself to all the merits there are or might me (!!), you must not look at this one "direct" example only, but instead look at the large result of your similar activities from 10 disks or so. Because remember, practice will denote that your STS Digital editions emerged over that number of disks (or so of course), assuming you won't have one 2TB disk which is half full only (allowing you to add the STS Digital editions to the same structure always). This will mean that the structures may vary over the disks (it's quite out of control), while *here* in the Galleries all comes together again. Now, while it is clear that you make a mess of it already with the clear overview of that one little piece of structure, XX tries to improve on your activities which clearly helps. Let's add to this : hahaha, because I'm not telling you that you made a mess of it, but only want to make clear that in this specific example you should not say that XX makes the mess (your quote above). So, I only *need* to tell you that it is really you who starts the mess, and the only thing what happens here is that you don't understand the changes (or the why of it).

Similar happens to the "Various" which appears out of the blue, as you say. It does not at all appear out of the blue, because it appears when you forgot to denote an Artist. Literal Example would be :

\Nice Music\STS Digital\

If you see an Artist here, you sure won't see an Album Name. And if you see an Album Name, there's no Artist. Right ? Well, since albums always have names, it is the artist which will be lacking, and thus it is denoted "Various". And thus in the Galleries it will appear as :

\Nice Music\Various\STS Digital\

That the Various appears out of the blue, is because you forgot to add it. If you would have had something like

\Nice Music\Various Artists\STS Digital\

nothing would have changed to the structure. BUT :
To make all more nice or better, my hard coded "Various" really should be a setting for its name, so you can name that "Various Artists". When not (like how it is now) you will end up with both

\Nice Music\Various\STS Digital\
\Nice Music\Various Artists\STS Digital\

when the latter was corretcly denoted by you like that, and while the former was not correctly denoted, so XX does it.
Since now you have two structures for "Various Artists" it is not the best, but also not your fault (rather mine).
But before it becomes law that it really is my fault, could you please look on your disks how many of "Various Artists" names you use, and in what kind of structures. So, mine just adds one, *if* it didn't exist already because of your own creations.


Peter

[PeterSt]

Continueing on my last post ...

It is logic too, that Russ is your partner in crime regarding this all, because he is an official master of chaos. Well, not really maybe, but overthere in the Outback he managed to rip more albums on his single own than maybe any of us, and since this has been a project of (my guess) more than 10 years, ideas change and so do structures. So, it is him who has the combined structures to begin with, and this time because of all the good ideas emerging over time. Of course he tries to manage it well, and regularly moves old structures to the better new ones, which is exactly why the Rename with the Mask functionality emerged. Btw, this too is an unfinished project at this time, just because it needs feedback on all the various (strange) structures people have, Russ being a first candidate for that.

So here, in fact, we see some of this feedback, although it's the first I see as a response to the creating of Galleries, which is just part of it all (what's still no quite right in the original data, may pop up for the little better in the Galleries).

For me it is enormously complex to take into account those unknown structures, and then specifically the change of it and reflect it back in the already existing Galleries. So it is there where things are unfinished, while for 100% sure it's just part of the job. For example, if I right now pull a Gallery from something which implies a "Various" to be created, and I "Re-do" that, it ends up as \Various\Various\. Not good.

Indeed it is so (Russ) that most of the problems emerge from multi volume albums, or worse : the box sets. This all with in mind the album (think Box) specific data (could be anything, but think booklet) combined with the volume specific data (could be liner notes per volume). IMO this should all work fully automatically, meaning without you denoting stuff specifically, and all you should do is putting the stuff in a logic structure, with that meaning that you'd feel that otherwise it won't work anyway. And to indicate that things really can be worse that our examples in here :

There's also people who really think that all will work automatically at putting all the coverart of all the albums into one folder, change the tracks from the albums into cue files so all become "one track albums", to next think that all those one tracks can be in one folder all the same ... to next tell me it doesn't work.

The latter example (which really exists) is to the extreme, but clearly does not let work my assumption of "your logic" and apply that in the program. So what it seems to come down to, is that indeed it needs to be the other way around : I determine what logic is regarding this, put that into XX, and next put it out as a rule to you.
This is not what happened thus far because it's really a bad idea to let someone like Russ or anyone change his structure onto those rules I dictate, and so the Rename functionality is a kind of in between solution because now my rules can be applied in automated fashion. Still it can only be used when all fully works hence is approved, and until that time the problems of at least understanding remain.

