Using MCM for metadata management - MB3 not showing description and rating

[ebr 14935]

I can assure you that Luke fully understands the issue(s).

 

The option to supply a preference order for the two different xml files is reasonable and will get done at some point.

 

But, going back to littering our xml format with multiple tags with the same info in it... we'll just have to see how Luke feels about that.

[Luke 37116]

Let's just give Pete time to respond now that some of you have emailed him. I went ahead and did it because I got tired of answering questions from users on other side of the fence about why our metadata xml was littered with duplicates. So I basically said enough was enough. Getting Pete involved would be the best possible outcome.

[Luke 37116]

By comparison, fatal was extremely responsive about metabrowser, as was zoggy with sickbeard.

[Tolerant 70]

Information within MCM is still valid indeed.

 

I presume MB3 is now reading the only xml.file that is in the movie folders (= movie.xml).

 

I did a small test too and changed some information (movie description and some other metadata), than did a rescan in MB3 and everything went fine... changes to the metadata are correct...

 

I think you need to check again in MCM for a description. Based on you saying it worked fine, I enabled MB3 to fetch metadata from the internet, refreshed the movies set to "refresh missing only" and waited a rather long time.  Now when I select a movie in MCM and view it's metadata, there are no descriptions.  Which is exactly what caused me to NOT do this in the first place.

[Luke 37116]

I mentioned it another thread somewhere.

 

We have been duplicating several fields in xml metadata in order to keep multiple programs happy. With the last server release I removed the duplication to "clean up" mb3 metadata so that people who look at the contents of the files aren't confused about why the description is copied into several different elements, and so forth.

 

I emailed all of the developers about this but received no response from Pete from MCM. I think he just hasn't updated MCM yet. We discussed this issue for several months and they had plenty of notice, but obviously I can't control their release timelines.

[chjohans 32]

Ok, I have emailed Pete from MCM too. I'll just stick to MCM as my metadata manager and MB3 for "everything else".

 

But the important thing now is that we get an option to control which .xml file(s) are read with what priority, so we can have the <moviename>.xml and support for WDTV devices and at the same time have metadata with MB3. :=)

 

Please include that in the not-so-distant-future

[Tolerant 70]

I mentioned it another thread somewhere.

 

We have been duplicating several fields in xml metadata in order to keep multiple programs happy. With the last server release I removed the duplication to "clean up" mb3 metadata so that people who look at the contents of the files aren't confused about why the description is copied into several different elements, and so forth.

 

I emailed all of the developers about this but received no response from Pete from MCM. I think he just hasn't updated MCM yet. We discussed this issue for several months and they had plenty of notice, but obviously I can't control their release timelines.

 

Yes I know you mentioned it, which is why I was quoting for him, in an effort to get him to re-check in his MCM. Based on what he said, mine is all messed up again.

 

For the sake of MCM & MB3 working right with each other, I would beg you to put back a few of the tags especially since Pete@MCM is MIA.  I realize you didn't get an answer back but making MB3 no longer compitable with MCM when MB2 has been for years is just a lot more frustration for us users. Basically it leaves me a choice of, I can use a gimped MB3 w/MCM (can't download from the net w/MB3) but cannot use both programs to their fullest if I want to.

 

Checking quickly to see the differences added by MCM after refetching post MB3 fetch, this is what showed up at first glance. Obviously all of it wouldn't be needed, but the Tags: MPAARating, Description, IMDbId, would be wonderful to get back. The rest does not matter as much although still nice if tags were uniform across both programs.

 

<IMDbId></IMDbId>

    <MPAARating></MPAARating>

    <Description></Description>

    <TagLine></TagLine>

    <TagLines>

        <TagLine></TagLine>

    </TagLines>

    <Website></Website>

    <CriticRating></CriticRating>

    <CriticRatingSummary></CriticRatingSummary>

    <IMDB_ID></IMDB_ID>

    <certification></certification>

    <Trailer></Trailer>

    <Runtime></Runtime>

Edited April 21, 2014 by Tolerant

[Tolerant 70]

Ok, I have emailed Pete from MCM too. I'll just stick to MCM as my metadata manager and MB3 for "everything else".

