EMBY FAILS SET THEORY

[Attidudinal 0]

EMBY HAS A BIG PROBLEM WITH "SET THEORY"!

 

If "Collection" is selected from WITHIN A GIVEN Library, it will show ALL Collections, even when NONE of them pertain to the Library one is in...

Such a function pertains to the "Collections" folder itself, which is the set of all Collections -

ONE CANNOT LOGICALLY PRESENT ANYTHING THAT IS NOT A MEMBER OF THAT SET OR LOGICALLY PRESENT ANY SUB-SET THAT IS NOT A MEMBER OF THAT SET; THIS IS TOTALLY SCREWED-UP LOGICALLY!  And, shoots the ability to logically organize right in the xxx! (as shown below - keep reading to see the proper logic of a presentation containing sets)

 

Nor, for that matter does one have the ability to show a folders view WITHIN the Library in which one is working - it is a view all by itself as a Folder (of folders), just like "Collection" is a folder of all Collections, BUT WHAT?  Is it not a sub-set of the set in which one is working?  By definition - a library is comprised of a folder or set of folders, therefore, IT IS A LOGICAL REPRESENTATION OF THE SET IN WHICH ONE WORKS!

 

Between these two flaws the programs is so logically 'disjointed' (like yea man, you must be smoking some really bad stuff there) as to make it DYSFUNCTIONAL!

 

Personally, I find it quite disheartening that Emby 'falls on its face' in such a manner.

I usually spend more time 'bashing' Plex concerning its defects and the fact that they don't care to listen to innumerable requests to fix their product...

(That would be the same request by innumberable people.)

I hope that informing you of such a defect with Emby does not fall upon deaf ears.

If I am to continue the use of Emby, this DEFECT MUST BE RESOLVED.

(Otherwise, any continued expenditure of time on my part is a wasted effort as the use of Emby will eventually come to naught.)

 

Believe me, I know whereof I speak.  I've spent my entire adult life working with computers, computer systems, systems design and programming (in my younger days).

That would probably be more years of a professional pursuit than many of you have been alive.  And my strong suit is logic and problem solving - for the past 24 years as a computer consultant and all tolled, 39 years as a computer professional.

 

Now, if you can just tell me where to send the bill for the design work I've provided you, I'll say no more :-)

 

1)  Unless one is in a Library that contains that Collection, DON'T SHOW ANYTHING THAT DOES NOT PERTAIN TO IT!  (Otherwise, one has to make ALL KINDS of Libraries to enforce logical rules; AND ignore the fact that a "collection" may be completely irrelevant  to the context of the Library in which one is working - THAT FUNCTION MUST BE RELEGATED TO ONLY the "Collections" folder itself (or a Library that is set of all sub-sets).  In other words, the "Collection" view WITHIN a Library should pertain to ONLY the 'collections' contained in that Library (or is meaningless within its context).

THE RULE IS - ONLY MEMBERS OF A SET CAN PRESENT THEMSELVES FROM WITHIN THE SET IN WHICH ONE IS WORKING (or has selected).

 

2) Within any given Library a display of the folders which comprise it is not only appropriate, IT IS A NECESSITY!  Otherwise, one has to make ALL KINDS of Collections UNNECESSARILY when the logical structure of the 'folder' already underlies ANY Library that is defined.  It is, in fact, made up of the folder(s) specifed to comprise it.

SO WHY DOES THE ABILITY TO DISPLAY A FOLDER VIEW WITHIN A LIBRARY NOT EXIST?!!!

 

Emby has TOTALLY MISSED THE [LOGICAL] BOAT HERE!

 

[Sammy 738]

Whilst this is a good point and I have noticed it too, It can be written up an a better manner. A mistake was made but jeez Emby is hardly a failure.

[Deathsquirrel 741]

so many words to say so very little.

 

Collections are separate from libraries at this time.  I'd spend more time wondering what on earth the point of a collections-only view even is.  Ooh kids, what shall we watch tonight?  I dunno dad but definitely something with a sequel!  Good point, let's browse our collections!

[PenkethBoy 2063]

If you have to big up your years in computing and how you have more experience than most - and implying you are correct on everything you assert

 

Then thats a huge fail and you have already lost the argument.

[mastrmind11 717]

tl;dr?

[Sammy 738]

 

 

If you have to big up your years in computing and how you have more experience than most - and implying you are correct on everything you assert

 

Then thats a huge fail and you have already lost the argument.

How about offering expertise to fix a bit of code?

 

Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk

[Luke 37106]

Yes this is an issue we'll resolve in a future update. I've created a ticket on our issue tracker:

 

https://github.com/MediaBrowser/Emby/issues/3327

 

You can subscribe to that for notifications if you like. Thanks.

[Attidudinal 0]

Well, so much for a response from the "peanut gallery" - would rather focus on the way something is said than what it is saying...

or even become personally attacking - fact is, yes I do know more than most; that's what experience and longevity are good for (if you ever gain either, you might understand) BTW Pointing out a shortcoming of something doesn't call for any derision (think of something better to do than being a waste of space). It just means that attention is being focused on what can be made better.