Russ, since I don't recall any specific feedback on the latest versions (but let's take 0.9z-5) on the multi volume thing, maybe you can prepare something for me. We know there's this other topic where it was worked out (what are the rules, how to apply them), and I don't know better than that I applied the changes on my side. Apparently you still have the problems - but which are they ?
Here too, I'm not saying all will work. It's only that I can't test your or anyone's situation, so I just don't know and need the feedback.

Lastly, it very well might be that the changes I applied are exactly in those Release Notes I never put up so far. So you wouldn't even know about the changes ... (but they sure are there). But since you refer to 0.9z-5 as creating the problem ... which are they *for you* ?

In the mean time I will try to improve on things, mainly in the area of "Re-do", *that* being needed to re-generate existing Galleries only because I changed some logic (and really no manual activity being available nor allowed).

Peter

[PeterSt]

Lastly, it very well might be that the changes I applied are exactly in those Release Notes I never put up so far.

I just looked it up, and indeed no Release Notes were put up about this. The changes appeared in 0.9z-4-0 (so with specific current problems, use an earlier version than that).

[Eric]

Hi Peter,
thanks for looking into this.

What I liked so much about the earlier version is that it was simple and quick.
When I selected all albums in my "Jazz" datafolder, XXHE would simply create the "Jazz" gallery, and the total underlying folder structure (my choice). It goes so fast that I never had a requirement to UNDO something. When something went wrong (e.g. tracknames too long or pathname too long), I would simply, delete the result, correct the problem and create the library again. All goes very fast. Take this as a compliment!      

For sure I can understand your ideas about the ideal structure, using various, how handle BOX etcetera. However, the way I organized my library is how I used to do it for over 40 years now. My music is organized in Categories like Jazz, Pop, World, etc. And also Audiophile is a category. The way I organize the subfolders very much depends on the catergory. For example, for Classical music, I define Opera, Pianoconcertos etc. And next comes the level of composer and so on. For Jazz or Pop music, this would look different. And within the subfolders, there are BOXes and Various.
Just go to a CD shop and you see a similar kind of ordering.

I believe that there is no "right" or "wrong" way of doing it. Everybody does it the way he/she feels comfortable with. For me it has been very helpful that the folder structure was respected, no matter how it looked like. For me, XXHE only has to look at the folder structure and copy it.

 :offtopic:A few years back, I asked you a question on this forum about avoiding duplicates in the Galleries view. Sticking to the previous example, the Eline album could appear in more than 1 gallery: "Audiophile", "Ladies" and "Nice Music". However, the effect of this approach would be that the album shows up several times in the (all) Galleries view. So, I decided to stop going that route. When you mentioned that you were considering a Database-like approach last week, this might really take it a step further IMHO.

Anyway, for now, I happily stick with the 0.9z-2 version (for library creation only!!!).   
 

Cheers,
Eric

[PeterSt]

Thank you for clarifying Eric. That too (really) helps.

In between lines : the (by uou implied) more slowyness of it at this moment, is exactly about "response problems" I mentioned. This is not an inherent thing, but merely something wrong somewhere. So, let's count this out for a reason not to want it ...

I thought about adding the below text, but left it be at first. But now you challenge for it, so ... :

The *reason* this is all necessary is a technical one. Or maybe even functional. And the fun is, by now I can explain it better - just because of your own last post;

When duplicates are to be eliminated, I have to know what is which. Thus, that Eline is Eline, no matter where you put her, and how the structure at *that* point is. I touched it by referring to the several disks though, so it's just a matter of thinking this over carefully, and you see the WHY of this all. This is totally unrelated to being ignorant and improving on YOUR defined structure or something.
All goes (most probably) way beyond your imagination, because it is also related to the ever so (100%) important of being able to compare albums (which is an explicit function), which means that things first have to be normalized. Just think about jow Eline with her albums can be put into the various structures, and what would be my means to normalized this to an internal compareable structure. And since these kind of functions preferrable are not made redundantly (hence exist one time in code), it exhibits everywhere automatically. So, for example it is also related to the artist and album you see appear in the OSD stuff. Think about how this worked out in the earlier versions ... it was wrong (depending on what your structure was).

