Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - lakecityransom

Pages: [1] 2
Currently I don't think there is any comparison tool on the market that lets you search specific tags by fuzzy search criteria and also allow you to "group" the mp3s. I have looked extensively. This would be great.

I notice the tag filter does not work very well because it forces you to account for all tags. This kills the results when any individual tag is missing even if the title of the song is fairly close.

There are situations where it is much better if you ask for a 100% artist or album match and then a fuzzy title match. You could still average your tags criteria into 1 single % rating as you obviously aren't going to make 3 extra result columns.

General / Re: Grouping function won't work... "Group (no connection)"
« on: September 03, 2010, 07:54:06 »
I see now that it was to force the old versions not to work in order to make 'premium' for-profit versions in the future.  :(

Well it's your prerogative to chase cash, but I must say I have absolutely no use for similarity anymore without a grouping feature. The freeware will inherently have a bug where A-B B-A comparisons will exist in the list always. This is really disappointing, many people are not aware of this and will end up deleting all copies they have of many songs if they try to delete many songs on the list at the same time.

The only way it works correctly is to do as I detailed before and delete 1 result at a time and let the list refresh to remove the inverse further down the list. However, it is stressful as you are comparing 'keep' MP3s with other 'keep' MP3s in your finalized folder and they could match each other and you have to carefully check each comparison in the list.

General / Grouping function won't work... "Group (no connection)"
« on: September 01, 2010, 14:29:14 »
When you right click folders to group it will say "Group (no connection)" in hollowed out text. Why is this?

I deleted the install folder and the application data folder where cache and etc. are stored.

Somehow it knows what I had selected as folders previously, even though these 2 file areas are deleted and reinstalled. Something else is out there.

News / Version 1.3.4 released
« on: July 10, 2010, 22:43:41 »
I see, it just seemed like the main page download could have been 1.3.4 without the usual link

News / Version 1.3.4 released
« on: July 10, 2010, 17:33:57 »
Hey again, whats up with 1.3.5 news post? I look forward to the faster algorithm for obvious reasons as stated before :P

Anyway, I was gonna say, why is ignore not an option on group bases? Sometimes I need it to get stuff out of the way without deleting or moving it.

Due to the recent update, I have found a way to make this work the way I explained without coding it in. However, it should only be used if you have a high % match and are certain everything will be deleted. The following explanation would allow you to go through a large collection of songs you plan on listening to and deciding what you will and will not keep. Since you have no preference and no folders for the group function (or too many folders), this is the way to delete all duplicates without accidentally deleting all of them:

Rearrange your group bases (the bold files that candidates go under) to whatever you prefer. Most likely size or bitrate. Next, get a macro recorder program and loop the keyboard commands "home" "down arrow" "delete". The result is that ONLY candidates can ever be deleted from the results. Home will always position the selected row at the very top of the list, and the 2nd entry will always be a candidate until all candidates are gone and the group base is all that remains, at which point it is cleared from the list automatically. This process is important, because similarity constantly updates the list, deleting matches to that file that was deleted and thus avoiding inverse relationships. This means that it will churn through the group bases 1 by 1 automatically, making the list refresh and guaranteeing that you do not delete all copies of a file, without using the grouping function.

The only problem that persists is when I have several dozen preferred folders, for which the group function will work. Yet, the results will be mixed as to what folders serve as the group bases, so you couldn't automate that process. However, as soon as the development team lets you give folder preferences to group bases, this will be possible.

News / Version 1.3.3 released
« on: June 29, 2010, 20:50:31 »
Okay, I see about the results being the same. To me its just worrying, because it is still possible to delete everything, although it is much more unlikely with more base groups and less results that are under other base groups.

Glad to help.

Hi again, I made a mistake in the example. The right example should not choose 2 in one of the group bases and choose it for deletion instead. I'm guessing you understood though.

The thing I'm trying to get across is that if you simply have a bunch of songs to look through, the grouping function is not very helpful. You have no preferred group of folders and there are many folders. Maybe for example you took 10 peoples collections and put them altogether. There will be many duplicates but the grouping function will not work well unless you run it 10 times.

The priority of groups will help when using it though.