 

To address the feedback that has some validity - I didn't say that a "collection" only folder was not of use.  I said it should be relegated to what its use is and that is the collection (set) of all member that are "collections", whereas it may have little or no applicability to the library (set) with which one is working (another matter altogether and relatively simple to limit the presentation of any members that belong to collections to those who are members of that set, i.e. Library). And yes, I do see it as a "fail" in regard to the topic (Set Theory) because it goes to the heart of the program's operability - the basic function is to present members of [different] sets in a logical manner that is representative of the members of each set (I guess that is 'wordy' again, but quite succinct in what it states); and the rules of logic (Set Theory in this case) apply.  Nor, did I say it was a 'bad' program, but that it could be better and this is, as I say, very germane to the program's functionality and design. And, for that matter, I can think of no easier fix than to use the underlying 'sets' that make-up a library in the representation of its members - the directories or folders that comprise it (a very basic logical structure that has been a part of computing since day one; a very necessary structure)

 

So, thank-you System Architect for your response - a simple acknowledgement that it is an issue that will be addressed.

[Happy2Play 8296]

All in how it is said.  All caps are a ignored request in my eye as all it is, is nothing but disrespect.

[Attidudinal 0]

 Au contraire - actually, it's called EMPHASIS - and, I guess you never heard, beauty is in the 'eye' of the beholder.

But, thank-you for standing up and being counted as a member of the "gallery"

[speechles 1920]

Brah, check the nickname you chose "Attidudinal". So its a portmanteau of Attitude and Dude, right? 4 posts of which 3 are just retorts in this thead.

 

CAPSLOCK is the bane of the interwebs. When a certain % of your text contains it your are written off as someone who is just there to argue.

(hint: instead use bold for that emphasis here or even blue text is seen easily as not confrontational or even bold in hard to read orange and all are far more attractive than capslock or holding shift down can ever be)

 

The peanut gallery comment is interesting, as what did you expect? You came in acting like .. somehow you are owed immediate explanations and demand things fixed. Obviously you aren't the most important cog in the machine, but you feel your opinion matters the most.

 

Just go about your day fine sir. Luke said it was in the line, got a ticket, and just waiting for its turn to enter thru the turnstyle. To pick fights with members just shows how much you aren't one. Try to fit in mate. Don't be a square peg in a round hole. Kthx

 

 

Edited June 17, 2018 by speechles

[Attidudinal 0]

Yep, and Yep... (quite astute)

 

I addressed those who made constructive comments

(as well as those who didn't)

 

And, sound reasoning and judgment does not an opinion make.

I thought it was a done deal when the ticket was submitted.

 

The Dude

[speechles 1920]

The lebowski was better than this. The point is to have a feature request work is to draw awareness and others to like the first post of that feature request. In this fashion it moves to the top of the queue. So rather than cause discord amongst others you should be trying to be the bee to the honey and get likes. This isn't going to work in your favor unless you stop posting and just let time decide. Stop poisoning your own thread. We all deserve an opinion as long as we can all hit the bong, i mean, get along.

Edited June 17, 2018 by speechles

[mastrmind11 717]

still waiting on the tl;dr...

[speechles 1920]

the tl;dr appears it be:
 

1) Why is there no boxset style folder view anymore for movie collections built on-the-fly?

 

2) Why when there are collections across libraries and one enters a library directly is the collection in that library showing entries from other libraries. The collection should be smart and know which library each item was added from, and then act accordingly when in that library and click collections. When in the generic homescreen catch-all the collection can indeed include all across all libraries.

Edited June 17, 2018 by speechles

[Guest asrequested]

Nice highlighting. I especially like the lack of ALL CAPS

[speechles 1920]

Think of the #2 above like if I made a collection called "THE BEST" and added all the best movies from MOM, DAD, and KIDS libraries. Now when I am on the homescreen where each library is present as MOM, DAD, KIDS it is fine the collection view of "THE BEST" here leads me to a view with all the movies I chose from the MOM, DAD, KIDS libraries...but.. If I instead browse to MOM library and use the collection view on "THE BEST" I expect to see just the titles for the MOM library, even though technically it contains all from MOM, DAD, and KIDS. Since I've constrained by library, the view for collections should also constrain.

 

This is the "set theory" not being followed presently.

Edited June 17, 2018 by speechles

[PrincessClevage 173]

EMBY HAS A BIG PROBLEM WITH "SET THEORY"!

 

If "Collection" is selected from WITHIN A GIVEN Library, it will show ALL Collections, even when NONE of them pertain to the Library one is in...

Such a function pertains to the "Collections" folder itself, which is the set of all Collections -

ONE CANNOT LOGICALLY PRESENT ANYTHING THAT IS NOT A MEMBER OF THAT SET OR LOGICALLY PRESENT ANY SUB-SET THAT IS NOT A MEMBER OF THAT SET; THIS IS TOTALLY SCREWED-UP LOGICALLY! And, shoots the ability to logically organize right in the xxx! (as shown below - keep reading to see the proper logic of a presentation containing sets)

 

Nor, for that matter does one have the ability to show a folders view WITHIN the Library in which one is working - it is a view all by itself as a Folder (of folders), just like "Collection" is a folder of all Collections, BUT WHAT? Is it not a sub-set of the set in which one is working? By definition - a library is comprised of a folder or set of folders, therefore, IT IS A LOGICAL REPRESENTATION OF THE SET IN WHICH ONE WORKS!

