Fórum » Web Site Support

Why force a listener to wait before banning a song?

 
    • SRD disse...
    • Assinante
    • Dez 26 2010, 15h43

    Why force a listener to wait before banning a song?

    When a song loads that I want to ban, when I go to click on Ban, sometimes Last.FM player will want to start buffering the song.

    While the Last.FM player is buffering a song I cannot Ban the song. In effect, the player is wasting my time while it is buffering, because as soon as buffering stops and the song starts to play again, I Ban it.

    Why does Last.FM insist on making the listener wait, and waste his time before he can Ban a song?

    • Babs_05 disse...
    • Moderador
    • Dez 26 2010, 15h59
    Because whilst the song is buffering, it isn't actually there yet, so logically, there is nothing to ban.

    Out of interest, how long does buffering last for you (on average)? Is this via the web player or the client?

    • Alainn disse...
    • Usuário
    • Dez 27 2010, 13h23
    If you want to ban most of the top tracks by a certain artist then you could use the Last.fm Mass Tagger that can be found on the group-page The Last.fm Mass Tagger. Just type in the artist in the search-field, change the output to Top Tracks and hit OK. Next you select all of the tracks (don't forget to enable the option "Allow Multiple Select") and click on the ban-button.

    This only works on tracks by the way, not on artists or albums.


    New: Obscure Music Blogs a collection of music blogs with rare/obscure music from all genres
    • Bloopy disse...
    • Forum Moderator
    • Dez 29 2010, 20h30
    Babs_05 said:
    Because whilst the song is buffering, it isn't actually there yet, so logically, there is nothing to ban.
    Logically, it's the name of the artist and track that get banned, not the actual bytes of the mp3, so the information needed to perform the ban is already present.

    It's just the way the client has been programmed. It could be better.

    • Babs_05 disse...
    • Moderador
    • Dez 29 2010, 20h56
    Maybe it's more hassle than it's worth, programming the client to be able to read bits and bobs of information instead of just waiting for the whole thing. It's a pain for the impatient or those whose internet isn't very good, but for everyone else, buffering doesn't go on for very long, seconds usually, so the ability to read would be neither here nor there.

    OP didn't reply with how long he waits for buffering.

    • headey disse...
    • Usuário
    • Dez 29 2010, 21h04
    I find the client is a much easier way to listen than the webpage & you can ban tracks in retrospect through the 'Recently Played' list on the client. And with another two or three clicks go to the track page & remove the track from your library completely. Done and dusted.

    Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.
    Ludwig Wittgenstein
    -but how boring life would be

    headey cocktail
    • SRD disse...
    • Assinante
    • Jan 13 2011, 6h03
    I think at maximum it takes 20 seconds for buffering to complete.

    When you want to find a specific artist or song, or the song being played is really bad, this can get on your nerves.

    Logically, it's the name of the artist and track that get banned, not the actual bytes of the mp3, so the information needed to perform the ban is already present.
    I agree. I can't imagine it would cost much in overhead. It might even save bandwidth for the client and server.

Usuários anônimos não podem postar mensagens. É preciso fazer login ou criar uma conta para postar nos fóruns.