Roon’s original selling point was metadata. That’s what we signed up for.
Will we ever get some metadata fixes for the issues that we have reported and have been acknowledged by Roon staff?
If not can you please explain why the fixes aren’t get implemented?
Examples:
and John Mellencamp album count in the artist list is still larger than the actual albums listed in his details.
It’s a fair question.
SJB
I’d be interested in the answer too…Roon guys?
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!
If Roon pays the metadata source I sure in the heck hope they have to ability tell the source when there are issues that need to be fixed. If not a different metadata source needs to be found.
Completely unrelated please start another thread.
Yes, of course. But there is no substitute for giving the end user full control over their own metadata. These two approaches are not mutually exclusive.
I fully expect a better way for us to fix these issues down the road.
Right now, I want to know why the source isn’t being fixed. Lets get this thread back on track.
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.
The problem with routing all meta edits through the Roon team is that it just isn’t what they are there to do. It takes time away from more important (IMHO) tasks like Dev, testing, bug fixes etc.
Joel can help but if it is all he does all day then it is not exactly great use of his skills. Let’s face it, there is a lifetime of meta fixes out there.
I think we have to come up with a channel for submissions whereby we, the user, can be the driver. Exactly what that mechanism is I don’t know.
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.
I’d start a petition and try to get them shut down if I was you.
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.
The problem is that we through Roon are paying for a service from Rovi and they are not doing anything to fix issues with that service.
In all honesty we don’t know 100% for certain where the break down is as Roon staff haven’t replied.
+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.