![]() ![]() Perhaps there is another way to solve this issue. I know some people have experienced this issue, I've seen feedback on other sites, so I'm not alone. And finding the cause of a potential issue is the first step towards improvement. However, considering that iTunes isn't the best example of software engineering, I wouldn't be surprised if there is something not ideal about the current implementation. This seems an arbitrary choice given the alternative.Īgain, I'm open to ideas as to why it's the way it is, I'm all ears. I've yet to hear a compelling argument as to why it would be preferable for the importer to use ID3 name criteria instead of filenames. As mentioned before, other MP3 players such as Songbird import tracks by hierarchical filename order which seems more usable and logical than ID3 track names. What's in question is iTunes' implementation for importing tracks. Sort by date as you describe works exactly as expected, that's not in question. There are way too many real issues with iTunes that need to be taken care of before they start redefining 'sort by date'. There's plenty of metadata in the pipeline already (track numbers, date added, smart playlists) to do 95% of what people want to do 95% of the time, and ways of doing it manually (adding tracks one by one, managing vanilla playlists) that we don't need to start obfuscating very clear things like sorting by dates. If you need files added in a specific order and you don't understand how iTunes would do it on its own, do it by hand. There are times when I am adding 200+ tracks at once, and I don't want iTunes to start saying "ok, here's a new track that I know the cpk0 wants imported, but I should look around to see if there's another one I should import first" for every single file I add. As for more intelligent import ordering, I'm not sure that makes sense either. It might be the case that you want something that kind of sorts by date added, but also does X, Y, and Z, but then you wouldn't be sorting by date added. Sort by date added is hardly random it's doing exactly what it says. As it stands, the order is practically random from the user's point of view, and that's inexcusable. I think the answer to that question is almost always yes! Apple may live in a world where this problem doesn't exist because everyone buys music from the iTunes store, but I think there's a pretty strong argument for iTunes importing tracks in a more intelligent order, or at least displaying more intelligently when you sort by Date Added.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |