More iTunes Math
markmcb writes "OmniNerd once again digs into the math behind iTunes. The 5-star ratings in iTunes are actually stored in a variable allowing values from 0 to 100, with 20 = 1-star, 40 = 2-star, etc. Known to few, if you set a rating to 30 (manually), it will show up as 1 1/2 stars in the program's GUI. Matt Schinckel provides interesting statistical evidence showing that not only do non-whole, non-half values (e.g., 47) not increase the amount a song will play, but neither do the half-star ratings (with the exception of .5 star)."
So, 32 of 100 is simply 1.6 stars.
Formula 32 / 20 = Number of stars.
Wow. I don't see why this article is on slashdot, what am I missing?
Modesty is one of life's greatest attributes
They could have just been leaving their options open for future expansion of the software. Indeed, it would be better for compatibility to already use the 0 to 100 range.
Suppose in the future they added support for giving a song a percentage ranking. It's quite easy to do with the system they're using now. Data from the new software could be used with the old, as the old software is already expecting and can cope with a value in the 0 to 100 range, even if it does so slightly differently than the future versions.
Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
On the other hand, even I think this is too boring to tell other people.
"The White House is not an intelligence-gathering agency," -- Scott McClellan, Whitehouse spokesman.
In the current Windows version of iTunes (6.0.2.23), in Preferences there is a tab for Playback. And in there is a section for Smart Shuffle.
/didnt rtfa
The first control is a 3-setting slider for "more likely, random, less likely". The description below says "Smart shuffle allows you to control how likely you are to hear multiple songs in a row by the same artist or from the same album."
Below that are three radio boxes, labled Shuffle: ( ) Songs ( ) Albums ( ) Groupings.
Is it possible that this 100 scale rating system might be more fine grained to take these Smart Shuffle user settings into account? Perhaps that might be why it isn't simply the integers 0-5.
Why troll? He's damn right. Why how iTunes calculates ratings is considered a story? Why is it presented as "math", like it's advanced calculus? And why the hell is this on the science section?
Why is the rating system linear instead of exponential. I would like a song that has one more star than another to play TWICE more often.
Man, do you really want your favorite song to play 32 times for every 0-star rated song you have on your iPod? I don't care how much you love a song, after listening to it that often, you're bound to want to stab your iPod in the face. Or the closest fan of The Cure. Come to think of it, that'd be a win-win situation.