[Montellese]

I'm sorry to say this but you guys are just too short-sighted. Ever since we added movie sets support users have been whining about not being able to add/edit/remove sets within xbmc. Let's imagine for a second that you can do all that in xbmc (which I was planning to add for Frodo+1 but I'll reconsider that seeing how no matter what you change people always have something to complain about). So now tell me how do you want to manage sets within xbmc if you hide all that only contain one movie? So you have an "Add new set" button, you hit it and enter a name. Now you get back to the list of sets and want to add movies to that newly created set. Good luck with that as it won't show up because it contains less than 2 movies. Same if you have some movies with scraped sets from tmdb and others with custom NFOs) and you want to add one of each into the same set. Tough luck as the movie with scraped data already is in the proper set but you can't see that nor can you add the other movie.

So instead of coming here repeatedly with anything but sarcastic comments and non-constructive criticism you might wanna start to think a bit further.

PS: I'm working on rewriting the settings system which will also provide different levels (basic, standard, advanced, expert) so that will allow us to add more settings without confusing average joe users.

[jjd-uk]

Luckily I've not seen this issue yet of having loads of single item Movie sets but I can understand the frustration of the other users as it seems to make no sense from a user point of view and something I would also find annoying, particularly for one of the earlier examples of 300 where the 2nd movie is not even released yet. But I now also appreciate why it's been done the way it has, so thank you for the responses from all developers in helping me understand this reasoning.

So now tell me how do you want to manage sets within xbmc if you hide all that only contain one movie?

So instead of coming here repeatedly with anything but sarcastic comments and non-constructive criticism you might wanna start to think a bit further.

OK I'll make some constructive suggestions. Now I obviously don't know the code or the inner working of XBMC as well as you guys so no doubt some of this has been thought of and dismissed, but just of the off chance something hasn't been thought of.

Would it be possible to keep the backend database entry where a movie is part of a set but then apply a filter on the list return by the GUI to only display sets with more than one item.

So going back to the case of 300.

When 300 is added and tmdb is scrapped it's returned that it's part of the 300 Collection and this is added to the database as a movie belonging to a set, however at this time the 300 Collection is not shown in the Sets node as the single item filter is applied to the view.

When the 2nd movie gets released and is added to the Library, as the database now contains 2 entries for the 300 Collection and the set is displayed in the Sets node.

For managing your own sets.

In the Library the Context menu has a "Add to Set" entry and this is available in all Library views. This opens up a "Sets Management" pop up with a scrollable list of existing sets taken from the database (this will be the unfiltered list) and a "New Set" button to add to the list of sets. So you either add movie to an existing set or create a new set and add to that.

So to me the backend code remains the same with movies scrapped as they already are into the database as being part of sets (as returned by tmdb) with however the node "Sets" view is filtered. Perhaps instead of a hard coded filter there could be an entry in the off screen to the left menu similar to the "Stack Files" option where you have a "Hide Sets With Single Items" to toggle change the behaviour.

which I was planning to add for Frodo+1 but I'll reconsider that seeing how no matter what you change people always have something to complain about

Despite some of the whining here I'm sure everyone understands that you can never 100% satisfy everyone and I'm also sure nobody would want you put off doing whatever you had planned. I appreciate all the developers hard work and while things may not always work 100% to how I like it's far better than anything else out there and for a free product what's been achieved is remarkable, quite simply XBMC is brilliant. Like any love I can ignore the flaws because of the sheer joy it gives me far outweighs the flaws, doesn't mean I wouldn't like improvements if possible.

PS: I'm working on rewriting the settings system which will also provide different levels (basic, standard, advanced, expert) so that will allow us to add more settings without confusing average joe users.

This sounds great and will hopefully go some way to ensuring a higher percentage are satisfied by allowing greater tweakability.

[Montellese]

Would it be possible to keep the backend database entry where a movie is part of a set but then apply a filter on the list return by the GUI to only display sets with more than one item.

So going back to the case of 300.

When 300 is added and tmdb is scrapped it's returned that it's part of the 300 Collection and this is added to the database as a movie belonging to a set, however at this time the 300 Collection is not shown in the Sets node as the single item filter is applied to the view.

When the 2nd movie gets released and is added to the Library, as the database now contains 2 entries for the 300 Collection and the set is displayed in the Sets node.

That's how it worked before.

For managing your own sets.