 

But the important thing now is that we get an option to control which .xml file(s) are read with what priority, so we can have the <moviename>.xml and support for WDTV devices and at the same time have metadata with MB3. :=)

 

That is part of the problem chjohans, you cannot just stick to MCM for your metadata manager if you want at all to use various functions and plugins from MB3 also. MCM ends up left out in the cold or MB3 does and yet they both do not offer all of the options of the other one, which is why I feel it is important that they continue to work together not against each other. If you fetch or update with MB3, you lose data that MCM needs to be able to display.

[Happy2Play 8299]

 I just tested 100 movies, cleared all metadata and images. MCM fetched metadata, then added folder to MBS on a test machine and all fields recognized. MBS fetcher was disabled (download artwork and metadata from internet).

 

So is this issue only happening to people with multiple xml files in movie folder?

 

 

[Tolerant 70]

 I just tested 100 movies, cleared all metadata and images. MCM fetched metadata, then added folder to MBS on a test machine and all fields recognized. MBS fetcher was disabled (download artwork and metadata from internet).

 

So is this issue only happening to people with multiple xml files in movie folder?

 

Not sure everyone is fully understanding the issue. If you turn on "Download artwork and metadata from internet" in MB3, refresh the movie titles (even set to only add missing data in MB3), then go back into MCM and look at those 100 titles, you will be missing a bunch of info which then makes MCM useless for metadata. So it is a one way street when it doesn't need to be. MB3 is reading from MCM XML but not writing in a way MCM can read back.

[moviefan 184]

Does anyone know how to remove all moviename.xml files in one run? I have more than 2000 titles in my db.

 

I am familiar with Total Commander but could not figure it out...

 

I would suggest such using windows explorer search and search for xml.  Then sort by name, and shift-delete all entries above and below movie.xml.

[moviefan 184]

By comparison, fatal was extremely responsive about metabrowser, as was zoggy with sickbeard.

 

I kind of get the sense that Pete is going off on his own lately with MCM.  Doesnt really seem to be listening to user's feedback as much and just recently started this stupid hidden folder thing for everything that MCM fetches.

 

If MB could just add renaming capability for movies I would love to ditch MCM completely.  Please make it happen!

[Tolerant 70]

Pete has updated MCM to work with MB3 tags for IMDB, Description and MPAARating, although that might have caused issues for MB2 users. 

 

That should resolve most people's issues.

[Tolerant 70]

I kind of get the sense that Pete is going off on his own lately with MCM.  Doesnt really seem to be listening to user's feedback as much and just recently started this stupid hidden folder thing for everything that MCM fetches.

 

If MB could just add renaming capability for movies I would love to ditch MCM completely.  Please make it happen!

 

Actually he listens to his users very well imho. He has released a few upgrades again tonight to resolve MB3 vs MCM metadata issues, answered a ton of support posts and removed the need for the .mediacentermaster folder that was holding video information instead of writing it into .xml files. No one is forcing you to use MCM, there are other products out there, use what you enjoy.

[Hedwig 1]

In serveral posts people said and also I tought so, that the moviename.xml file was created by MCM. However that is not the case for me.

 

I am using the MCIM program for my MedeBer and Dune mediaplayers and it is this program that creates the moviename.xml files which are not campatible with MB3.

 

You still can remove those xml files. It has no influence on MCM nor MCIM, but maybe it is used in some other program?

 

To be sure please take always a backup...

 

I would like to know what those moviename.xml files are used for?

Edited April 23, 2014 by Hedwig

[Hedwig 1]

I would suggest such using windows explorer search and search for xml.  Then sort by name, and shift-delete all entries above and below movie.xml.

Thanks movieman ... works fine!

[moviefan 184]

Actually he listens to his users very well imho. He has released a few upgrades again tonight to resolve MB3 vs MCM metadata issues, answered a ton of support posts and removed the need for the .mediacentermaster folder that was holding video information instead of writing it into .xml files. No one is forcing you to use MCM, there are other products out there, use what you enjoy.

 

I am very happy that he got rid of those hidden folders.  Maybe he is changing his tune on things.  It was just frustrating to read multiple people complaining about it on his forums and him basically responding with too bad, this is how I want to implement it moving forward.  It is fine for a product to take a different direction with things.  But to implement a new feature for a metadata manager that adds unnecessary files into a collection and not give "lifetime" license users to option to keep using the program they paid for in the way they hoped to use it without having those files I just think isn't right.