Then there's - I think ! - the misconception about exactly your last given examples : you seem to expect to see "opera" etc. in the Gallery structure, biut it really can't and never did. It would be the opposite of what you want for the best reason there is : eliminate duplicates. Why ? well, because your proposed (but I'm sure you don't mean to propose that really) structure would make it unique, implying exactly that Eline appears as many times as it occurs in the original structure. There would be now way out. This is why "Opera" etc. does NOT appear in the Library Area - no matter what version. But ... if you *make* it appear there (which IS possible) you are doing it wrongly. It also GOES wrong, and you can see it by wrongly cut texts at hopping from one Gallery to the other (or something like that). What I mean is : It is NOT allowed to even ask for ORIGINAL structures which include subjective information like "opera". Thus, it is not allowed to ask for Ogriganal Data like this :

\Music\Opera\

WHILE THE REAL STRUCTURE YOU CREATED IS :

\Music\Opera\Ladies

and create a Gallery from *that*. Why ? because the Ladies would be in the Gallery data just the same, nothing is made for that, but merely, it would invalidate your own ideas about it all (IOW : please try to get this, because it is really important, already for making your problems clear to me, and for me to make clear why I think all (??) is as should be). What is allowed is aksing for original data like this :

\Music\Opera\ (so, the same as before)

while the real structure is

\Music\Opera\

and now you create a Gallery from this like

\Music\Opera\Ladies
and (!) / or
\Music\Ladies
and (!) / or
Music\Opera
and (!) / or
Music\Nice Stuff\
etc. etc.

... And all 'n all we see the same problem arise again : you try to mix reality with subjective information by creating the "Ladies" already in the original (which by itself is allowed) but now use the Galleries for your subjective ideas AGAIN.
What would be allowed indeed in this case is ask for the original data :

\Music\Opera\Ladies\ (so, now I assume you applied your subjective ideas in the original data)

and now again create a Gallery from that like you want. Could be \Rock\Ladies.
But notice the important difference : at asking for this original data, the subjective part is left out (which is Opera\Ladies). Look at the results and the paths under it, and you will see NO PATHs. It is exactly this which allows for re-arranging everything, without dragging the subjectiveness with you. You'd apply the reason for Galleries being there wrongly ...

To proove I'm right ... look at your most objective "Nice Music" which is in your original data. This *is* allowed perfectly, but it is NOT allowed to ask for anything higherup in the structure (like \Music) and pull a Gallery from that. Again the \Nice Music will be dragged with it, and it counterattacks your own good idea about it all.

I think you have the hunch now ...

Now we are this far ... Only when I can normalize the Artist Name, I can recognize doublures in whatever asked for Gallery Structure - and depending on the level you ask for it (which can just as well be the top level) you'd have more doublures or none. In either case, only when *I* can make a structured whole of it, this eliminating can be done.
So you see, you'd want me to continue on this, instead of revert it all. In the mean time you yourself may need to adapt your means of Gallery-making (not how the originals are stowed away which really is unimportant), and in the end all will work.

But keep on shooting, because I can only learn what to cover for more, and since I'm into it now anyway ...

Thanks !
Peter

[Calibrator]

hey there Pete, I spent some keyboard time today at the study PC playing with a really old batch of previously ripped albums. This was with 0.9z-5. There were a couple of points from your last few posts that I picked up on that may well have been the missing clues I needed to fully understand how these albums are now handled, so give me a few more days to play before I start inundating you with examples that don't work. It may well turn out that some minor revisions to my namings may get things in order, but it's going to take a little time still.

As always, thanks for your efforts.

Russ (master of chaos )

 

[PeterSt]

Thank you so much Russ. But, now it would be my advise to hold on a little until 0.9z-5-1, because I *know* of some bugs, and they will be solved in there. It is quite useless to perform explicit testing (which as I said, really takes time on this matter), you seeing all kind of vaguening problems, while overhere they have vanished already. I'd really like it better to let you not look through this vagueness.
I'm trying to put it up today, but I think I said the same last Saturday (ok, when I didn't plan to work on this subject ... this is how things go).

Peter (second degreed in Chaostry)

[Eric]

I did spend quite some time trying to understand what is happening before I started this thread.
XXHE clearly distinguishes between folder names that contain at least one "-" character, and those that do not. Furthermore, names that contain a dot/numeric in the last 3 positions behave differently (??, a bug?). If a name starts with "Various", it is also handled differently.
So, many combinations with many results. Ready for a Decision Matrix approach. A nice challenge for Peter.
Hope this helps.

I will HTH until 0.9z-5-1 is available.
Cheers
Eric   

[PeterSt]

About that dot/numeric ... I don't think I know that one !

Is the behaviour of both the same ? and what actually happens ?

As always, thank you Eric. And apologizes for not even laying out how all works, which happened because of one time not having time for the Release Notes. Not good.

Peter

[Calibrator]

Furthermore, names that contain a dot/numeric in the last 3 positions behave differently (??, a bug?).

Indeed. I noticed this also while experimenting with a Yo-Yo Ma boxset earlier today.