In the Library the Context menu has a "Add to Set" entry and this is available in all Library views. This opens up a "Sets Management" pop up with a scrollable list of existing sets taken from the database (this will be the unfiltered list) and a "New Set" button to add to the list of sets. So you either add movie to an existing set or create a new set and add to that.

That only works in the movies view and (similar to new settings) adding new entries to the context menu is not very welcome. Furthermore a "Add to Set" wouldn't be enough, it would also require a "Remove from Set" unless we add a "Manage sets" option and then provide a new dialog which offers all these options. If you want to manage your sets in the sets node you'd be back in my scenario and IMO managing sets should definitely be possible in the sets node because that's where you have the best overview over all existing sets.

Perhaps instead of a hard coded filter there could be an entry in the off screen to the left menu similar to the "Stack Files" option where you have a "Hide Sets With Single Items" to toggle change the behaviour.

This sounds like the only solution to me which would allow managing sets and having a clean list.

PS: I'm working on rewriting the settings system which will also provide different levels (basic, standard, advanced, expert) so that will allow us to add more settings without confusing average joe users.

This sounds great and will hopefully go some way to ensuring a higher percentage are satisfied by allowing greater tweakability.

Yup that's part of the idea. Currently everytime someone wants to add a new setting, it is mostly rejected to keep the settings screen from getting even more confusing. But IMO that's the wrong approach.

[jjd-uk]

Thanks for taking the time to respond.

I'm sure a ""Hide Sets With Single Items" toggle hidden in the off screen menu within the Sets node would satisfy everyone, ok maybe too optimistic there so let's say most people and hopefully the Team would not see it as adding unnecessary clutter, would certainly be better than a Advanced Setting IMHO.

[dragonflight]

I'm sorry to say this but you guys are just too short-sighted.

I'm sorry to say this but you are just too short-sighted. In this case Voyager1 foresaw the problem and you, among others, vetoed adding an option or other solution. (Sorry, not helping, but I felt I just had to say it )

So instead of coming here repeatedly with anything but sarcastic comments and non-constructive criticism you might wanna start to think a bit further.

Not really helping - obviously there is some history here.

PS: I'm working on rewriting the settings system which will also provide different levels (basic, standard, advanced, expert) so that will allow us to add more settings without confusing average joe users.

FANTASTIC!!!!!!

As for my first comment, there is no-one who is far-sighted enough to reliably predict how users will react to products, and while I understand XBMC's laudable goal of simplicity and "out of the box" functionality, there should be provision for "advanced users" who are willing to put the effort into setting up a system to work the way they find useful.

Specifically on sets, let's imagine for a second that (sorry couldn't resist ) instead of only managing sets in sets view, you could click on a movie and select manage sets, then you could add or remove that movie from a set - now you could even have sets with no movies, just in case you decided you really wanted to add "Back to Bataan" to the set "Bataan Collection" after removing it.
If one looks further ahead, he needs to take into account that "300" could have been added to a library before it became part of a collection and when the sequel was added to the library it would be part of the "300 collection", but "300" wouldn't be, but maybe that is looking too far forward.

Even more wonderful would be if you could use an advanced filter or even a playlist to select a bunch of movies and then add them all to a set or assign a tag (I would especially like the tag).

Finally I think the main disconnect here is that today sets (videodb://1/7/) is used by uNiversal as a view for a particular subset of his library, whereas you want to change it to a management view and not surprisingly the two have different views (pun) on what a set is.

This could be solved (avoided) by adding a playlist option to select on (and order by) the number of members of a group (be it movies in sets, movies in year, movies per actor ...). uNiversal could create a smart video node for his version of sets and be happy, and you could have a management node that even had sets with no movies.

[j114]

Just about every feature of XBMC has people that love it and people that hate it. It's virtually impossible to please everyone, and it's ultimately comes down to the desire of the person with the skills to code the feature. There are a lot of comments on these forums from devs and non-devs that respond with something like "It's open source, you are free to modify it to your liking" and a lot of people seem to be offended by that, but there is no reason to be. If the guy that knows how to add a feature doesn't see it from your point of view, then you either need to learn how to work around it, live with it, or implement your own features.

In the case of the sets feature, it's not that hard to work around it but it is time consuming for large collections. I have a pretty large collection, but rather than expecting EVERYTHING to be done automagically for me, I have taken the time to go through every one of my movies and adjust the set tags to my liking. This allows me to have sets that suit me, and group movies that wouldn't otherwise be grouped. It also allows me to not have to deal with the annoyances of whatever scraper/site is used within XBMC.

