-larry
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-cdindex nospam at freeamp.org [mailto:owner-cdindex nospam at freeamp.org]On
> Behalf Of Tim P. Gerla
> Sent: Tuesday, March 09, 1999 8:52 PM
> To: cdindex nospam at freeamp.org
> Subject: Re: Categories
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 09, 1999 at 07:30:29PM -0500, Paul Quinn wrote:
> > On the current topic of Categories and category
> granularity, CDDB has it all wrong. It's current 'official'
> categories are horribly unrepresentative of what is in its
> database. 50% of the entries are under 'Rock' alone. A new
> category system would have to either more granular or much more
> dynamic. Here's an idea just from the top of my head. Each entry
> has two categories, the main category from the official list, and
> a secondary category that is set by submitters indicating a more
> appropriate category if need be. The database would over time
> tally these secondary categories and determine whether a new
> official category should be generated. Bien?
> >
> > -Paul
> >
> I still think music genres are bogus. THe best idea I've seen so far is
> having multiple genres per album (Sneaker pimps would be rock, alt, etc).
> And whatever you do, do NOT seperate files into seperate directories per
> genre like cddb does. Make it optional, and the world will be
> happy. (and so
> will the developers)
>
> --
> -Tim
> timg nospam at means.net | http://flow.geol.und.nodak.edu/
>
> And if it's the fool who likes to rush in
> And if it's the angel who never does try
> And if it's me who will loose or win
> Then I'll make my best guess and I won't care why
> -Blues Traveler
>