The grouping function is nice but it is not very useful when you have many, many folders of files and/or are not sure if you want either group of files, so you cannot reduce the number of folders. You would have to run many compares. This leaves you with non-grouped searching and inverse relationship issues. This is why I feel that the delete function should take out 1 deletion selection at a time from the results and check if subsequent deletion selections still exist on the results list after refreshing the list.

For example if you choose to keep "keepme" base group and deleted "deleteme" candidate, further down the list inverse base group "deleteme" will disappear along with "keepme" as candidate. Thus, if you were to choose to keep "keepme", but accidently choose to delete "keepme" further down the list, you can rest assured that your second deletion will be omitted. In effect, you ensure that 1 copy of the file must exist. This logic behind this is that you are always choosing to keep 1 file out of every group base. Therefore, if the list is reprocessed 1 deletion at a time, it must reflect that you intend on keeping that 1 file, because all inverse group bases that hold "keepme" as a candidate disappear.

Again, this can already be done by users if they simply delete one file at a time. Inverse relationships disappear as the list is updated. The problem is selecting a bunch of files deletes them all. Single file deletion is too slow, however.

Maybe I am crazy, but this seems foolproof? Screenshot to explain:


News / Version 1.3.3 released
« on: June 29, 2010, 05:09:31 »
Good work on improving the program. APOLOGIES for all the edits its a bad habit of mine. I'm really trying to make myself understandable and easy to reply to :P

Grouping Feature Problems:
A1. I have found a bug in my testing that produces an uncounted result. By continuously restarting the result finding process, you can create an inverse relationship. I'm not sure what this means in a large scale search.  BIG SCREENSHOT, RIGHT IMAGE IS BUGGED. If you choose to keep the 2nd and 7th line files over everything else, you would delete all the songs.

A2. Grouping function does not show which group folders belong to in context menu. A checkbox should be in the context menu and perhaps a column on the results tab.

A3. Rearranging the group bases will not case problems comparing only two groups. However, multiple groups can cause the inverse relationship problem further down the results and you can delete the file you meant to keep and you end up deleting everything.

Grouping Feature Question & Request:
B1. If you have two main folders with many subfolders and you group them #1 and #2, how come in the results sometimes the group bases will switch? This is before using the "rearrange groups" function.

B2. Arranging group bases by filename would be appreciated, because I have folders already organized that will take precedence over bitrate, size, duration, and tags. This relates to my following question...

Other Comments:
D1. In regards to the grouping function, if you prefer 1 location of files over another, and have that problem I am having with the base groups alternating, applying read-only will resort in windows giving you a special delete confirmation, which can help you avoid deletion of the wrong file.

D2. Reorganization of group bases with 3 or more groups invites the inverse relationship problem as I have tested. Sometimes you might prefer a specific file that becomes both a group base and a candidate further down in the results. Consequentially, you end up deleting all the files as your 1 keeper file was deleted.

Sorry I did not notice it was released, but when it comes to a majority of my stuff, I do not have a 'keep' version yet and I have hundreds upon hundreds of folders that have duplicates between them. For this reason a grouping function will not help.

Well that is better, I just can't see why you would not code it in a manner in which the deletion candidates are purged from the list 1 by 1 and it eliminates deletion candidates further down the list that were inverse matches and such. It would sort the problem out?

As I said, I can use Similarity in its current state if I delete single files and get a refreshed list. It prevents me from deleting the inverse relationships, in other words, deleting both files.

Nonetheless, I applaud your efforts.

The suggestion is good, assuming you already have a preferred list. The problem is, say you got tons of collections and have many dupes as there are many popular songs that are duplicated. However, these songs are not already in your library.

For this reason, it seems to me that that option is like post-exploration of music. I do not see much benefit from it. Sure, you can purge duplicate results from music you know you already have, but still there are going to be a lot of duplicates of music you do not already have.

I hope my post was understandable. At any rate, I cannot use this program to its full capability until its 100% sure you cannot delete a song you meant to keep. Otherwise, you must go through each group and delete results in each group 1 by 1 to update the results and prevent this issue.  For this reason, I suggest that you should process selections one by one if you select multiple files. If the following groups in the results are purged due to deletion, ignore all selections within those groups. This would allow you to delete multiple files at once without worrying that you selected the same match in match groups after the group you have evaluated.

Pages: [1] 2