For example:

12_Beethoven~ Complete Sonatas for Cello and Piano, Vol. 2
16_Mozart~ Divertimento, K. 563
19_Beethoven~ Complete Sonatas for Cello and Piano, Vol. 3
22_Mozart~ Adagio and Fugue in C Minor, Schubert~ String Quartet No. 15

will cause an issue, whereas if you simply drop the "." near the end, to end up with:

12_Beethoven~ Complete Sonatas for Cello and Piano, Vol 2
16_Mozart~ Divertimento, K 563
19_Beethoven~ Complete Sonatas for Cello and Piano, Vol 3
22_Mozart~ Adagio and Fugue in C Minor, Schubert~ String Quartet No 15

all will get processed in the same manner as the others in the boxset. Not that boxsets are currently working faultlessly, but the examples above were just to illustrate the "dot at the end of the name" bug.

Others chars I have found OK to use are "~", "~ ", " ~ ", "_", "_ ", " _ ", "- ", "[", "]" etc.

Provided you recognise that " - " is a unique combination and is used as a delimiter, you still have a number of special chars at one's disposal to use.

Will await the next version before continuing the pursuit of gallery nirvana

Cheers,

Russ

[Eric]

Peter,
The following text was posted by me on November 12, 2009.

That is correct. The position of the DOT can be like abc.d   or  ab.cd  or  a.bcd! For example, a name like Beethoven Pianoconcerto No.1 is presentimg a problem (because of the No.1). If more than 1 such a name is in the result list, say 3, than all 3 albums are displayed with the artwork from the very 1st album in the result list (upper left corner).
Just try for yourself!

Just a hunch: could it be related to what we are looking at now?

Cheers,
Eric

[PeterSt]

Ok, here is the original topic about that dot thing : 0.9y-4 Bug in showing folder in Library area.

I really don't know anymore whether I ever solved - or tried to solve this, but since I don't recall it, we better think not. But now I have a problem with recreating this. I have the feeling that you (both) are not telling it all.

If the last 4 characters in the name of an album contains a dot ".", the artwork shown in the Library area is not right.

This is what you originally said Eric. Well, whatever I do (ask for vol.1 in the text box at the bottom), all appears correctly. Vol.2 too btw. The no.1 example won't work here, because I don't seem to have anything ending with that.

Are you sure you are still talking about how this shows in the Library Area ? Or is it about creating Galleries from this ?
And oh, I am *looking* at Gallery results (maybe that's why I don't see it ?) ... but all of the other (Originals) is tedious ...

Also, at least Russ seems to imply this is about how a "Box set" structure is setup. But I don't do it that way ... or maybe sometimes, but few sonatas here.

Help !

[PeterSt]

XXHE clearly distinguishes between folder names that contain at least one "-" character

True. Although that would be " - " (so, spaces around it).
It's the generally appreciated separation between Artist Name and Album Name. So that's how it's applied.

[PeterSt]

If a name starts with "Various", it is also handled differently.

Not that I know of. What I do know though (by now) is that a self-created (by XX) \Various\ folder is dealt with wrongly at ReDo.

I could not solve this by eliminating this "Various" self-creation (I need an Artist Name !), but instead I now solved it by changing a

\20 Beautiful Christmas Songs\

into

\Various - 20 Beautiful Christmas Songs\

This is less impacting (for you) in the mean time.
And far less complicated for me in the end.
Lastly it's just this other means (see earlier post) of that one of the two means to structure - of which you will be having them mixed anyway. And if you'd be using the "Artist Name" = folder means only, this again would be more satisfying for you than doing it the other way around.

I hope I'm right on this ...

[Eric]

Ok, here is the original topic about that dot thing : 0.9y-4 Bug in showing folder in Library area.

I really don't know anymore whether I ever solved - or tried to solve this, but since I don't recall it, we better think not. But now I have a problem with recreating this. I have the feeling that you (both) are not telling it all.

If the last 4 characters in the name of an album contains a dot ".", the artwork shown in the Library area is not right.

This is what you originally said Eric. Well, whatever I do (ask for vol.1 in the text box at the bottom), all appears correctly. Vol.2 too btw. The no.1 example won't work here, because I don't seem to have anything ending with that.

Are you sure you are still talking about how this shows in the Library Area ? Or is it about creating Galleries from this ?
And oh, I am *looking* at Gallery results (maybe that's why I don't see it ?) ... but all of the other (Originals) is tedious ...

Also, at least Russ seems to imply this is about how a "Box set" structure is setup. But I don't do it that way ... or maybe sometimes, but few sonatas here.

Help !

Peter, no worries, this one you have solved.