 

Anyway, thanks Pete for doing this if you happen to read this read.

[Tolerant 70]

I am very happy that he got rid of those hidden folders.  Maybe he is changing his tune on things.  It was just frustrating to read multiple people complaining about it on his forums and him basically responding with too bad, this is how I want to implement it moving forward.  It is fine for a product to take a different direction with things.  But to implement a new feature for a metadata manager that adds unnecessary files into a collection and not give "lifetime" license users to option to keep using the program they paid for in the way they hoped to use it without having those files I just think isn't right.

 

Anyway, thanks Pete for doing this if you happen to read this read.

 

I could care less if I have a tiny folder that is not "seen" by my WD SMP, does not impact my playing platform (MB2/3) and helps to decentralize things in a way that helps MCM move forward with changes the author sees fit to make based on what needs to be done to make the product better. If it breaks nothing and improves performace and allows more options in the future then I am for it. For YOU it might seem unnecessary but the only complaint *I* have seen is someone crying about burning CD's and not wanting to include the folder, well in that case, DONT include the folder. Pretty dang simple. As for a lifetime license, yes, sure its a lifetime license on the software you purchased AT THE TIME. Don't upgrade if you don't like the changes and you never have to pay another penny, there are no other promises about what is to come in the future except you do not have to pay next month or next year to keep using what you bought. Thank the heavens that he does not do what J River Media did and just say "New version, pay again!" over and over after you already paid for their product. We all have our opinions, but honestly your attitude about just wanting to ditch MCM as soon as MB3 lets you rename files shows how you really feel about it so don't blow smoke up my backdoor please. I appreciate the effort (even when I disagree on direction or features) the authors of programs offering free versions such as MCM and MB3 have to go through to try to get these programs to work with SO many platforms, problems, stupid or just unlearned users. I helped to create a free "MUD" Client called MudMaster2000 and did countless hours of support for users without getting paid for it. Sure, not every change was welcomed but you have to look at the big picture and try to educate the user base as to why those changes will hopefully make things better for most of them not worse for everyone or limit the software in ways it should not be and I can say, that is not always an easy task. Yes there are hurdles and issues to be faced and hopefully the coders and the users will find an even ground and discuss things in ways that further development instead of just being ready to jump ship at the first issue that bothers either side. Unless you are sitting down with a coder and chatting for a few hours over some beers or whatever, I doubt you will ever really know what their hopes for the future are and even their hopes change as the needs of their users change so don't expect everything to be the same and take another look at what "Lifetime License" truly means in the context of software development because it surely does not mean "Your Lifetime just the way you want it". Anyways.. I am sure this thread as been hijacked enough, peace to all.

[moviefan 184]

I could care less if I have a tiny folder that is not "seen" by my WD SMP, does not impact my playing platform (MB2/3) and helps to decentralize things in a way that helps MCM move forward with changes the author sees fit to make based on what needs to be done to make the product better. If it breaks nothing and improves performace and allows more options in the future then I am for it. For YOU it might seem unnecessary but the only complaint *I* have seen is someone crying about burning CD's and not wanting to include the folder, well in that case, DONT include the folder. Pretty dang simple. As for a lifetime license, yes, sure its a lifetime license on the software you purchased AT THE TIME. Don't upgrade if you don't like the changes and you never have to pay another penny, there are no other promises about what is to come in the future except you do not have to pay next month or next year to keep using what you bought. Thank the heavens that he does not do what J River Media did and just say "New version, pay again!" over and over after you already paid for their product. We all have our opinions, but honestly your attitude about just wanting to ditch MCM as soon as MB3 lets you rename files shows how you really feel about it so don't blow smoke up my backdoor please. I appreciate the effort (even when I disagree on direction or features) the authors of programs offering free versions such as MCM and MB3 have to go through to try to get these programs to work with SO many platforms, problems, stupid or just unlearned users. I helped to create a free "MUD" Client called MudMaster2000 and did countless hours of support for users without getting paid for it. Sure, not every change was welcomed but you have to look at the big picture and try to educate the user base as to why those changes will hopefully make things better for most of them not worse for everyone or limit the software in ways it should not be and I can say, that is not always an easy task. Yes there are hurdles and issues to be faced and hopefully the coders and the users will find an even ground and discuss things in ways that further development instead of just being ready to jump ship at the first issue that bothers either side. Unless you are sitting down with a coder and chatting for a few hours over some beers or whatever, I doubt you will ever really know what their hopes for the future are and even their hopes change as the needs of their users change so don't expect everything to be the same and take another look at what "Lifetime License" truly means in the context of software development because it surely does not mean "Your Lifetime just the way you want it". Anyways.. I am sure this thread as been hijacked enough, peace to all.