 

Between these two flaws the programs is so logically 'disjointed' (like yea man, you must be smoking some really bad stuff there) as to make it DYSFUNCTIONAL!

 

Personally, I find it quite disheartening that Emby 'falls on its face' in such a manner.

I usually spend more time 'bashing' Plex concerning its defects and the fact that they don't care to listen to innumerable requests to fix their product...

(That would be the same request by innumberable people.)

I hope that informing you of such a defect with Emby does not fall upon deaf ears.

If I am to continue the use of Emby, this DEFECT MUST BE RESOLVED.

(Otherwise, any continued expenditure of time on my part is a wasted effort as the use of Emby will eventually come to naught.)

 

Believe me, I know whereof I speak. I've spent my entire adult life working with computers, computer systems, systems design and programming (in my younger days).

That would probably be more years of a professional pursuit than many of you have been alive. And my strong suit is logic and problem solving - for the past 24 years as a computer consultant and all tolled, 39 years as a computer professional.

 

Now, if you can just tell me where to send the bill for the design work I've provided you, I'll say no more :-)

 

1) Unless one is in a Library that contains that Collection, DON'T SHOW ANYTHING THAT DOES NOT PERTAIN TO IT! (Otherwise, one has to make ALL KINDS of Libraries to enforce logical rules; AND ignore the fact that a "collection" may be completely irrelevant to the context of the Library in which one is working - THAT FUNCTION MUST BE RELEGATED TO ONLY the "Collections" folder itself (or a Library that is set of all sub-sets). In other words, the "Collection" view WITHIN a Library should pertain to ONLY the 'collections' contained in that Library (or is meaningless within its context).

THE RULE IS - ONLY MEMBERS OF A SET CAN PRESENT THEMSELVES FROM WITHIN THE SET IN WHICH ONE IS WORKING (or has selected).

 

2) Within any given Library a display of the folders which comprise it is not only appropriate, IT IS A NECESSITY! Otherwise, one has to make ALL KINDS of Collections UNNECESSARILY when the logical structure of the 'folder' already underlies ANY Library that is defined. It is, in fact, made up of the folder(s) specifed to comprise it.

SO WHY DOES THE ABILITY TO DISPLAY A FOLDER VIEW WITHIN A LIBRARY NOT EXIST?!!!

 

Emby has TOTALLY MISSED THE [LOGICAL] BOAT HERE!

Pull your head in fella

[Luke 37106]

There there.

[naeonline 27]

I won't go into my credentials to prove how much you should value my opinion as it's irrelevant.

 

Personally, when I enter a collection from a library, I'd like to see all items in that collection I have permission to see, not just those from that particular library.

 

Example: Star Wars Collection

• Star Wars - Episode I - The Phantom Menace [Movies library]
• Star Wars - Episode II - Attack of the Clones [Movies library]
• Star Wars - Episode III - Revenge of the Sith [Movies library]
• Star Wars - Episode IV - A New Hope [Movies library]
• Star Wars - Episode V - The Empire Strikes Back [Movies library]
• Star Wars - Episode VI - Return of the Jedi [Movies library]
• Star Wars - Episode VII - The Force Awakens [Movies library]
• Star Wars - Episode VIII - The Last Jedi [Movies library]
• Star Wars - Rogue One [Movies library]
• Star Wars - Rebels [Movies library]
• Star Wars - The Clone Wars [Kids TV Shows library]
• Star Wars - Forces of Destiny [Kids TV Shows library]
• Star Wars - Lego Star Wars [Kids TV Shows library]

I don't care if its from my Kids TV Shows library or my Movie library, I want to see them all. Another would be the MCU Collection that is comprised of the Movies and TV Series.  This is how collections have worked from the beginning; they can span across libraries.  I like it and most everyone else does, or there would have been feature requests to change it before yours.  This obviously doesn't discount that you would like it differently, and that is a valid feature request.

 

@@Luke Please don't change the current functionality of Collections showing all items in the Collection.  You should make it an option to change from this default behavior to only showing items in the collection pertaining to the library.

[Attidudinal 0]

If you read the post (correctly) it says NOTHING about changing the function of "Collections" - the ALL INCLUSIVE folder that already exists. What it states is that if one is WITHIN a Library that a display of "Collections" should be relative to THAT Library (or automatically 'filtered' if you prefer); essentially so that it complies with the logic of Set Theory as specified in Rule #1 (of the original post, or as restated by Speechles in his #2, above) 

[naeonline 27]

That's the exact behavior I was referring to as well.  When I am in my Movies library and I go into a collection that also has items from other libraries, I currently see all items that that collection has so long as my user has permissions to see them.  This has been the Collection functionality from the beginning.  It was an entry point into a collection, not an entry point into a collection filtered on the current library.