I was just wondering if the DOT-bug in Gallery creation has a similar cause.   
Eric

[Eric]

XXHE clearly distinguishes between folder names that contain at least one "-" character

True. Although that would be " - " (so, spaces around it).
It's the generally appreciated separation between Artist Name and Album Name. So that's how it's applied.

So how do you plan do deal with a folder named:
Beethoven - Symphonies 4 & 5 - Hogwood, Academy Of Ancient Music (1987)  ?

Cheers, Eric

[PeterSt]

Thank you again Eric.

Well, I plan nothing with that. I mean, you could make anything of such a thing, and how can I (thus XX) know.
The only thing allowed regarding two times a " - " is this :

1987 - Beethoven Symphonies 4 & 5 - Hogwood, Academy Of Ancient Music

or

Beethoven Symphonies 4 & 5 - Hogwood, Academy Of Ancient Music - 1987

because *that* can be sorted out.

But what I might do in such a case is this :

\Beethoven\Beethoven Symphonies 4 & 5 - Hogwood, Academy Of Ancient Music (1987)

This brings a sort of both worlds.
But then I had a reason to ask you to look in the Embedded Explorer and use some of the functions on the righthand side. That brings you fairly fast how things will work out, but mereley - what you should do to let it all work automatically right. The latter, because you can compare with structure (parts) which were applied correctly by you (elsewhere). So this is a kind of auto-learning.
Also notice that one of the explicit reasons to let it work as it works to enable "you" to find stuff as fast as possible outside of just searching (hence typing in that text box at the bottom). To this regard, notice the difference between knowing what you are looking for, vs. browsing until you see something nice (that's the Embedded Explorer - tweaked for audio).

Btw, your example in a Russ-approach could be something like this :

Beethoven - Symphonies 4 & 5 ~ Hogwood, Academy Of Ancient Music (1987)

but it really won't be anything structured (again, see Embedded Explorer !).

Regards,
Peter

[Calibrator]

Also, at least Russ seems to imply this is about how a "Box set" structure is setup.

Yes, it's within a boxset that i noticed the "quirk"

I've attached a couple of text files showing the file structure of that boxset ( just part of it ) and the resultant file structure of the gallery created from it. Note the albums where those "dot" names exist (discs 05,12 and 16). The flac files from those three have all been grouped together under a single folder name and the folder/back.jpg's are from disc 05 of the set.

It's probably because the music files are effectively 3 levels deep from the artist , but thought it worth spending a few minutes to show you what I'm seeing here with this example.

I won't proceed any further with this analysis until the new version comes out.

Cheers,

Russ

[PeterSt]

Russ, this is great. I actually have been very much tempted to ask for exactly this, but couldn't reason out how much trouble it would be to create it (isolated, including the examples).

I will definitely use this to sort out things further !

Cheers,
Peter

[PeterSt]

I actually have been very much tempted to ask for exactly this

Ok, almost ...

I am not even sure how it will work out on my side without having the actual albums (although, I might, by accident), but when you are this far anyway, how hard would it be for you to post a zip/rar of the Gallery itself, even up to the Library Result of the source ?

I think you could go about like this :

a. You have the sources already isolated and thus can ask for it in the Library Area;
and/or
b. You have created a Gallery from this (with the \Various\ now in there).

In either case there's also the phenomenon "Library Result" (or is it Gallery Result ?), meaning that whatever is in the Library Area can be saved as a Gallery again. You can do this for a. as well as b. separately.

When you post this, I can just "load it" (meaning : copy to disk and ask for it as a Gallery), apply my changes and compare, post them back for out mutual judgement, and finally come up with an agreed solution.

Notice that you can ask back a Saved Library/Gallery Result by means of rightclick on that little button at the bottom, next to the "..." button (I do this by heart).
Yes, now I think of it, this is the way how I must read it in, and next save as a Gallery again. Then I'd have exactly the same as you have there.
Ok ... this needs to post the .GLXX files ...

ehhm ... which is what you just did ?? the result would be pretty much the same I think ...

[Calibrator]

OK, let me work on that tomorrow. Will get something organised and shoot you a link.

Just now I copied a sample of the boxset albums (some with the "dot" naming and a few deemed normal ) to a separate new Artist folder simply named YoYo and tried again with the gallery creation. This time the progress bar in XXHE stalled near the start, and upon examining the gallery results, found the albums UP TO the first having a "dot" name had been created, but the latter had not. This to me indicates the "dot" bug still exists here at least, regardless of the level under the actual artist name. Also to note, is that the albums still appeared under a "Various" folder , rather than a , now, expected YoYo one.

