Specials and extras in a TV library

[sooty234 266]

1 hour ago, ebr said:

I'm sorry but, as I said before, we are not a straight file browser.  We look at physical structure and then interpret logical relationships from that.  If all we ever did was spit out physical structure then the entire product would be a lot simpler (and a lot less useful).

Its possible we can support what you want in the future but the product does not do it right now.  That is the bottom line.

And this is what I find ridiculous. I'm going to have to delete the media, or keep them in a different directory and watch them outside of emby. 

Edited January 5, 2021 by sooty234

[pwhodges 2012]

40 minutes ago, ebr said:

I'm sorry but, as I said before, we are not a straight file browser.  We look at physical structure and then interpret logical relationships from that.

Let's look at this from a value-added perspective.  Sure many of the things you do provide value over a file-browser view, we understand, and that's why we use Emby; but what is the added value in taking two folders with different names, which the user presumably set up that way for a reason - for example: Specials and Extras - and combining the contents which the user had deliberately separated?

Paul

[Carlo 4561]

2 hours ago, pwhodges said:

Let's look at this from a value-added perspective.  Sure many of the things you do provide value over a file-browser view, we understand, and that's why we use Emby; but what is the added value in taking two folders with different names, which the user presumably set up that way for a reason - for example: Specials and Extras - and combining the contents which the user had deliberately separated?

Paul

Maybe no value and it can be changed after discussing in the proper place.  Create a Feature Request to discuss the changes you'd like to see.
 

[sooty234 266]

It's not a feature request. This is broken and needs to be fixed! I report broken things in the main forum. Move this or delete it, and I will recreate it, here!

[Luke 42078]

We've never supported arbitrary specials folder names under the series folder.

That's not to say we can't, but we currently do not and never have.

[sooty234 266]

3 hours ago, ebr said:

I'm sorry but, as I said before, we are not a straight file browser.  We look at physical structure and then interpret logical relationships from that.  If all we ever did was spit out physical structure then the entire product would be a lot simpler (and a lot less useful).

Its possible we can support what you want in the future but the product does not do it right now.  That is the bottom line.

 

7 minutes ago, Luke said:

We've never supported arbitrary specials folder names under the series folder.

That's not to say we can't, but we currently do not and never have.

And that's what is broken.

[Luke 42078]

Right but we've never claimed to support it either. That's essentiality like saying that every feature we haven't built yet is broken.

[roaku 842]

22 minutes ago, sooty234 said:

 

And that's what is broken.

[pwhodges 2012]

1 hour ago, Luke said:

We've never supported arbitrary specials folder names under the series folder.

My problem is not that (because arbitrary names do actually work as expected), it is that the names that you do support (Specials and Extras for instance) are handled by merging them as well as any other processing you do (looking up an image for them, I guess).

However, for my part, while that is irritating, I would be satisfied just to know that the use of undefined folder names will continue to cause them to be used and displayed as they are now.  It would then be up to me/us to use them our way, in the confidence that you won't break them in the future.  Just saying that other names are "unsupported" rather than defining the (existing) minimal behaviour is what takes away that confidence.

Paul

Edited January 5, 2021 by pwhodges

[sooty234 266]

There you go, Paul. These guys seem to be unable to understand this at all. It's like a horse wearing blinkers looking in a mirror.

[Carlo 4561]

Paul that's exactly the type of problems that can arise by reading in to much stuff in a "wild manner" as things can get merged and not always give you the outcome you expect or want and Emby has no way of knowing what your expected outcome is if there aren't rules in place for how to handle things like this.

This is part of why careful consideration needs to be given to expand what files are read in during scanning. Not to sound like a broken record but FR is how this is done to work out these types of things and to make sure the "new feature" won't break things for other people.

Library scanning can be expanded to accommodate extras & specials in ways that can be easier to use but there needs to be structure in how this is done.

[pwhodges 2012]

All the files I expect to be read in are read in, and if they have a s00enn designation they are correctly recognised whatever the name of the folder containing them.  That works perfectly, and is the same whether the folder has a reserved name or not.  But then the folders with reserved names are merged.  Why?  It doesn't affect the result of Emby's processing - it's just an extra step, which some of us feel is unwanted.  Even if the reserved names lead to additional processing (the image is all I can think of for specials), that can still be done for each such folder without merging them.

Merging "Specials" and "Extras" simply sends the message: "we know better than you how you should have organised your files".  I still haven't seen a specific benefit of this merging being described.

Of course, I can avoid all this hassle by simply using folder names which are not "Specials" or "Extras"...  But then I'm told "it's not supported"; well it works now, and I can't see any reason for a change which breaks this behaviour to be considered.

The funny thing is, as a former programmer I can actually think of a justification for doing this particular thing the Emby way, and if that was presented, I'd accept it, even while disagreeing with it.

Paul

Edited January 6, 2021 by pwhodges

[sooty234 266]

I throw my hands in the air. The decision making was bad and the implementation is horrible. I stopped talking to walls a long time ago. I just won't try to use emby for this. 

[ebr 16177]

22 hours ago, pwhodges said:

but what is the added value in taking two folders with different names, which the user presumably set up that way for a reason - for example: Specials and Extras - and combining the contents which the user had deliberately separated?

The value is manifested in other ways.  There are lots of situations where the media is physically separated into different folders and we interpret that to mean something else (e.g. each movie in its own folder or movies in sub-folders).  The user may have this structure either because they had a different system previously or just thought they needed to do that or want it to show up that way when they do use a file browser.  But, when using Emby, we can intelligently treat them differently.

As we've said multiple times now.  This is a possible feature for the future.