 

Whatever dude.  Are you Pete in disguise or is he paying you to shill for him over here?

 

I am sorry that I complimented Pete's willingness to fix this program.  Obviously this somehow offends you.

 

MCM pretty much just breaks if you don't update it so don't say that is an option.  That is B.S. to say otherwise.  You are the one BLOWING SMOKE.

 

I have a right as a customer to expect the basic functionality of a program with an advertised "lifetime license" continues working in the way that it was when I purchased the license.  If he wants to fix the program so it doesn't require to be updated to work that's fine.  Otherwise don't change the program's BASIC FUNCTIONALITY to try and do something that most of the customer base doesn't want or care about.

[Tolerant 70]

Nope, for sure not Pete and I get frustrated too but you are the one posting how you are ready to jump ship as soon as possible because of a single hidden folder.

 

Of course hes willing to code the software he wrote, that is kinda the point isn't it?

 

You paid for something "As IS" at the time without having to pay for upgrades or monthly fees, thats ALL that Lifetime License offers you, not personal support, requested changes to suit YOUR needs or anything else.

 

No you don't have that right, the right you do have is to get what you paid for and you got that and then still complain. It is not MCM that breaks it is sites like IMDB or TheTVDB that change their API or even MB3 changing tags that cause MCM to need to update to address those issues. The "Basic Functionality" has not changed, MCM still fetches data and lets you do what it has always done and more.

 

You clearly do not speak for "Most of the customer base" because you are the one being upset not EVERYONE else since *I* am one of those everyone else.

 

Anyways, if you got more issues, then PM me and lets leave it out of THIS thread, no one needs the drama.

[moviefan 184]

Again, whatever dude.  Typical arrogant person needing to have the last word so I am not going to sit here and let you bash me and then tell me to take it offline so you can feel better.  If you really wanted to keep it out of this thread you would have PMed me instead of posting here and telling me to PM you.  Absolutely ridiculous behavior.

 

I have a right as a customer to have expectations.  I also have a right to voice my concerns if those expectations are not met  People in general are allowed to have expectations and to speak.. 

 

But based on your posts so far it seems that you believe you are the ultimate authority on everything.  I am fine leaving it at that.

[Tolerant 70]

Again, whatever dude.  Typical arrogant person needing to have the last word so I am not going to sit here and let you bash me and then tell me to take it offline so you can feel better.  If you really wanted to keep it out of this thread you would have PMed me instead of posting here and telling me to PM you.  Absolutely ridiculous behavior.

 

I have a right as a customer to have expectations.  I also have a right to voice my concerns if those expectations are not met  People in general are allowed to have expectations and to speak.. 

 

But based on your posts so far it seems that you believe you are the ultimate authority on everything.  I am fine leaving it at that.

 

Nah, I didn't bash you I just called you out. Asking you to PM me is to spare everyone reading this drama not an attempt to not let you have the last word. Sure, have your expectations but that is not what you want, you think you are at BK and want it your way. Face it, you posted in public you were ready to ditch MCM and got called out on it after, obviously that upset you. It is a shame you don't have an understanding of what "Lifetime License" means and now you feel you are somehow special and only what you want matters. Leave it where ya want and again, if you have further posts on the subject then just talk to me in private which you still have not done. At this point I am simply waiting for a mod or admin to lock the thread or purge our posts cause this is getting silly.

[moviefan 184]

Most hypocritical behavior ever.

 

Congratulations on becoming the most obnoxious person on this forum in only 67 posts.

 

"Peace" "Lets take it off the thread"  "This is getting silly"

 

And yet you continue....

 

Why would I want to talk to you in private?  What could I possibly have to learn from you that you haven't shown in this ridiculous exchange?

Edited April 24, 2014 by moviefan

[Luke 37116]

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, and we value everybody's equally. Maybe right now we should let cooler heads prevail

[Yogi 367]

Very off topic now so if you want to discuss further please take it to PM.