And Yes, I had cleared any of the x-ref.... files in the folders beforehand.

Hope this makes sense.

Russ (enjoying the challenges the first day of winter brings)

[PeterSt]

(enjoying the challenges the first day of winter brings)

Something must be wrong, because overhere Summer didn't start yet.
Ok, geologically maybe, but who cares about that. Ehh, ohh,

haha


PS: Please don't feel obliged to suddenly spend all the time only because I asked the question afterall. Still, especially when it can bring forward the "bug" afterall, it would be the most benefeciary - already for yourself of course. And I *will* work on it !

[Calibrator]

(enjoying the challenges the first day of winter brings)

Something must be wrong, because overhere Summer didn't start yet.
Ok, geologically maybe, but who cares about that. Ehh, ohh,

It's not a problem Pete. Happy to assist in any small way I can. I'm uploading a file "somewhere" now and will send you a PM in about 1/2 hour with it's location. Tales a while on these ol' 300 baud acoustic coupled modems !

BTW ... never fear, you'll soon be sweltering in your 28 degree summer days

Cheers,

Russ

[PeterSt]

Peter, no worries, this one you have solved.

I was just wondering if the DOT-bug in Gallery creation has a similar cause.   
Eric

Haha Eric, no it wasn't. But it's a little hard to detect. If all is right now (0.9z-5-1) it is though !
Remember, this is about the album name (folder name) ending at e.g. "Vol. 1".

Peter

[PeterSt]

Ok, assuming nobody will be hurt by it (but still asking ) ...

I just reverted to the ever back situation from 0.9z-3 (October 25, 2010) regarding Artist Name vs. Album Name. At least that one lets work AlbumCompare again which I seem unable to with the current code (it is just too complicated to make some sense out of the ever emerged inconsistent situation as of now).

That this will mean that Embedded Explorer stuff most probably won't work as nice as it did (???) yesterday is something else. And notice this was mainly about the mixed structures of \Artist\Album\ vs. \Artist - Album\.
Bad luck for now I guess, and maybe something not many were interested in anyway ...

Peter

[PeterSt]

From the hell of chaostry :

Look below. Somehow you expect me (XX) to recognize that the 00_Scans folder is seen as a folder belonging to the BOX set. How can you ever see this YOURSELF ? now, let's agree from now on that when you can't see it yourself, I can't make anything for it.
And no, the "00_" will do nothing. Nor does the word "Scans".

Next ... How would you see that these individual albums are part of a Box ? Because the higherup folder is called "Box" maybe ? Nope. I don't see any provision (nor attempt) to make this a multi volume album.
All what happens here is that this is a "structure", in 01_ u/i 90_ (shown up to 11_ here) music data is found, some coverart in there as well, but that nothing will lead to looking higherup again for general coverart (reciding in 00_Scans).
Also try to see the actual similarity with the Yo-Yo Ma level, which for the same matter also could contain Coverart. Well, ehh, haha, why not. So, if *THAT* would be the rule (infinitely look upwards for folders containing Coverart), then it would work again. But let's say that, though a nice idea, it would be undoable for me. Think of creating a Gallery, that very main Coverart not being there at first, and a with a next album for that same structure, it is. But now the other way around ... Deleting albums from Galleries. This already is as complicated as it is, because that too needs a sort of keeping track of "can this empty folder go now ?". Working like this would mean explicitly throwing out "elementary data" (I can't see it is related), which in the end always *will* lead to throwing it out when I think it's okay, never mind it never was data not related to music at all. So, too dangerous (it already is, thinking about "Scans" folders at the same level of music folders, especially when it is MultiVolume ... that leading to a similarly dangerous situation, but that happening at a "related level" (one up).


This is also a nice example for me for indicating the response implications;
What do you want me to do here ? examining all the music folders (which I can't know) on music being in there, that first being the case for all of them to next find exactly one for which this is not the case (Coverart only) to denote that one as "Coverart" ? See ? this is why things are overly slow at this moment, because exactly that is happening. Yea, well, was - because I reverted to the old means.
For this example anyway it wouldn't help, because this can not be detected as MultiVolume.

Btw, still you can see that things are doable for sorting out by looking at the second picture below. Here you see that only the last two Coverart files are album specific and the others come from Coverart files being in the "30 Years Outside The Box" folder, which is where I put them manually (coming from the 00_Scans folder). This is a static situation though, looking from one album (the 02_ one) which really is different from having to create the structure - nothing being there at first (keep in mind : the folders with music data trigger here, NOT any coverart folder, because then soon I'd be copying your Program Files folder ...

Well Russ, didn't I say it ?

