Post reply

Warning: this topic has not been posted in for at least 120 days.
Unless you're sure you want to reply, please consider starting a new topic.

Note: this post will not display until it's been approved by a moderator.

Name:
Email:
Subject:
Message icon:
Verification:
Sum of two plus two?:

shortcuts: hit alt+s to submit/post or alt+p to preview


Topic Summary

Posted by: Admin
« on: July 12, 2010, 19:36:33 »

As I say we think about solution, be patient.
Posted by: hsei
« on: July 11, 2010, 10:47:15 »

To my opinion *duration* is a key property for similarity or especially duplicate removal. At the moment heavily corrupted files (seconds or even minutes missing) will get high similarity scores up to 100% if they just start identical. This applies to both the normal and precise algorithm. The latter is just a little less "blind" than the normal one.
This behaviour makes automarking very dangerous or even obsolete.
Posted by: Hamsa
« on: July 08, 2010, 21:40:50 »

Yes, it's not a full-fledged "method" :-) I just meant some result list limitation feature.
e.g. typical situation: screen
Program found 50+ duplicates for some files with 2-3 real duplicates within them. The primary file duration is 94:50 but program found 2:17~113:26... Since it's not a single situation 95~99% duration limitation would be great in this case!
Posted by: Admin
« on: July 07, 2010, 18:43:56 »

Yes, good idea, but it's not worth separate method. We think about realization.
Posted by: Hamsa
« on: July 07, 2010, 11:19:14 »

It will be useful (and rather easy) to implement a duration threshold - 4-th slider in "Compare methods and threshold" container:
100% - exact duration match
90% - duration may differ by 10%
50% - one song may be twice longer then it's duplicate
0% - duplicates might have any duration (current state)