I definitely do not want to dog pile here but I do find it disappointing that Roon is having so many issues even reading data from my file tags and how it handles matching songs when manually identifying albums. I was hoping Roon would help me enjoy my music library more but so far I find it more frustrating. Not what I expected from a something that costs me over $100/year to use. That being said, I am hopeful will Roon continue to quickly develop and improve.
I believe that the forthcoming metadata editing feature will fix this. Roon is not responsible for the metadata coming from the providers, though it can allow the end user to edit the basic metadata. This way, any problems like this (and also other issues) can be fixed!
These are fair questions. I got bolshie about metadata a while ago and @mike started the Artist Eqivalence thread, which has slowly been solving equivalence issues on a case by case basis. Also @joel has recently come on board, wiith a focus on metadata issues.
Roon definitely pay for the metadata and I understand on a per user basis, I believe it is the licence arrangements with metadata suppliers that determine the annual/lifetime subscription structure.
Ideally, metadata issues identified by users could be picked up by the suppliers and fixed, without requiring Roon developer attention. It would be great to see a supplier rep on the Forum, fixing things and answering queries.
What’s needed is a way to automatically flag incorrect metadata without having to use the forum as the medium. Ideally Roon should be able to then provide that feedback to Rovi for correction. The former is easy, the latter requires a willing dance partner.
When I see how rich discogs has become iro community moderated metadata I wonder whether Rovi needs to be on the long term roadmap…superficially their value appears to lie in album reviews, genre classification (for some users, myself included) and decent quality large artwork. Most, if not all of the remaining metadata exists in discogs’ database which I believe can be freely leveraged via their API or even downloaded and leveraged directly in a database of ones own making.
I have the same frustration, but 95% of the time everything is O.K.
The irst remark about the flagging is a good idea, like that. and than be able to send all relevant date (that Music Bainz needs / uses to Roon), there the versions can be checked and send to Music Brains to be added or reconnected if the release is there but somehow not found). Music Brainz is an open database so in control of every one, but would be nice it Roon can add (based on our info to automaticallu add it. The Rovi part will than get a request list from Roon for Bio’s and photo’s not an easy to fix solution.
A solution in between could be a “Fix” Roon users moderated database that can be check as 2nd option of as 1rst option for mistakes in the Rovi database.
I personnally would want to have “Progarchives.com” as meta-data provider, I’ve got a lot of releases that can be found there but is not in Rovi.
I think we can make a difference with a Roon commucinity to create a “Patch / shadow - database”
I am still a Happy life-time user that has faith in Roon.
It’s that bad metadata button I was referring to, which should be routed back to Rovi for rectification. As Roon’s cloud infrastructure evolves user amendments/corrections could be incorporated and voted on, with sufficient votes resulting in acceptance as the default dataset…we’re doing it at a local level anyhow, once per user that encounters an issue. This isn’t to imply that Roon should build a musicbrainz/discogs/rovi of its own in the cloud, but only facilitate user correction of data that’s reported as bad. The corrections could then be pushed to the likes of discogs, musicbrainz and Rovi if they wanted to benefit from it (which in turn keeps the Roon cloud database from duplicating what discogs, musicbrainz and Rovi are trying to do.
That’s fair analysis and I agree but then at least tell us to quit wasting our time reporting issues in the forums. Some of the issue above were mentioned 6 months ago and I was expecting a fix.
If there isn’t time to handle fixing them put up a notice in the Metadata forum and we all move on. Personally I’ll live with it but some people paying yearly might expect fixes and thus reduce the value of the subscription for them.
+10000…and this is my issue. I paid yearly because frankly I am not sure if Roon will be around in 5 years and I did not yet have a feel for how active the development is. Whether I pay $100 again next year will depend completely on Roon’s continual improvement.
Metadata handling is due for a big upgrade in 1.3 – things have improved greatly over time and will continue to improve.
Let’s just say that in its first year, development of Roon has taken place at an astonishing rate and great strides have been made since 1.0 May last year. But it is anyone’s prerogative to evaluate Roon’s value proposition for themselves – and being on a yearly schedule allows for yearly review.
For me: I signed up for life on day one – and would have gladly paid a multiple of the cost of entry. Part of this was a leap of faith – and so far, I have been far from disappointed.