There's also people who really think that all will work automatically at putting all the coverart of all the albums into one folder, change the tracks from the albums into cue files so all become "one track albums", to next think that all those one tracks can be in one folder all the same ... to next tell me it doesn't work.

Of course I didn't expect you to be the example, but here you just have it. This time because there is no provision for knowing it is MultiVolume, but I think you can see the problem now clearly. "Chaos".

Still I will think about it;
I want to let this work automatically, but if rules as such are needed to it, it won't work afterall. Must get smarter ...

[PeterSt]

Of course I didn't expect you to be the example, but here you just have it. This time because there is no provision for knowing it is MultiVolume, but I think you can see the problem now clearly. "Chaos".

(added the emphasis)

"Chaos" between quotes of course, and I was only continueing on my expectation of how some expect things to work while they "obiously" () never can. But before Russ is equalized with such a suggestion, let me better and explicitly make clear that nothing of the sort is the matter here. Well, except for that *I* (XX) didn't provide a good means to let this work properly. Russ only provided the best structured means thinkable and it still didn't work. Of course the example in particular (Yo-Yo Ma) is quite challenging, although many more exist days days ("the complete work of" etc.). The "Box Set" on this matter is special, because it's actually a collection of, say, normal albums, now in a container and really being different from the individual albums (might they exist - but this assumed).
With the notice that a Box Set can be setup like normal albums - each album "flat" under the others, but the name maybe always containing "Box Set ~ 30 Years outside the Box (2009) ~ [here the individual title]" let's see what Russ made of this :

Referring to the pictures in my last post, you see that the whole Box Set is contained in one main folder named "30 Years Outside The Box";
Within that folder (thus holding the (Multi Volume !) Album as such) he preceeded each individual Volume with a sequence number. This number is equalling the physical Volume Sequence Number. Also see the Back.jpg at the right side in the picture which denotes "02" while I had the second Volume selected in the middle pane.
Nothing is more logical now to make a folder named "00_Scans", the 00 part of that causing it to be the first in the list, which already will be convenient for yourself if you want to browse through the Coverart by means of normal Explorer. Or add new in there. Notice that in this case the first 5 pictures from the right pane are in there, and that the right pane will show all Coverart found for the particular Volume. This includes the Coverart which is dedicated to the Volume itself (02 in this case) but also the Coverart which belongs to the whole Set (like the Book.pdf, the front cover of the box, the back of it, and the index pages to the Volumes). The "trick" here is that we'd want to see all the Coverart always, while we don't want to store the Coverart belonging to the whole Box redundantly.

Notice that while the General Coverart is stored in the 00_Scans folder, it also could have been stored in the "30 Years Outside The Box" folder (at the same level of the Volume folders). Both work equally, but both can not be used mixed !! Thus, XX can not use two "general coverart" sources - only one - but either of the means will work. Also keep in mind that this is similar to having to "Scans" folders; only one will be used, and probably it will be the first in the (alphabetical) list.

It is important to know that the just said "will be used", is not only about obtaining it and show it, but is also about creating Galleries. This means that only one source will be copied, and the other is just not seen. For example, if both a "Scans" folder and individual files at the higher level (as decribed) are used, the individual files are not copied.

In the end this topic is about how things are copied and changed by the program (have the latter above as one example), and not so much at all about how *you* set it up. Thus, despite my ever attempts to explain how to setup a nice structure, actually it is not about that, and merely how XXHighEnd must deal with it in order to let you work with maybe any structure (but keep in mind the logic !).

The ultimate perfect example Russ gave (by means of handing me that part of his Gallery) now works. It works because it should work. It works because nothing else for nice structure can be thought of with a Box Set like this one. Keep in mind : the example I gave earlier about how it can be done also, does *not* allow for the General Coverart to be somewhere.

After the adjustments I browsed through my own chaos (this time without quotes !) and I don't see anomalies at first glance. Album Compare is speedy, which is a first indication all should be fine. On this matter, try to imagine how the speed of things can be influenced by your structure. Look at the earlier pictures again, and try to see the difference with no Box Set at all, it looking something like this :

\RussGallaries\
\RussGallaries\Classical\
\RussGallaries\Classical\Yo-Yo Ma\
\RussGallaries\Classical\Yo-Yo Ma\Robert White ~ Sings Beethoven\
\RussGallaries\Classical\Yo-Yo Ma\Saint Saëns ~ Carnival of the animals\

Why now the \Yo-Yo Ma\ part wouldn't be seen as a box set ?
And about the speed : Why now the \Classical\ part wouldn't be seen as a box set ? This is at the exact same level as the \Yo-Yo Ma\ folder from the earlier picture you know ... So if we're not very careful all our Classical albums get (internally) listed as a box set, and are being dealt with as such. Well, that can be thousands ...