I know everyone wants to have this awesome software that just does everything you want in exactly the way you want it without a lot of effort from the user, but it's not practical or realistic. Invest some time into your collection and configure it to your liking. It's worth the investment. I go through new movies once a month, at most, and adjust any sets (and other tags) as well as artwork to my liking. It takes maybe 30-45 minutes a month. When I first sat down and did this, I had about 700 movies. It took me maybe 8 hours total. Break it down into manageable sizes and spend an hour a weekend working on it.

XBMC does an amazing job of displaying your content and "just works". It also does a really good job of respecting the work that YOU put into your collection. If you put the effort into making your collection appear the way you want it to, you will be much less affected when a change like this one is implemented.

Montellese, no matter what you do there are going to be people that don't like it. Don't let it bother you, it's impossible to please everyone. It's human nature to be loud and draw attention to things you don't like. Very few people take the time to rant about the things they like. Consider how many people complain about things in XBMC and know that there are many, many, times more happy users out there. I see this same phenomenon in my work every day. Even when you guys implement things I don't like, I love this software- and I enjoy finding ways to work around the things I don't like, so thanks for all you do..... even when I don't like it.

[un1versal]

Thanks for taking the time to respond.

I'm sure a ""Hide Sets With Single Items" toggle hidden in the off screen menu within the Sets node would satisfy everyone, ok maybe too optimistic there so let's say most people and hopefully the Team would not see it as adding unnecessary clutter, would certainly be better than a Advanced Setting IMHO.

This would be idea for all user cases... Even a advancedsettings.xml would be perfectly alright because this would be a advanced use imo. Thank you for actually suggesting it.

@Montellese

Its not for lack of sight on my part,expressing a view from a user perspective seems to cause avoc, The intention was that any possible developers looking could consider adding some filtering at some stage or not.
IIRC Voyager1 was one team xbmc member that commented on this (single movie set on the PR which introduced this behaviour because XBMC need to get data for for all cases. Like him I dont mean to playdown the features or your hard work or how the feature will look once finished.. I hope you can see that. If not please consider this me trying not to sound ungrateful.

Thank you for your work in xbmc throughout the years. Its made xbmc a much better media center and up-to-date with technologies.

please everyone visit and comment here

uNi

[natethomas]

This is a remarkably heated debate about a node that I'm relatively certain almost nobody visits. I'm hoping to see a similar debate about karaoke soon!

[Malosar]

This is a remarkably heated debate about a node that I'm relatively certain almost nobody visits. I'm hoping to see a similar debate about karaoke soon!

This. I only realized my comment was in error when I had discovered the "Movie Sets" node and seen all the single movie sets, of which I haven't visited again. They (single movies) don't appear in the Library as sets and that is what is important. The behavior they have decided on is perfect as with the Movie Sets node you can check what sets you do have existing in the system, knowing that if you add another movie to the set which currently has a single, it will add properly without having to remove them both and add again (like in Eden).

[pisoj1]

Thanks for taking the time to respond.

I'm sure a ""Hide Sets With Single Items" toggle hidden in the off screen menu within the Sets node would satisfy everyone, ok maybe too optimistic there so let's say most people and hopefully the Team would not see it as adding unnecessary clutter, would certainly be better than a Advanced Setting IMHO.

+1 to this idea.

[dragonflight]

This is a remarkably heated debate about a node that I'm relatively certain almost nobody visits.

IMO this is the essence of this thread. No-one (except for Voyager1) expected anyone to use this node, but here are three/four people that do, which I'm relatively certain means that there are many, many more.
For those that use(d) the node the added clutter neither makes sense, nor is useful

[Martijn]

This is a remarkably heated debate about a node that I'm relatively certain almost nobody visits.

IMO this is the essence of this thread. No-one (except for Voyager1) expected anyone to use this node, but here are three/four people that do, which I'm relatively certain means that there are many, many more.
For those that use(d) the node the added clutter neither makes sense, nor is useful

Which make very certain there aren't that many!

So don't use it. You yelling here doesn't make it any better

[dragonflight]

Which make very certain there aren't that many!

depending on your definition of many, I think you are wrong

So don't use it.

I don't. I modified to my liking, I'm just trying to help those that can't.

You yelling here doesn't make it any better

I was unaware I was yelling, and certainly didn't intend to yell.

[Ned Scott]

Yeah, let's all remember that these are just ideas and viewpoints.

[vbat99]

(Seeing as this thread has already been viewed 1200 odd times, looks like more people are interested in the outcome of this arguement ....er... debate. )