With this I want to say two things :
It is fairly complex to let this all work properly (which includes speed and which is not visible to you with a few hundreds albums only !), and which should include (cover for) all the still strangenesses from you guys, that by itself so often implied by the album name itself. Then we have the mixed structures (Artist\Album vs. Artist - Album) and before we know it, it really is chaos. Chaos because of me not recognizing what you (or album names) can do, mixed with your thoughts about it all which really *can* be wrong. So, still a large part of it is on your own shoulders, but whereever I can support it, I will. I mean, as long as your proposal is logical, I sure think it should be supported. That sometimes it is a hell of a job is something else, but that's on my side only.

Well, from off 0.9z-5-1 the rules for Multi Volume in general, but for Box Sets now just the same - are as follows :

1.
The individual folders for a Multi Volume volume must start with numerics or and with that. Te start is Russ's example, the end is CD1, Disc1, Vol.1 etc. etc.
Keep in mind that this follows the (now strict !) logic that Box Set volumes *will* start with their volume sequence number. You may not have set it up like that, and only when you coincidentally have let end the names with "Vol.1" etc. it will still work (but the volumes will obviously not be shown in volume sequence).

2.
One folder is allowed not to follow the numeric rule from #1, and this is the folder where Coverart recides. Can be named Scans, Coverart, Covers, Art, anything you like. But it can start with numerics just the same, as long as no music data is in there (which is a rule for a coverart folder anyway).

3.
Coverart files can be at the level of the main folder for the album just the same. However, no dedicated Coverart folder is to exist then, or otherwise the files at the higher level are discarded.

4.
When the Album folders end with a year number, this is not seen as following #1 above. On this regard we should notice the problem of letting an album name end with 24-96 (etc.) which is *not* recognized and may cause problems (it tries to follow #1). But, denoting an album name like this doesn't look good to me (I'd make that "[24-96]" or something, at least with some kind of brackets).

5.
The volume specific Main Coverart belonging to the individual volume *must* comprise of at least one .jpg (or .jpeg) file, or otherwise it's not recognized. This is on purpose, and it allows you to show the individual volumes with heir Main Cover in the Library Area as per Russ's example. So, if there's no .jpg (all) the Coverart will still show in the right pane, but per example of the picture above, the boxcover.jpg will be used for each volume in the Library Area (notice that Boxcover.jpg comes from the general 00_Scans folder in this example).

6.
If the #1 rule is adversely used in reversed fashion (meaning, an album name ends (or starts with) with numerics but it is not multi volume at all), this is not a big deal unless Coverart accidentally is stored at a higher level in the folder structure (it will be used for the album), *but* this will imply degradation of performance. Thus, \Classical\My Wrongly Named Album #1\ (mind the lacking Artist !) will traverse up to Classical looking for the other volumes and coverart, and now deals with your 2,500 classical albums.

With the latter example I only want to emphasize that having an Artist in there is paramount. Not only for more or less counterattacking some unavoidable wrongly-working Abum Name examples, but also because you'd imply different levels mixed levels because of it, which is to be mixed again with the two general means of working in the first place (Artist\Album vs. Artist - Album), but which is also to be mixed with the multi volume albums, Box Sets being special again because of their often specific names of the volumes (opposed to "CD1" from a mormal double album).
Think this over carefully before you start creating structures of which you may be sorry later.

Thanks - and thank you Russ for providing the very well setup example,
Peter

[Calibrator]

Looking good Peter

I'll need to reread through the last post a couple of times to get the rules into my head but it's a great start. The complexity of the boxsets really dictated some "rules" be put in place and the above looks to cover it on initial inspection. I guess it's only by using 0.9z-5-1 that we will uncover some anomalies, and hopefully we, as individual's, can make whatever corrections are needed in the majority of cases without needing your help further on this.

Folks, don't underestimate the work that Peter has put into the gallery creation. It is a can of worms and I imagine literally 100's of hours have been spent on the logistics and coding of it.

Cheers for now,

Russ

[Calibrator]

I have a small subset (about 700 albums) of my music residing on my "Study" PC, including the Yo-Yo Ma boxset, and 0.9z-5-1 processed them ALL without error  No unexpected "Various" folders in sight .. all nice and clean as I expected.

Well done Peter!

Time to revisit my main music server now (fingers crossed).

Thanks again for the efforts in this matter,

Russ

[PeterSt]

Thank you for reporting back Russ. Great.